Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: November 22, 2024 Fri
Time: 11:50 am
Time: 11:50 am
Results for correctional reform
11 results foundAuthor: Porter, Nicole D. Title: The State of Sentencing 2012: Developments in Policy and Practice Summary: Today, 6.98 million men and women are under correctional supervision. A total of 4.8 million individuals are monitored in the community on probation and parole and 2.2 million are incarcerated in prisons or jail. The nation continues to maintain the highest rate of incarceration in the world at 716 people in prison per 100,000 population. The scale of incarceration varies substantially by state, resulting from a mix of crime rates and legislative and administrative policies. Lawmakers continue to face challenges in funding state correctional systems. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, several states are likely to be reducing services, including education and health care, during the 2013 legislative session due to reduced state revenues, uncertainty at the federal level and the impact of potential cuts in federal funding. In recent years, reducing prison populations with the goal of controlling correctional costs has been a salient reason for reform in states like Kansas, New York, and New Jersey. Overall, prison populations declined by 28,582 in twenty-six states during 2011, or 1.5%. State lawmakers in at least 24 states adopted 41 criminal justice policies that in 2012 may contribute to downscaling prison populations and eliminating 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, collateral consequences, and juvenile justice. Highlights include: • Relaxed mandatory minimums – Seven states – Alabama, California, Missouri, Massachusetts, Kansas, Louisiana, and Pennsylvania – revised mandatory penalties for certain offenses including crack cocaine possession and drug offense enhancements; • Death penalty – Connecticut abolished the death penalty, becoming the 17th to eliminate death as a criminal sanction; • Sentence modifications – Two states – Louisiana and Oklahoma – authorized or expanded mechanisms to modify sentences post-conviction. These policies allow prosecutors and judges to reduce the prison sentences of individuals who meet eligibility requirements; • Parole and probation revocation reforms – Seven states – Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Louisiana, Missouri, and Pennsylvania -- expanded the use of earned time for eligible prisoners and limited the use of incarceration for probation and parole violations; and • Juvenile life without parole – Three states -- California, Louisiana, and Pennsylvania – authorized sentencing relief for certain individuals sentenced to juvenile life without parole. Changes in criminal justice policy were realized for various reasons, including an interest in managing prison capacity. Lawmakers have demonstrated interest in enacting reforms that recognize that the nation’s scale of incarceration has produced diminishing returns for public safety. Consequently, legislators and other stakeholders have prioritized implementing policies that provide a more balanced approach to public safety. The evolving framework is rooted in reducing returns to prison for technical violations, expanding alternatives to prison for persons convicted of low level offenses and authorizing earned release for prisoners who complete certain rehabilitation programs. Details: Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project, 2013. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 4, 2013 at: http://sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/sen_State%20of%20Sentencing%202012.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/sen_State%20of%20Sentencing%202012.pdf Shelf Number: 127475 Keywords: Correctional ReformInmatesParolePrisonersProbationSentencing (U.S.) |
Author: Davis, Ashly Nikkole Title: The Effect of Realignment on Mentally Ill Offenders Summary: With the recent Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Plata, "realignment" seems to be California's new criminal justice buzzword. Underlying the Court's decision in Brown, however, lay two important class action suits - Coleman v. Brown and Plata v. Brown - that served as the driving forces behind the Court's decision. These cases alleged Eighth Amendment violations in California's prison system based on deficiencies in mental health care and medical care, respectively. With the Court crediting the Constitutional violations and lack of adequate care alleged in Coleman and Plata to an oversized prison population, overcrowding emerged as the issue of the day. State legislators responded to the Court's directive to rapidly decrease California's prison population with AB 109, public safety realignment legislation geared toward ameliorating prison overcrowding. Ironically, though they were the impetus behind this legislation, the mentally ill have largely been left out of the realignment conversation. Little mention - if any - has been made of how AB 109 improves or even addresses the treatment of the mentally ill. This paper will analyze AB 109 to determine how closely it rings true to the spirit behind the Brown v. Plata litigation - namely, providing mentally ill offenders with adequate medical and psychiatric care - and what impact the bill will have on the mentally ill. More specifically, this paper will assess whether AB 109 marks yet another in a long series of failed attempts by the state to appropriately address the treatment of mentally ill individuals in state custody. One of the basic themes behind this paper is a recognition of the importance of mentally ill offenders in California, not only in terms of the litigation that sparked realignment, but also from a general corrections standpoint. Research shows that mentally ill offenders recidivate at a much higher rate than non-mentally ill offenders. Therefore, it is crucial from a public safety perspective to determine where realignment is going to place these individuals. Further, AB 109 is not the first alignment of state and local fiscal and administrative responsibility in California that implicates the treatment of the mentally ill. It is necessary to attempt to determine what effects realignment will have on California's mental health resources, which have been scarce for much of the state's history. While not the focus of this paper, underlying much of the discussion will be the disturbing, yet generally accepted fact that prisons and jails in the United States largely operate as de facto mental hospitals. In California in particular, well-intentioned efforts to deinstitutionalize the mentally ill from state hospitals have had disastrous consequences, with the result being that many mentally ill individuals have ended up in the one place that accepts almost everyone: the criminal justice system. If there is one thing that most people seem to agree on, it is that many of the state's previous attempts to address this population have been ineffective. Mentally ill offenders are likely to struggle in the correctional system, whether at the state or local level. This paper explores, but does not intend to answer important questions such as: How do you hold mentally ill offenders accountable? Is this a population that we should even be seeking to imprison? Details: Stanford, CA: Stanford Law School, Criminal Justice Center, 2012. 37p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 25, 2014 at: https://www.law.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/child-page/183091/doc/slspublic/Davis_AB109_And_Mentally_Ill_Offenders.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: https://www.law.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/child-page/183091/doc/slspublic/Davis_AB109_And_Mentally_Ill_Offenders.pdf Shelf Number: 134245 Keywords: Correctional ReformMental Health TreatmentMentally Ill Offenders (California)Prison Health CarePrison OvercrowdingPrisonersPublic Safety Realignment |
Author: Austin, James Title: Eliminating Mass Incarceration: How San Francisco Did It Summary: San Francisco has rapidly reduced its jail and prison populations with a series of "best practices" innovations that have built on California's well-publicized legislative reforms enacted since 2009. Since 2009, California has reduced the size of number of people in prison, jail, felony probation and parole by nearly 150,000. At the same time, the state's crime rate has dramatically declined and is now lower than what was in 1960. If the rest of the country could match San Francisco's rates, the number of individuals under correctional supervision would plummet from 7 million to 2 million. Details: Washington, DC: JFA Institute, 2015. 30p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 13, 2016 at: http://www.jfa-associates.com/publications/reduce/Reforming%20San%20Franciscos%20Criminal%20Justice%20System-JA4.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.jfa-associates.com/publications/reduce/Reforming%20San%20Franciscos%20Criminal%20Justice%20System-JA4.pdf Shelf Number: 137564 Keywords: Correctional InstitutionsCorrectional PoliciesCorrectional ReformCriminal Justice ReformMass IncarcerationPrison Reform |
Author: Silber, Rebecca Title: Justice in Review: New Trends in State Sentencing and Corrections 2014-2015 Summary: In 2014 and 2015, 46 states enacted at least 201 bills, executive orders, and ballot initiatives to reform at least one aspect of their sentencing and corrections systems. In conducting this review of state criminal justice reforms, Vera found that most of the policy changes focused on three areas: creating or expanding opportunities to divert people away from the criminal justice system; reducing prison populations by enacting sentencing reform, expanding opportunities for early release from prison, and reducing the number of people admitted to prison for violating the terms of their community supervision; and supporting reentry into the community from prison. By providing concise summaries of representative reforms in each of these areas, this report serves as a practical guide for other state and federal policymakers looking to affect similar changes in criminal justice policy. Details: New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2016. 72p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 31, 2016 at: http://www.vera.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/state-sentencing-and-corrections-trends-2014-2015.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.vera.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/state-sentencing-and-corrections-trends-2014-2015.pdf Shelf Number: 139245 Keywords: Correctional ReformCorrections Criminal Justice Policy Criminal Justice Reform Sentencing |
Author: American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio Title: Shining a Light on Solitary Confinement: Why Ohio Needs Reform Summary: Imagine you are locked inside a prison cell the size of your bathroom for 23 hours a day. You are released from this cell for one hour a day, when you are escorted to a different cage the size of a walk-in closet meant for recreation. Sometimes, perhaps on a weekend or when the weather is bad, you don't get out at all. You eat your meals in this room, just a few feet away from your toilet; you have limited access to books and televisions. This is solitary confinement in Ohio. Details: Columbus: ACLU of Ohio, 2016. 26p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 7, 2016 at: http://www.acluohio.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/ShiningALight-Report2016.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.acluohio.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/ShiningALight-Report2016.pdf Shelf Number: 139290 Keywords: Correctional ReformIsolationPrisonersPrisonsSolitary Confinement |
Author: Joldersma, Cisac, ed. Title: Final Report: Prisons of the Future Summary: It is the year 2050. We travel around Europe. In every country, we look around for prisons. In our mind, we have the image of a traditional prison: a high secure building with fences, windows with bars, and cameras all around. We wonder why we cannot find these kinds of prisons. We ask people in the street where to find a prison. They look at us if they have never heard of such a building where offenders are staying together, excluded from society. We further discuss with them the crime rate in their country. They explain that in the last years the crime rate decreased a little, but still offences are taking place. They have no idea where we can find offenders living together; offenders are part of society. We interview experts of the criminal justice system, on what happened to their prisons. They tell us, that all around Europe, governments decided that new traditional prisons are not needed anymore. European criminal law has been changed and some offences are decriminalized, such as drug use and drunken driving. Drug users and drunk drivers are seduced to addiction treatment and urged to compensate victims. Research has also proved conclusively that detention is not effective and efficient to reduce recidivism. The longer offenders stay in traditional prisons, the higher the risk of recidivism, and the lower the chance of a successful reentry in society. Politicians have been convinced by researchers that traditional prisons primarily have a symbolic value to satisfy the public need. Traditional prisons appear to have deterrence effects on the public, but to some offenders they are - in a peculiar way - attractive. Consequently, other sanctions than regular imprisonment have become more common. More offenders stay at home, supervised by electronic monitoring. The use of community services has also increased, and offenders are supervised by layman probation officers. More offenders have been convicted by means of restraining and protecting orders. We like to know what happens when offenders breach the conditions, because traditional prisons are not available anymore as a last resort. New time-out facilities have been created. Offenders reside in an open, low secure setting. The time-out facilities are also accessible for ex-offenders who want to stay voluntarily because they feel they are at risk for relapse. We still wonder what happens to offenders who have been convicted for serious crimes and who used to stay in high secure prisons. They admit that there are still a few old prisons available for offenders of serious crimes. However, moral quality of life inside the old prisons changed a lot in comparison to the past. Offenders with (life)long prison sentences are quite busy during working days. They work four days a week within the prison or outside the prison area. Additionally, within certain limits, they are enabled to autonomously take decisions regarding their personal life. With regard to sex offenders, circles of support and accountability have been established. After a short stay in prison, they are offered the possibility of a prerelease option to live in community with support and supervision of volunteers. Volunteers are coached by professionals. The circles help to manage sex offenders' risk and support them in becoming part of the local community. Walking around, we follow the sign of a forensic care hospital. The lady at the reception tells us that in this hospital, partners, family, worried neighbors or care takers can register patients for psychiatric treatment. The forensic care hospital also treats patients who have not already committed a serious crime, but who need psychiatric treatment due to their high risk profile and mental illness. The forensic care hospital provides voluntary treatment as well as enforced treatment. We are curious what services can be provided to people who are in need of care, but avoid care at the same time. We think about homeless people with low secure risks, but socially unacceptable or deviant behavior. For these homeless people, tiny houses are available. The person who is not welcome anymore in a neighborhood, can register for renting such a 'tiny house'. The houses can easily be moved to another area in case of nuisance. We enter a community centre and ask if they know the offenders in the neighborhood. The neighborhood team confirms that there are some offenders living in their area. They try to support them on basic reintegration issues, such as housing, debts, relational issues, and basic social skills. They offer these services to inhabitants of the neighborhood, regardless of them being an offender or not. All clients are encountered respectfully; the client is 'in the lead' organizing as much as possible his of her own personalized trajectory. The scenario above elaborates on basic principles as normalization and reintegration. It makes clear that prisons of the future are related to all kind of sentences, sanctions, psychiatric treatments, and social services. Furthermore, the focus in the project prisons of the future is on what happens in practice. Therefore, in this report we preferably use the term 'prison and probation practice' instead of prison or prison policy. With regard to the scenario above, it is hard to believe that in the near future there are only a few prisons. On the contrary, other probable scenario's are possible. A scenario could be that, in the near future, differences between offenders and other citizens will be more and more emphasized and offenders are more and more excluded from society. Offenders can be gathered in warehouses that are located in large prison industry complexes, far away from local communities. Another probable scenario is more focus on risk assessments. A high risk offender will be controlled at more areas of life than a low risk offender. The high risk offender has to stay in a high secure setting as long as it is expected that the offender will be of a high risk to society. Another possible scenario is that of personalized sentencing. Personalized sentencing is, as personalized medicine for the individual patient, customized to the individual offender. Deprivations of liberty can be matched precisely with the expected experience and impact they have on the offender. In conclusion, there are different roads and routes to shape future prisons. It is hard to predict where we exactly are going to. Details: The Hague: European Commission, 2016. 250p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 11, 2016 at: http://www.europris.org/resources_package/prisons-of-the-future-final-conference-presentations-and-summary-report-3-4-march-2016-2-2/ Year: 2016 Country: Europe URL: http://www.europris.org/resources_package/prisons-of-the-future-final-conference-presentations-and-summary-report-3-4-march-2016-2-2/ Shelf Number: 139610 Keywords: Correctional InstitutionsCorrectional ReformPrison ReformPrisons |
Author: Lofstrom, Magnus Title: California's Historic Corrections Reforms Summary: California leads the nation in correctional reforms and reduced reliance on incarceration. In 2011, the state enacted public safety realignment, which shifted the management of lower-level felons from the state prison and parole systems to county jail and probation systems. Three years later, voters approved Proposition 47, which further re-prioritized correctional resources and lowered incarceration. In this report, we describe the impact of these historic changes. Over the past decade, California has reversed a long-term trajectory of increasing incarceration. - Since reaching a peak in 2006 of almost 256,000 inmates, the total population incarcerated in California's state prisons and county jails has dropped by roughly 55,000. The incarceration rate has fallen from 702 to 515 per 100,000 residents-a level not seen since the early 1990s. - Realignment substantially reduced the prison population, but led to an increase in the county jail population of about 10,000 inmates, pushing the statewide jail population above its rated capacity and leading to more early releases due to overcapacity. Proposition 47 brought the statewide jail population down to pre-realignment levels. Dramatically reduced incarceration from realignment did not lead to a broad increase in crime rates. - Crime rates in California are on a long-term decline, though there are year-to-year fluctuations. Realignment resulted in an additional 18,000 offenders on the street, but through 2014, we found no evidence of an impact on violent crime. Auto thefts did increase, by about 60 per 100,000 residents in 2014. - From 2014 to 2015, the violent crime rate increased by 8.4 percent and the property crime rate by 6.6 percent. The role of Proposition 47 on crime remains unknown, but preliminary data show that compared to other states, California's increase in property crime appears to stand out more than its increase in violent crime. Reforms have not yet succeeded in reducing the state's high rates of recidivism. - Rearrest and reconviction rates for offenders released from state prison are similar to pre-realignment levels. The two-year rearrest rate is 69 percent. The two-year reconviction rate (42%) is about 5 percentage points higher than before realignment, but this higher rate may simply reflect prosecution of offenses that in the past would have been processed administratively. - Realignment helped stanch the flow of returning offenders to state prison for parole violation. Two-year return-to-prison rates dropped from 55 percent pre-realignment to 16.5 percent. - Offenders released from state prison who are supervised by county probation have higher recidivism rates than those supervised by state parole. This difference is primarily due to a significantly higher share of so-called high-risk offenders among the former population. Details: Public Policy Institute of California, 2016. 36p., app. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 7, 2016 at: http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_916MLR.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_916MLR.pdf Shelf Number: 140601 Keywords: Correctional InstitutionsCorrectional ReformPrison ReformPrisonersPrisons |
Author: Austin, James Title: How Many Americans are Unnecessarily Incarcerated? Summary: Nearly 40 percent of the U.S. prison population - 576,000 people - are behind bars with no compelling public safety reason, according to a new report from the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law. The first-of-its-kind analysis provides a blueprint for how the country can drastically cut its prison population while still keeping crime rates near historic lows. In 1963, the March on Washington marked a turning point in the long fight for civil rights for African Americans. A century after President Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, hundreds of thousands converged at his memorial to celebrate a century of liberation and to protest what Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. called the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. In the intervening fifty years, we have come a remarkable distance, but the shackles of systemic racism continue to bind communities of color. We stand on the frontlines in the fight to build a society free from racial discrimination. In 2015, we honored the sacrifices of our forbearers and galvanized international attention to systemic discrimination with a "Journey for Justice from Selma, Ala. to Washington, D.C. While national support for this effort provides hope the tide may be turning, it also belies a sad truth: Many of the grave inequalities we fought decades ago still persist, more than fifty years after the Civil Rights Act. The single greatest injustice that threatens our safety and hinders our progress? Mass incarceration. People of color bear the brunt of our criminal justice system in disproportionate and devastating numbers. This is in part because racial disparities exist at all stages of the system, which relies on corrosive practices that harm people of color. Our communities have already suffered from historic and systemic economic injustice and racially targeted criminal justice policies. These wounds have not healed and have been aggravated by the staggering number of people trapped in prisons over the past forty years. Today, an estimated 2.2 million people are locked inside jails and prisons. African Americans make up roughly 13 percent of the U.S. population but 37 percent of the nation's prisoners. People with dreams and aspirations suffer in airtight cells of prison and poverty. But the injustice does not end there. More than half of formerly incarcerated Americans are unemployed a year after release. Communities of color are over policed, over-prosecuted, over-incarcerated and yet underemployed. If we do not take steps now, Americans of color will forever be relegated to a penal and permanent underclass, and mass incarceration will continue to cage the economic growth of our communities. We have reached a crisis point, and we need solutions. This groundbreaking report from the Brennan Center for Justice offers a pathway to reduce our prison population and its tragic racial disparities. It documents the number of people behind bars without rationale, and reveals the unnecessary trauma this causes. It recommends real solutions that can help end over-incarceration. I urge lawmakers to give deep consideration and deeper commitment to this report's findings and recommendations. This nation must continue to march forward, toward a day when all people are treated based not on the color of their skin but on the content of their character, uncolored and un-stigmatized by a criminal record. It is time that we end the plague of mass incarceration Details: New York: Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law, 2016. 80p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 9, 2016 at: https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/publications/Unnecessarily_Incarcerated.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/publications/Unnecessarily_Incarcerated.pdf Shelf Number: 145623 Keywords: Correctional Institutions Correctional Policies Correctional ReformMass IncarcerationPrison ReformPrisoners |
Author: John Howard Association of Illinois Title: Reforming Illinois' Prison System from the Inside-Out: A Blueprint for the Implementation of Risk Assets Needs Assessment and System Change in the Illinois Department of Corrections Summary: Illinois has two public safety problems. It has one of the most crowded adult prison systems in the United States, and despite spending $1.3 billion annually on the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC), there are not enough resources to effectively house, supervise, and provide rehabilitative programming to the approximately 49,000 men and women who are in state prisons or the additional 25,000 who are on Mandatory Supervised Release under IDOC's Parole Division. These problems have led to an increasingly dangerous situation for inmates and correctional staff, with prisoners being housed in prison gymnasiums and reports of increased violence inside facilities. This makes for hazardous conditions not only inside prisons, but also for Illinois' communities. Every year, Illinois releases more than 30,000 people from its prisons. While there is no evidence to suggest that exposure to harsh and overcrowded conditions makes inmates less likely to commit new crimes, research has shown that these kinds of environments can make inmates worse and more likely to reoffend when they are released. Given these conditions, coupled with the Parole Division's chronically low resources and the multiple barriers former prisoners face returning home, it should come as no surprise that almost half of the inmates who leave the IDOC return to prison within three years of their release, creating a vicious and costly cycle. To address these problems, Illinois needs to safely decrease the number of people under state correctional supervision. This will require an on-going commitment to comprehensive criminal justice reform, including investing in crime prevention programming to strengthen communities, expanding alternatives to incarceration for low-level offenders, reforming overly punitive criminal sentences, and removing unfair obstacles to reentry. Just as importantly, Illinois must ensure that IDOC has the capacity it needs to make the most effective use possible of its limited resources both inside and outside of its facilities, so that when inmates are released they are less likely to return to custody because they are re-integrated safely and successfully back into their communities. Inside the IDOC, the most important initiative to reduce Illinois' over-reliance on incarceration is the implementation of a new and more effective inmate assessment tool called RANA, which stands for Risk Assets Needs Assessment. The problem with the IDOC's current assessment system is that it relies primarily on offenders' committing offenses to make security and programming decisions. So, for instance, if a person is convicted of a low-level offense, he or she will more than likely be treated the same as all other low-level offenders, be housed in a minimum-security facility, and be paroled under the same conditions of release. This kind of assessment system is based on the false assumption that offenders convicted of similar kinds of crimes need the same kind of treatment and supervision. It is also limited in that it ignores the importance of evaluating and developing positive vocational, social, and psychological strengths and assets that lead offenders to turn away from crime. While the IDOC's current approach to inmate assessment may make a certain amount of intuitive sense, it does not provide the agency with a reliable means to provide rehabilitative programming targeted to address the precise needs of individual prisoners that will discourage future criminal activity or encourage pro-social behaviors and attitudes. Using its current assessment system, the IDOC ends up spending its limited security and programming resources on inmates without any certainty that its actions will reduce recidivism. The implementation of RANA will improve upon the IDOC's current assessment system by enabling the agency to focus on the factors that lead people under correctional supervision to return to prison. As mandated, RANA requires the IDOC to adopt an evidence-based assessment tool that will evaluate risks, assets, and needs that are proven to influence recidivism and to create individual case plans that address these factors inside and outside facilities. The benefits of reform are not speculative. Research and the experience of other states indicate that the implementation of a RANA-like system can lead to more efficient use of programming and security resources, reduce recidivism, and ultimately decrease the costly number of people under state correctional supervision. Details: Chicago: The Association, 20113. 27p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 16, 2017 at: http://www.thejha.org/sites/default/files/JHA%20Blueprint%20Reforming%20IL%20Prison%20System%20from%20the%20Inside%20Out.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.thejha.org/sites/default/files/JHA%20Blueprint%20Reforming%20IL%20Prison%20System%20from%20the%20Inside%20Out.pdf Shelf Number: 131202 Keywords: Correctional ReformCorrectional SupervisionOffender SupervisionPrison OvercrowdingPrison Reform |
Author: Correctional Service Canada Title: 2016 International Survey of Correctional Services: Corrections in Transformation Summary: In 2015, the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) conducted an international survey with the objective of gaining a better understanding of the challenges other nations encounter in their correctional organizations and the best practices being applied to address them. Responses from 24 organizations revealed themes related to infrastructure, resources, technology, and offender health and mental health as significant challenges. These identified challenges provided indications of where international correctional organizations are facing difficulties; however, further details would have provided greater insight into these difficulties and the responses organizations have made to address them. Thus, the 2016 survey was designed to increase our knowledge of the issues and transformation plans being used to address these challenges as well as the best practices learned through actions undertaken to deal with them. Purpose CSC conducted an international consultation with several correctional organizations around the world to gain a better understanding of not only the challenges various nations encounter in their correctional organizations, but also the strategies implemented to address these challenges. The international consultation was completed in collaboration with CSC's Intergovernmental Relations Division (IGR) and representatives from the International Corrections and Prisons Association (ICPA). Overview The following is a summary of the responses received for the International Survey of Correctional Services. The survey was developed by staff at CSC's Research Branch and Strategic Policy and Planning. It was available in English and French and could be completed online or on paper. The structure of the survey included both multiple choice and open-ended questions. Core problematic areas in correctional practices were identified and questions specific to each area were developed. The survey was organized into four key parts: Part I: Physical Infrastructure; Part II: Technology; Part III: Offender Health; Part IV: Offender Rehabilitation The target sample was approximately 170 correctional organizations affiliated with ICPA and IGR. Respondents were able to respond to the survey between July 28th and September 14th, 2016. Although 19 correctional organizations responded, results are based on 18 correctional organizations representing agencies in 12 as one submission was removed from the analyses due to data quality issues (see Appendix A for a list of participating countries). Regarding the characteristics of participating organizations, the majority of organizations were at the Federal/National level of government (53%), followed closely by organizations at the State/Regional (41%) and Local/Municipal (6%) levels. The offender population supervised by organizations was evenly split between only those with custodial sentences (47%) and those with both custodial and non-custodial sentences (53%). Notably, no organizations indicated that they only supervise those with non-custodial sentences. The results of this report are organized according to each key area assessed. The qualitative results examine the challenges and associated transformation plans for each sub-area are examined. Subsequently, the qualitative themes associated with the issues leading to transformation, the ongoing transformation projects that have occurred in the past year, as well as any best practices garnered throughout the transformation process are discussed. A summary of findings is provided at the end of the document. Details: Ottawa: Correctional Service Canada, 2016. 15p. Source: Internet Resource: 2016 No. SR-16-04 Accessed November 13, 2017 at: http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/research/092/005008-3009-en.pdf Year: 2016 Country: International URL: http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/research/092/005008-3009-en.pdf Shelf Number: 148140 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationCorrectional InstitutionsCorrectional ReformPrison ReformPrisons |
Author: Samuels, Julie Title: Next Steps in Federal Corrections Reform: Implementing and Building on the First Step Act Summary: The topic of federal corrections reform is hardly new. The precipitous growth of the federal prison system following the passage of tough-on-crime measures in the 1980s has, in recent years, prompted a swelling chorus of legislators and advocates representing a diverse array of views, all calling for reform. These efforts led Congress to pass the First Step Act, signed into law by President Trump in December 2018. First Step focuses on improving public safety through rehabilitative programming, incentivizing people incarcerated in the Federal Bureau of Prisons to take part in programs and treatment aligned with their risks and needs, and enabling those assessed at the lowest risk levels to earn credits toward faster release to community supervision by completing recidivism-reduction programming. The law also includes several sentencing reforms to reduce the application and extent of lengthy prison sentences owing to mandatory minimums for drug offenses and weapons enhancements, along with other improvements to the prison system. Details: Washington, DC: The Urban Institute, 2019. 17p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 6, 2019 at: https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/100230/next_steps_in_federal_corrections_reform_1.pdf Year: 2019 Country: United States URL: https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/100230/next_steps_in_federal_corrections_reform_1.pdf Shelf Number: 156248 Keywords: Correctional ReformFederal Prisons Prison Reform |