Date: April 30, 2024 Tue

Time: 1:16 am

Results for costs of criminal justice

243 results found

Author: National Council to Reduce Violence Against Women and Their Children Title: The Cost of Violence Against Women and Their Children Summary: Violence against women and their children carries a very large economic cost to society. This report projects the costs of domestic violence in Australia to 2021, with the aim of providing decision-makers with a sense of the scale of this problem and its impact on society. Details: Canberra: National Council to Reduce Violence Against Women and Their Children, 2009 Source: Year: 2009 Country: Australia URL: Shelf Number: 116529 Keywords: Costs of Crime Costs of Criminal Justice Domestic Violence

Author: Knuutila, Aleksi Title: Punishing Costs: How Locking Up Children Is Making Britain Less Safe Summary: Locking up children and young people for non-violence offenses is costing the U.K. taxpayer millions, while doing little to reduce the amount of crime. This report presents results on the full cost to society of the use of prison. It outlines a policy to change the pattern of public spending for a safer and more inclusive socity. Details: Source: London: nef (New Economics Foundation), 2010. 73p. Year: 2010 Country: United Kingdom URL: Shelf Number: 117865 Keywords: Costs of Criminal Justice Juvenile Detention Juvenile Offenders

Author: Matrix Evidence Title: Economic Analysis of Interventions for Young Adult Offenders Summary: This report summarizes an economic analysis of alternative interventions for young adult offenders. The report makes the case for a wholesale shift in the way the U.K. government works with young adults in, and at risk of becoming involved with, the criminal justice system. This shift requires more than tinkering around the edges of the system. Instead, it asks for a cross-departmental, in-depth look at vulnerable young people aged 18 to 24 involved in the criminal justice system, and a commitment to finding effective ways of working with these young adults in trouble to help them move away from crime. Details: London: Matrix Evidence, 2009. 29p. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2009 Country: United Kingdom URL: Shelf Number: 119154 Keywords: Alternative to Incarceration Costs of Criminal Justice Economic Analysis Juvenile Justice System (U.K.) Juvenile Offenders (U.K.) Young Adult Offenders (U.K.)

Author: Boylan, Richard T. Title: Intended and Unintended Consequences of Prison Reform Summary: Since the 1970s, U.S. federal courts have issued court orders condemning state prison crowding. However, the impact of these court orders on prison spending and prison conditions is theoretically ambiguous because it is unclear if these court orders are enforceable. We examine states' responses to court interventions and show that these interventions generate higher per inmate incarceration costs, lower inmate mortality rates, and a reduction in prisoners per capita. If states seek to minimize the cost of crime through deterrence, an increase in prison costs should lead states to shift resources from corrections to other means of deterring crime such as welfare and education spending. However, we find that court interventions, that are associated with higher corrections expenditures, lead to lower welfare expenditures. This suggests that the burden of increased correctional spending is borne by the poor. Furthermore, states do not increase welfare spending after their release from court order; making the reduction in welfare spending permanent. Thus, our results suggest that states do not respond to prison reform in the manner prescribed by the deterrence model. States' responses to prison reform are most consistent with the predictions in the empirical public finance literature that indicate stickiness in expenditure categories and that increases in spending in programs that affect the poor generate declines in expenditures in other program that are also targeted to the poor. Details: Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2009. 34p. Source: Internet Resource; NBER Working Paper Series; Working Paper 15535 Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 117359 Keywords: Costs of Criminal Justice Prison Overcrowding Prison Reform Prisons

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: Aos, Steve Title: WSIPP's Benefit-Cost Tool for States: Examining Policy Options in Sentencing and Corrections Summary: Can knowledge about “what works” to reduce crime be used to help states achieve a win-win outcome of lower crime and lower taxpayer spending? The Washington State Institute for Public Policy has constructed an analytical tool for the Washington legislature to help identify evidence-based sentencing and programming policy options to reduce crime and taxpayer criminal justice costs. This report describes the tool (as of August 2010) in detail and illustrates its use by applying it to two hypothetical sentencing policy options in Washington State. The tool assesses benefits, costs, and risks. Results from the two hypothetical examples point to possible win-win policy combinations. Details: Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy, 2010. 56p. Source: Internet Resource: Document No. 10-08-1201: Accessed October 8, 2010 at: http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/rptfiles/10-08-1201.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/rptfiles/10-08-1201.pdf Shelf Number: 119882 Keywords: Corrections Cost-Benefit Analysis Costs of Criminal Justice Criminal Justice Policy Evidence-Based Policies Sentencing

Author: Grimshaw, Roger Title: Magistrates' Courts' and Crown Court Expenditure, 1999-2009 Summary: Rises in spending on the magistrates' courts and the Crown Court in the past ten years pose difficult choices for the coalition government UK), according to a report published by the independent Centre for Crime and Justice Studies. The report is part of the Spending Briefing series, funded by the Hadley Foundation, which documents trends in criminal justice spending. Magistrates' courts' and Crown Court expenditure 1999-2009 highlights the following: Total expenditure rose to £1027.89 m in 2008/2009. In real terms the magistrates' courts figure rose by 17 per cent from 1998/1999 to 2003/2004 and by 31 per cent from 2005/2006 to 2008/2009. The Crown Court total increased by 10 per cent from 2005/2006 to 2008/2009. Capital expenditure increased very substantially from 2005/2006 to 2008/2009, with a rise of 271 per cent in the Crown Court figure. Employee expenditure for the magistrates' courts rose by 15 per cent from 1998/1999 to 2003/2004 but then declined by 8 per cent, whereas the Crown Court figure declined by 2 per cent from 2005/2006 to 2008/2009. Staff numbers have declined over the past three years by 12 per cent. The magistrates' courts have lost 1,088 staff, equivalent to 14 per cent of their staffing complement, and the Crown Court has lost 150 staff or 6 per cent. The volume of cases brought to the magistrates' courts has declined by 16 per cent since 1998. Meanwhile summary justice exercised by police and prosecutors in the form of cautions and `out-of-court' penalties has grown. Since 2005, cases brought to the Crown Court have increased by 17 per cent. Details: London: Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, 2010. 39p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 8, 2010 at: http://http://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/publication_download_form_1806.html Year: 2010 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://http://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/publication_download_form_1806.html Shelf Number: 119891 Keywords: Costs of Criminal Justice Courts

Author: La Vigne, Nancy Title: Justice Reinvestment at the Local Level: Planning and Implementation Guide Summary: This guidebook provides instruction for local leaders aiming to improve the efficiency of their justice systems by managing and allocating scarce resources more cost-effectively and generating savings that can be reinvested in prevention-oriented strategies. It describes the steps involved in this justice reinvestment process, the challenges that may be encountered, and how those challenges can be overcome. While the intended audience is local county and city managers and their criminal justice leaders, this document is designed to be accessible to a wide array of local government stakeholders, along with criminal justice practitioners, consultants, and researchers. Details: Washington, DC: Urban Institute, Justice Policy Center, 2010. 76p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 26, 2010 at: Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 120106 Keywords: Costs of Criminal Justice Criminal Justice Planning Justice Expenditures

Author: Vera Institute of Justice Title: The Continuing Fiscal Crisis in Corrections: Setting a New Course Summary: In the 1980s, the number of people sent to prison or supervised on probation and parole in the United States began growing substantially. Not surprisingly, the overall cost of corrections increased as well. But an unexpected about-face during the past three years suggests that the age of expanding costs may be coming to a close. The fiscal crisis that began in December 2007 has spurred lawmakers to reconsider who is punished and how. High recidivism rates among formerly incarcerated people have also given officials cause to reevaluate existing policies. To help legislators and other policy makers understand states’ responses both to the fiscal crisis and to unsatisfactory outcomes of earlier policies and investments, the Vera Institute of Justice surveyed state corrections officials about their planned appropriations for fiscal year 2011. Staff from Vera’s Center on Sentencing and Corrections assessed current spending plans and reviewed state legislative action in 2009 and 2010 to look for new trends in corrections policies. The first half of this report describes the immediate actions states have taken to reduce costs. The second half looks at legislative reforms aimed at reducing corrections spending over the long term. A core lesson underlying all of this activity is that officials are recognizing—in large part due to 30 years of trial and error, backed up by data—that it is possible to reduce corrections spending while also enhancing public safety. Details: New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2010. 21p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 2, 2010 at: http://www.vera.org/download?file=3069/The-continuing-fiscal-crisis-in-corrections-10-2010.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.vera.org/download?file=3069/The-continuing-fiscal-crisis-in-corrections-10-2010.pdf Shelf Number: 120161 Keywords: Corrections Costs of Criminal Justice

Author: Aos, Steve Title: Fight Crime and Save Money: Development of an Investment Tool for States to Study Sentencing and Corrections Public Policy Options: Progress Report Summary: Can knowledge about “what works” to reduce crime be used to help a state achieve a win-win outcome of: (1) lower crime, and (2) lower taxpayer spending? This progress report describes the work underway by the Washington State Institute for Public Policy (WSIPP) to develop an analytical tool for Washington, and perhaps other states, to identify evidence-based policy options to reduce crime rates and lower the taxpayer costs of the criminal justice system. The Pew Charitable Trusts contracted with WSIPP to: (1) develop the tool, (2) apply it to the policy process currently underway in Washington State, and (3) help Pew make the tool available to other states. We do not present “bottom-line” results in this report. Rather, this progress report simply describes the structure of the tool being constructed. The current plan calls for initial estimates by August 2010. In addition, the tool will be used to support the work of the legislatively directed study being conducted by the Washington State Sentencing Guidelines Commission. Details: Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy, 2010. 39p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 3, 2010 at: http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/rptfiles/10-04-1201.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/rptfiles/10-04-1201.pdf Shelf Number: 120179 Keywords: Costs of Criminal Justice Criminal Justice Policy Economics Evidence-Based Policy Sentencing Policies

Author: Cook, Philip J. Title: Economical Crime Control Summary: This paper is the introductory chapter for the forthcoming NBER volume Controlling Crime: Strategies and Tradeoffs. The Great Recession has led to cuts in criminal justice expenditures, and the trend towards ever-higher incarceration rates that has been underway since the 1970s in the U.S. appears to have turned the corner. That raises the question of whether the crime drop can be sustained. State and local revenue shortfalls have engendered intense interest in cost-cutting measures that do not sacrifice public safety. We argue that there is some reason for optimism, simply because current criminal justice allocations and policies appear to be inefficient – more crime control could be accomplished with fewer resources. The crime problem is often framed as a debate between those who favor a “tough” punitive approach versus those who favor a “soft” approach that focuses on prevention or remediation programs. But the canonical economic model of crime from Becker (1968) suggests that the decision to commit crime involves a weighing of both benefits and costs, implying that both tough and soft approaches might be useful. It is ultimately an empirical question about how the marginal crime-control dollar may be most effectively deployed. The evidence presented in this edited volume suggests that a more efficient portfolio of crime-control strategies would involve greater attention to enhancing the certainty rather than the severity of punishment for criminal behavior, stimulating private-sector cooperation for controlling crime, and making strategic investments in the human capital of at-risk populations, including in particular efforts to improve the social-cognitive skills of justice-system-involved populations. To help illustrate the magnitude of the inefficiencies within the current system, the essay concludes with a thought experiment that considers how much additional crime-prevention could be obtained by reverting average sentence lengths back to 1984 levels (midway through the Reagan era) and redirecting the freed-up resources (on the order of $12 billion annually) to alternative uses. Details: Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2010. 63p. Source: Internet Resource: NBER Working Paper Series, Working Paper 16513: Accessed November 8, 2010 at: http://www.nber.org/papers/w16513.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w16513.pdf Shelf Number: 120199 Keywords: Costs of Crime Costs of Criminal Justice Crime Prevention Economics and Crime

Author: Great Britain. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary Title: Stop the Drift: A Focus on 21st-Century Criminal Justice Summary: The report “Stop the Drift” finds that more needs to be done to explain to the public why some offenders never end up in court. HMIC found that the system would work better if justice agencies stop it growing, improve wasteful processes, and make the most of innovation. But all agencies must pull together The system has grown, with 14 pieces of legislation added to the criminal justice process over the last 15 years. It takes around 1,000 steps to deal with a simple domestic burglary. This slows down the process and consumes resources, reducing the number of officers available to help the public. All criminal justice agencies should sign up to a smarter approach, which reduces bureaucracy and duplication. HMIC found that the number of offenders dealt with outside the courts through cautions, penalty notices, and formal warnings has risen by 135% over five years. Nearly half of the 1.3 million cases solved in 2008/9 were dealt with in this way, although the proportion varies significantly between forces. This has been accompanied by an increased reliance on restorative justice approaches. There are signs that some of these approaches increase victim satisfaction, however the public should be better informed of their effectiveness. This would help eliminate the perceived injustice of different ways of dealing with offenders in different parts of the country. HMIC found an example of a shoplifter charged by police and sentenced at court just two hours later. But the average is 12 days. Whilst 67% of defendants eventually plead guilty, 41% do so when they get to the trial. This results in huge amounts of unnecessary paperwork and also causes further distress to victims. HMIC found that getting defendants to court quickly, providing good quality information to the prosecutor and firm case management could reduce late guilty pleas, improve victim satisfaction and save cost, in the region of £40m a year. Some forces take innovative approaches, with police and prosecutors pooling resources in London to create one process that reduces duplication, potentially saving £16m over 10 years. But innovation is challenging. No data exists for all agencies to refer to that shows the cost benefit of working collaboratively, and the fragmented system means that no single leader can authorise and commit to change. Details: London: HMIC, 2010. 42p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 2, 2010 at: http://www.hmic.gov.uk/SiteCollectionDocuments/Thematics/THM_20101103.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.hmic.gov.uk/SiteCollectionDocuments/Thematics/THM_20101103.pdf Shelf Number: 120348 Keywords: Costs of Criminal Justice Criminal Case Processing Criminal Justice Systems (UK) Sentencing

Author: Great Britain. Ministry of Justice Title: Breaking the Cycle: Effective Punishment, Rehabilitation and Sentencing of Offenders Summary: The safety and security of the law-abiding citizen is a key priority of the Coalition Government. Everyone has a right to feel safe in their home and in their community. When that safety is threatened, those responsible should face a swift and effective response. We rely on the criminal justice system to deliver that response: punishing offenders, protecting the public and reducing reoffending. This Green Paper addresses all three of these priorities, setting out how an intelligent sentencing framework, coupled with more effective rehabilitation, will enable us to break the cycle of crime and prison which creates new victims every day. Despite a 50% increase in the budget for prisons and managing offenders in the last ten years almost half of all adult offenders released from custody reoffend within a year. It is also not acceptable that 75% of offenders sentenced to youth custody reoffend within a year. If we do not prevent and tackle offending by young people then the young offenders of today will become the prolific career criminals of tomorrow. Details: London: The Stationery Office, 2010. 92p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 13, 2010 at: http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm79/7972/7972.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm79/7972/7972.pdf Shelf Number: 120447 Keywords: Costs of Criminal Justice Criminal Justice Systems (U.K.) Punishment Recidivism Rehabilitation Sentencing

Author: Great Britain. National Audit Office Title: Criminal Justice System Landscape Review Summary: Under the current constitution and structure of government, there can be no single 'owner' of the criminal justice system. The system is complex, responsibilities cross different departments and involve a wide range of delivery partners, and it involves a wide range of activities and objectives. This 'Landscape Review' is aimed at providing an overview of recent criminal justice performance and practice. Our findings are based on the evidence that we have collected in the course of recent value for money studies, and also on the wealth of documentary evidence in the public domain. Our aim is to inform the debate on future developments in the criminal justice system and especially on how the government can achieve better services for less expenditure. Details: London: National Audit Office, 2010. 27p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 15, 2010 at: http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/1011/criminal_justice_landscape_rev.aspx Year: 2010 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/1011/criminal_justice_landscape_rev.aspx Shelf Number: 120513 Keywords: Costs of Criminal Justice Criminal Justice Expenditures Criminal Justice Systems (U.K.)

Author: Giangrande, Richard Title: The Lawful Society Summary: The sterile debate on crime and police numbers has obscured a major shift in the public's response to crime. Britons have become "passive bystanders", uninformed about crime and punishment and less likely to participate in maintaining justice than people in other countries. Lacking the real facts, the public has demanded "something is done", resulting in Robocop justice, ever more centralised and technocratic. This move has made Britain the most expensive country to police in the world and has rendered citizens incapable. When violence has increased as a proportion of all recorded crime from 8 per cent in 1997 to 20 per cent in 2008, it is unsurprising that these "passive bystanders" call for action. Without the federal systems or alternative bulwarks of local power other countries have, crime has been nationalised and politicised with the Home Secretary and sometimes the Prime Minister taking responsibility for every assault. The UK spends the largest amount on law and order as a proportion of total government spending, and as a percentage of GDP, of any other country in the OECD, overtaking the US in the last decade. The failings of Robocop have been recognised by the political parties who have all attempted to spell out a localist agenda. In practice though this approach is one of the "colouring book", with national politicians dictating parameters and targets for local action with only a small amount of autonomy allowed. Radical decentralisation has been consistently blocked by politicians and police keen to maintain their national power base. A new way forward is required to transform Britons from passive bystanders to active citizens. In order to do this there must be an information revolution with details on prosecution strategies, offenders and correctional programmes available to the public on a granular level, as well as a full extension of existing crime mapping programmes. There should be locally elected Justice Commissioners, who people can hold accountable for the maintenance of order and pay for through local taxes. This must be balanced by the establishment of a National Bureau of Investigation. Maintaining lawfulness should be seen as part of the duty of every citizen, whose role should be to hold agents accountable and participate in the justice process. These radical changes would unlock long overdue innovation. Local services could evolve, pooling the resources currently divided between prevention, prosecution, policing and correction. Local areas will experiment with different styles of policing and offender management. Local people will engage in a rich debate about the appropriate policies for their areas. Eventually criminal justice policy could be subsumed within a wider quality of life and wellbeing area. Details: London: Reform, 2008. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 15, 2010 at: http://www.reform.co.uk/Research/CriminalJustice/CriminalJusticeArticles/tabid/113/smid/378/ArticleID/635/reftab/74/t/The%20lawful%20society/Default.aspx Year: 2008 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.reform.co.uk/Research/CriminalJustice/CriminalJusticeArticles/tabid/113/smid/378/ArticleID/635/reftab/74/t/The%20lawful%20society/Default.aspx Shelf Number: 120515 Keywords: Costs of Criminal Justice Criminal Justice Reform Criminal Justice Systems (U.K.)

Author: Gascon, George Title: Making Policing More Affordable: Managing Costs and Measuring Value in Policing Summary: This paper tries to create space for a careful conversation about the challenge of paying for policing. It starts by asking two questions. First, what is driving up police expenditures? Are police departments growing and providing more services to more people, are the costs of providing these same services simply going up, or are other factors responsible for the increase? Second, what have cities and their residents received in return for their investment in policing? Are there fewer crimes, a greater sense of safety and more satisfaction with police services? What has happened to the bottom line in policing? How have communities benefited from the new spending? This paper tries to answer these questions by examining the costs of policing in one city, Mesa, Ariz. The authors could not collect information from enough departments across the United States to systematically compare costs in midsized cities, so this paper instead compares spending in Mesa over the last decade with the spending of neighboring cities in Arizona and with 10 similarly sized jurisdictions that shared their budget data with the authors. The paper also examines the impact of this new spending, using such conventional measures of police value as the amount of recorded crime, citizens’ sense of safety and call response times. Despite the limitations of these measures, which numerous academics, police chiefs and the Commission on the Accreditation of Law Enforcement Agencies (CALEA) have repeatedly pointed out, they remain the indicators that shape professional assessments of the value of policing. Because they are still the “measures that matter,” this paper relies on them to evaluate the impact of new police spending on communities. Finally, the paper considers a series of tactics now being tested in a few cities and police departments for managing the rising costs of policing, including efforts to cut spending, raise productivity and re-engineer operations. Perhaps none of these tactics, by themselves or in combination, yields a sustainable strategy for paying for policing in the future. But their consideration here should support future conversations about restructuring police services, reorganizing departments, and building new measures of the value of policing that the present financial crisis demands. Details: Cambridge, MA: Harvard Kennedy School, Program in Criminal Justice Policy and Management; Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, national Institute of Justice, 2010. 19p. Source: Internet Resource: New Perspectives in Policing, December 2010: Accessed December 17, 2010 at: http://cms.hks.harvard.edu/var/ezp_site/storage/fckeditor/file/pdfs/centers-programs/programs/criminal-justice/NewPerspectivesPolicing-MakingPolicingMoreAffordable-Dec2010.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://cms.hks.harvard.edu/var/ezp_site/storage/fckeditor/file/pdfs/centers-programs/programs/criminal-justice/NewPerspectivesPolicing-MakingPolicingMoreAffordable-Dec2010.pdf Shelf Number: 120545 Keywords: Costs of Criminal Justice Criminal Justice Expenditures Policing

Author: Great Britain. Ministry of Justice Title: Virtual Court Pilot: Outcome Evaluation Summary: The Virtual Court (VC) was piloted between May 2009 and May 2010 in one magistrates’ court and fifteen police stations in London and one magistrates’ court and a police station in North Kent. In the Virtual Court qualifying defendants did not have to physically attend the first hearing in the magistrates’ court, but remained in the police station with a video link to the court. The intention was to reduce costs by reducing the time between the charge and the first hearing in the piloted magistrates courts and police stations. The pilot assessment considered the cost effectiveness, speed and justice outcomes of the pilot sites compared to the traditional courts over the period from January to April 2010, as well as the implications of rolling out the scheme nationally. The findings indicate that the pilot was successful in reducing the average time from charge to first hearing, failure to appear rates and prisoner transportation and police cell costs. However, these savings were exceeded by costs of the pilot, particularly those associated with the technology used. Details: London: Ministry of Justice, 2010. 52p. Source: Internet Resource: Ministry of Justice Research Series 21/10: Accessed December 23, 2010 at: https://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/docs/virtual-courts.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/docs/virtual-courts.pdf Shelf Number: 120624 Keywords: Costs of Criminal Justice Courts (U.K.) Defendants

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: Great Britain. Comptroller and Auditor General Title: The Youth Justice System in England and Wales: Reducing Offending by Young People. Ministry of Justice Summary: In England and Wales, young people between the ages of 10 and 17 can be 1 held criminally responsible for their actions. Provisional data shows that young people committed 201,800 offences in 2009‑10. Although they make up only 11 per cent of the population above the age of criminal responsibility, in 2009 people in this age group were responsible for 17 per cent of all proven offending. The youth justice system manages young offenders and contributes to preventing young people committing crimes in the first place. The system is overseen by the Youth Justice Board (the Board), an executive non-departmental public body of the Ministry of Justice (the Ministry). On 14 October 2010 the Ministry announced its intention to take over the functions of the Board. This is subject to Parliamentary approval. Some 60 per cent of proven young offending is dealt with in court, with the 2 remainder handled by the police through reprimands and final warnings. In 2009‑10, the cost of managing young offenders, not including police and court costs, was £800 million, of which £500 million was spent through the Board. Most is spent on young offenders with court sentences. Although only three per cent of offences by young people brought to justice result in a custodial sentence, in 2009‑10 38 per cent of youth justice system expenditure was incurred on custodial places in secure establishments. We estimate that, in 2009, offending by all young people cost the economy 3 £8.5‑£11 billion. Young offenders, as with adults, are most commonly convicted of theft and violence. Although they have had a shorter time to offend than adults, a third of those dealt with each year have previously been reprimanded, warned or convicted in relation to an offence. They also have a high reoffending rate: 56 per cent of those receiving court sentences are proven to reoffend within a year. For all young offenders – that is, those who are convicted in court or receive reprimands and final warnings, collectively known as disposals – the reoffending rate is 37 per cent. Family breakdown, educational underachievement, substance abuse, mental illness 4 and other problems commonly affect young offenders. They are also more likely to have difficulty controlling their behaviour and understanding its impact on others. The youth justice system works on the basis that addressing such risk factors during the course of a sentence is the best way to reduce a young person’s risk of reoffending. The overall goal of the youth justice system is to prevent offending by young people. Local and national government both play important roles in the system. There are 157 Youth Offending Teams in England and Wales, which are multi-agency partnerships with statutory representation from local authorities, the police, probation, health and social services. Youth Offending Teams are responsible for the delivery of youth justice services such as the assessment of offenders and supervision of community-based sentences, with the assistance of their statutory partners and other organisations. Details: London: The Stationery Office, 2010. 38p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 15, 2011 at: http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/1011/reoffending_by_young_people.aspx Year: 2010 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/1011/reoffending_by_young_people.aspx Shelf Number: 121359 Keywords: Costs of Criminal Justice Juvenile Justice Systems (U.K.) Juvenile Offenders Recidivism Rehabilitation

Author: Zhang, Ting Title: Costs of Crime in Canada, 2008 Summary: The present study provides estimates of the social and economic costs of crime in Canada. Drawing on a variety of methods documented in existing literature and other similar studies, an economic model was developed that outlined the financial costs associated with crime in Canada. Data sources used for the estimation included the Police Administration Survey, the Adult Criminal Court Survey (ACCS), the Integrated Correctional Services Survey (ICSS), the Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI), the 2004 General Social Survey (GSS) and various governmental publications. In 2008, the total (tangible) social and economic costs of Criminal Code offences in Canada were approximately $31.4 billion. This amounted to a per capita cost of $943 per year. However, this is likely to be a conservative estimate due to the unavailability of data in many areas. Despite best efforts to account for all the financial impacts of crime, only a partial picture of the true range of costs is ever available. The costs outlined herein were borne by the criminal justice system, victims of crimes and third parties in general. Details of the estimated costs of each category are presented in Summary Table 1. The costs pertaining to the Canadian criminal justice system in 2008 amounted to about $15.0 billion for policing, court, prosecution, legal aid, correctional services and mental health review boards. This figure accounted for approximately 2.5% of the total annual expenditures by all levels of governments in 2008. A breakdown of the total criminal justice costs by sector reveals that policing services used the majority of justice expenditures (57.2%), followed by corrections (32.2%), courts (4.5%), prosecutions (3.5%) and legal aid (2.5%). The most direct impact of crime is borne by victims. Of the total estimated costs, $14.3 billion was incurred as a direct result of crime, for such items as medical attention, hospitalizations, lost wages, missed school days, stolen/damaged property. Specifically, productivity losses represented 47.0% of the total costs borne by victims followed by stolen/damaged property (42.9%) and health care costs (10.1%). While crime has its most significant impact on victims, others suffer as well. Family members may grieve the loss of a loved one or take time off from their daily activities to accompany victims (e.g., to court or doctor's appointments). Governments also provide various victim services and compensation programs to help victims. All these costs are reflected in the costs to the third-party. In 2008, the total costs borne by the third-party were about 2.1 billion, including the costs to other people who were hurt or threatened in the incidents, government expenditures for providing victim services, running shelters and operating national crime prevention strategies, etc. Prior to the mid-1980s, it was generally believed that the costs of the criminal justice system dwarfed the costs imposed on victims. Once economists began to include the intangible costs of crime such as pain and suffering and lost quality of life, this relationship was reversed. For example, victim costs accounted for 45.6% of the total estimated tangible costs as presented above, but would account for 82.8% of the total costs if those intangible costs were taken into account. However, placing a monetary value on intangible items is subject to considerable uncertainty and controversy. Many studies have attempted to estimate the intangible costs of crime borne to victims, but no study has been able to produce estimates without much addendum and much critique. Notwithstanding the differences in method among studies, the consensus remains that intangible costs are often the most expensive component of victim costs. In the present study, it is estimated that the total intangible costs were about $68.2 billion in 2008, which increased the total costs of crime to $99.6 billion. See Summary Table 2 for details of the estimates of intangible costs. While intangible costs are borne by victims, they are presented separately from other tangible victim costs as these figures are based on more subjective criteria. Detailed calculations are presented in Appendix A-D. In 2005, the Research and Statistics Division estimated the total costs of crime in Canada to be $70 billion. Apart from changes in the composition and consequences of crimes, characteristics of cases disposed in criminal court, legislation and inflation, improvements in the costing methodology and data sources used have resulted in a significant increase in the total costs of crime. As certain cost elements are not included (such as mental health care costs, life-time productivity losses, lost legitimate incomes for offenders and psychological impacts on family members, etc.), it is reasonable to suggest the current 2008 estimate of $99.6 billion ($31.4 billion+$68.2 billion) is a conservative estimate. Details: Ottawa: Department of Justice Canada, 2010. 27p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 16, 2011 at: http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/pi/rs/rep-rap/2011/rr10_5/rr10_5.pdf Year: 2010 Country: Canada URL: http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/pi/rs/rep-rap/2011/rr10_5/rr10_5.pdf Shelf Number: 121370 Keywords: Costs of Crime (Canada) Costs of Criminal Justice

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: American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio Title: Reform Cannot Wait: A Comprehensive Examination of the Cost of Incarceration in Ohio from 1991-2010 Summary: Over the last twenty years, numerous experts have studied Ohio’s criminal justice system and made recommendations for reform. Unfortunately, many of those recommendations have been ignored. The result is that our criminal justice system is riddled with inefficient policies that increase cost, reduce safety, and contribute to racial disparities. Our criminal justice system is functioning well over capacity and over budget. • We are funneling a significant number of low-level, low-risk offenders into the most costly placements and away from alternatives that cost less and are more effective. • We waste resources on those who are least likely to pose some future risk to society, rather than focusing scarce resources on ensuring the most dangerous are adequately supervised. • We are sacrificing safety to continue funding costly, inefficient policies with failed results. • Communities of color around the state carry the burden of an unbalanced criminal justice system. • We fail to document how various programs function, rendering them impossible to audit for cost efficiency or success. What follows is a survey of the many studies that have analyzed Ohio’s criminal justice system, identified inefficiencies across program areas, and made recommendations to improve efficiency and fairness. For the last twenty years, these inefficiencies have been allowed to continue and grow. Recommendations were not acted upon, with officials often claiming that more study is needed and putting the problem off for another day. That day is here. In light of the current budget crisis, these inefficiencies can no longer be ignored. Details: Cleveland, OH: American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio, 2011. 20p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 21, 2011 at: http://www.acluohio.org/issues/CriminalJustice/ReformCannotWait2010_08.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.acluohio.org/issues/CriminalJustice/ReformCannotWait2010_08.pdf Shelf Number: 121467 Keywords: Costs of Criminal Justice Criminal Justice Systems Imprisonment Prisons (Ohio)

Author: Shobo, Yette Title: The Financial Burden of Substance Abuse in West Virginia: Final Report in Series 1 Summary: The growing financial cost of drug and alcohol abuse puts tremendous pressure on every social sector. The present report, part of a larger Family Funding Study project, is final in the series that examined the cost of drug and alcohol abuse to West Virginia’s criminal justice, healthcare, education, welfare, and workforce systems. This final summative report incorporates estimates from all these sectors as well as includes data from the Governor’s Highway Safety Program (GHSP) and the Commission on Drunk Driving prevention (CDDP). The first part of this report examines the magnitude of substance abuse in West Virginia. Although the overall picture is useful, delving into regional and age group variations may lead to more targeted and effective efforts to combat substance abuse in the state. Hence, the first section also examines regional and age group differences in substance use and abuse. The second part of this report will present the total cost of substance abuse in the state based on findings from the previous five reports and financialdata from the CDDP and GHSP database. Details: South Charleston, WV: West Virginia Prevention Resource Center, 2011. 12p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 25, 2011 at: http://www.prevnet.org/Funding%20Study/PDF/2011-04-FS-Final.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.prevnet.org/Funding%20Study/PDF/2011-04-FS-Final.pdf Shelf Number: 121484 Keywords: Costs of Criminal Justice Substance Abuse (West Virginia)

Author: National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) Title: Misplaced Priorities: Over Incarcerate, Under Educate Summary: For 102 years, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) has played a pivotal role in shaping a national agenda to ensure the political, educational, social, and economic equality of African Americans and others who face a history of discrimination in the United States. In this new report, Misplaced Priorities: Over Incarcerate, Under Educate, NAACP researchers assembled data from leading research organizations and profiled six cities to show how escalating investments in incarceration over the past 30 years have undermined educational opportunities. Misplaced Priorities represents a call to action for public officials, policymakers, and local NAACP units and members by providing a framework to implement a policy agenda that will financially prioritize investments in education over incarceration, provide equal protection under the law, eliminate sentencing policies responsible for over incarceration, and advance public safety strategies that effectively increase healthy development in communities. Misplaced Priorities echoes existing research on the impact excessive prison spending has on education budgets. Over the last two decades, as the criminal justice system came to assume a larger proportion of state discretionary dollars nationwide, state spending on prisons grew at six times the rate of state spending on higher education. In 2009, as the nation plummeted into the deepest recession in 30 years, funding for K–12 and higher education declined; however, in that same year, 33 states spent a larger proportion of their discretionary dollars on prisons than they had the year before. Details: Baltimore, MD: NAACP, 2011. 57p. Source: Internet Resource: April 25, 2011 at: http://naacp.3cdn.net/01d6f368edbe135234_bq0m68x5h.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://naacp.3cdn.net/01d6f368edbe135234_bq0m68x5h.pdf Shelf Number: 121488 Keywords: Costs of Criminal Justice Education Minority Groups Prison Expenditures Prisoners Race/Ethnicity Racial Discrimination

Author: Elliott D. Pollack & Company Title: Arizona Correctional Facilities Economic and Fiscal Impact Report Summary: As America’s leader in partnership corrections, CCA designs, builds, owns and manages more than 60 correctional facilities and detention centers across the country, providing corrections management services to federal, state and local clients. In Arizona, CCA owns and operates six facilities located in Eloy and Florence in Pinal County. These six facilities have a notable impact on both the local and regional economies of the State. It is estimated that the six CCA facilities currently generate: • 2,733 direct employees and 1,700 additional indirect and induced spin-off jobs. • $205.4 million in total wages each year • Annual economic output of over $435.2 million. Operations of the six facilities creates tax revenue for the State, county and local governments. Examples of taxes paid by CCA and the employees that are supported by CCA to the State and its political subdivisions include state income and unemployment taxes, sales taxes, property taxes and HURF and vehicle license taxes. In addition to the economic impacts stated above, it is estimated that CCA operations result in an impact of approximately $26.2 million in taxes to the State of Arizona and its political subdivisions annually. The continued expansion of CCA facilities in Arizona would create significant tax revenues for the communities and counties in which they are located, as well as for the State of Arizona as a whole. At an estimated cost of $200 million, the construction of a single 3,000-bed facility would generate: • 2,528 direct, indirect and induced person years of employment • $116.4 million in wages and • $300.1 million in total economic output for the entire construction period. As soon as the facility is constructed and operating it would create: • 450 direct jobs, 187 indirect and induced jobs. • $26.2 million in wages • $55.0 million in economic output on an annual basis. Each additional facility would generate revenues for State, County, and local governments of $16.9 million from construction-related activity and over $4.8 million annually from operations. Details: Scottsdale, AZ: Elliott D. Pollack & Co., 2010. 22p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 25, 2011 at: http://www.cca.com/static/assets/CCA_Arizona_Impact_Report_2009_FINAL_011810.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.cca.com/static/assets/CCA_Arizona_Impact_Report_2009_FINAL_011810.pdf Shelf Number: 121491 Keywords: Costs of Criminal Justice Prison Construction Private Prisons (Arizona) Privatization

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: Cowell, Alexander J. Title: A Cost Analysis of the Bexar County, Texas, Jail Diversion Program. Report 2: An Analysis of Cost-Shifting between the Treatment and Criminal Justice Systems Summary: This report is the second in a series of reports on a cost analysis of the jail diversion program in Bexar County, Texas. The overall study addressed three main questions: 􀂃 What does it cost to divert one person? 􀂃 How does diversion shift costs between the criminal justice system and the treatment system? 􀂃 What is the cost-effectiveness of jail diversion? This report presents results for the second question: How does diversion shift costs between the criminal justice system and the treatment system? The study combined a strong research design with detailed data on criminal justice and treatment resources that were underwritten either in part or in full by Bexar County and the city of San Antonio. The main findings are as follows. ES.1 Pre-Booking Diversion 􀂃 Combining criminal justice and treatment costs during pre-booking diversion was associated with $3,200 in lower costs per person during the first 6 months after diversion. 􀂃 In the absence of pre-booking diversion, cross-system (i.e., criminal justice and treatment) costs would have been more than $1.2 million higher during the 6 months immediately after diversion. 􀂃 Criminal justice resource needs — a large proportion of which are underwritten through local funds — may have been more than $1.4 million higher had pre-booking diversion not been in place. 􀂃 The study did not find reliable evidence on the impact of pre-booking diversion on treatment costs. However, the findings did indicate that, in the 12- to 18-month and 18- to 24-month periods, diversion was associated with improved access to treatment. ES.2 Post-Booking Diversion 􀂃 Post-booking diversion was associated with about $1,200 in lower costs per person more than the 18- to 24-month period after entry into diversion. 􀂃 Across the criminal justice and treatment systems combined, had post-booking diversion not been in place, costs would have been $700,000 higher. 􀂃 Post-booking diversion was also associated with $400,000 in lower criminal justice costs in the 18 to 24 months after diversion. 􀂃 There was little reliable evidence on the degree to which costs were shifted into treatment. Limited evidence indicated some improved access to the Center for Health Care Services (CHCS) in the 6- to 12-month period and indicated that treatment costs overall were actually lower in the 12- to 18-month period. As Bexar County continues to expand its public safety net, it now has strong evidence that one of its cornerstone programs can be justified on fiscal grounds. Its jail diversion program encompasses the two major types of diversion—pre-booking and post-booking diversion— and is designed to help people with mental health problems and people in need of treatment along the spectrum of criminal justice interactions. Both pre-booking and post-booking jail diversion were associated with lower taxpayer costs particularly criminal justice costs. The program provides hope to jail diversion participants that they can obtain the treatment they need and integrate safely back into the community rather than getting stuck in the repetitive criminal justice cycle. This study has demonstrated that the program also helps contain public costs and is an effective use of scarce community resources. Details: Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI International, 2008. 83p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 9, 2011 at: http://www.naco.org/programs/csd/Documents/Criminal%20Justice/Jail%20Diversion%20Forum%20Materials/Cost%20Benefit%20Study.pdf Year: 2008 Country: United States URL: http://www.naco.org/programs/csd/Documents/Criminal%20Justice/Jail%20Diversion%20Forum%20Materials/Cost%20Benefit%20Study.pdf Shelf Number: 121662 Keywords: Cost-Benefit Analysis (Texas) Costs of Criminal Justice Jail Diversion Treatment Programs

Author: Drake, Elizabeth Title: Washington State Juvenile Court Funding: Applying Research in a Public Policy Setting Summary: During the last 15 years, the Washington State Legislature has taken a number of steps to develop an “evidence-based” juvenile justice system. The central concept has been to identify and implement strategies shown — through rigorous research — to reduce crime cost-effectively. In 2009, the Legislature turned its attention to the mechanism through which Washington’s 33 juvenile courts receive state dollars. That year’s state budget bill directed a committee of stakeholders to develop a new funding formula that emphasizes “evidence-based programs … and disposition alternatives.” The legislation requires state funds for local juvenile courts to be administered as a “block grant.” A block grant is a sum of money distributed to a court with general provisions, resulting in local flexibility in how funds are spent. “Categorical grants,” Washington’s previous mechanism for distributing state funds to juvenile courts, have more restrictive provisions. The Washington State Institute for Public Policy (Institute) was directed by the legislation to report to the Legislature and the Office of Financial Management on the administration of the block grant including (1) criteria used to allocate funding, and (2) report on participants in programs subject to the block grant. To provide a context for this report, we first summarize key policy reforms over the past 15 years that have established an emphasis on providing evidence-based programs in Washington’s juvenile justice system. We then discuss the funding formula developed by the committee. Details: Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy, 2010. 12p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 9, 2011 at: http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/rptfiles/10-12-1201.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/rptfiles/10-12-1201.pdf Shelf Number: 121678 Keywords: Cost-Benefit Analysis Costs of Criminal Justice Evidence-Based Policy Juvenile Court (Washington State) Juvenile Justice System Juvenile Offenders

Author: Delgado, Amalia Greenberg Title: Costs and Consequences: The High Price of Policing Immigrant Communities Summary: Local police and sheriffs are facing some of the most difficult fiscal constraints in decades. At the same time, federal immigration law and policy have not kept pace with our nation’s workplace needs and other global causes of migration. The federal immigration failure creates both pressures and incentives for local police and sheriff ’s deputies to act as immigration agents, but it also creates additional costs and burdens for local peace officers and agencies who want to stay out of the immigration enforcement business. This report explores the costs and consequences of local enforcement of federal immigration law. It addresses both purposeful collaboration between local law enforcement agencies (LLEAs) and the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and the incidental costs incurred by LLEAs through discretionary enforcement decisions that particularly impact immigrant communities. Because most LLEAs in northern California have policies against enforcing civil immigration laws, our primary goal is to provide practical guidance to further those policies and minimize the fiscal and social costs of incidental immigration enforcement. The report begins with an overview of the immigration landscape in California, with myth-busting facts about immigrants and an overview of the social and fiscal costs of local immigration enforcement. The price—often hidden—of local police practices that lead to civil immigration enforcement is quite high: scarce resources are diverted from pressing public safety needs, immigrant victims and witnesses fear reporting crime to the police, criminal investigations are undermined by a lack of trust between police and immigrant community members, and sometimes the rights of individuals (including U.S. citizens) are violated. We also examine how every stage of police officers’ everyday interactions with individuals — from responding to a 911 call or conducting a traffic stop to questioning an arrestee during booking —can lead to immigration consequences, with an attendant cost to local agencies. Personal stories illustrate some of the dynamics at play, legal analyses are provided, and proposals for local action suggest ways in which police can limit their hand in federal immigration enforcement to redirect resources and enhance public safety. Proposals are embedded in the body of the report. Detailed recommendations are available as a free-standing summary. There can be no doubt that California residents have a responsibility to abide by the laws of the state and the country at large and that local police and sheriffs play an essential role in protecting the public safety of all communities. By considering new ways in which police and community members can move ahead together in a climate of great fiscal and social pressures, we can more accurately gauge and control the costs of local policing in immigrant communities and direct our efforts toward public safety priorities that are cost-effective, helpful to crime-fighting, and fair to all. Details: San Francisco: ACLU of Northern California, 2011. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 10, 2011 at: http://www.aclunc.org/docs/criminal_justice/police_practices/costs_and_consequences.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.aclunc.org/docs/criminal_justice/police_practices/costs_and_consequences.pdf Shelf Number: 121701 Keywords: Costs of Criminal Justice Illegal Immigrants Immigrants Immigration (California)

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: Page, Anna Title: Counting the Cost: The Financial Impact of Supporting Women with Multiple Needs in the Criminal Justice System Summary: This report focuses on the financial impact of supporting women with multiple needs in the criminal justice system. Funded by the Corston Independent Funders’ Coalition, the report focuses on findings from our women-specific Financial Analysis Model, and shows that an investment of £18 million per year in women’s centres could save the public purse almost £1 billion over five years. The women-specific Financial Analysis Model is based on the idea that individuals in contact with the criminal justice system go through different distinct stages or situations, which are characterised by different patterns of service use. The model identifies nine different stages typically experienced by women with multiple needs in contact with the criminal justice system. The cost of each stage is calculated by establishing the cost and likelihood of each service contact. Patterns of service use are based on analysis of client data and interviews with service users and staff at three women’s centres: Anawim in Birmingham, Women Outside Walls in Newcastle (a Cyrenians project) and ISIS Women’s Centre, Gloucester (run by the Nelson Trust). Workshops were also held at Alana House, Reading (a PACT project) and Women Ahead at Jagonari, London to test findings. The model considers 14 different types of service contact, including arrest, court, prison, probation, ambulance, methadone prescribing, housing support, benefits and children being taken into local authority care. It shows that the likely total cost of contact with these services is dramatically higher when women are living chaotic lives characterised by substance misuse and crime. The costs to the criminal justice system are particularly high. The model shows that when women do not receive support to address the underlying causes of this chaos and crime, they are likely to continue costly patterns of service use resulting in a quickly escalating bill to the public purse. However, when women successfully move away from these patterns of chaos, crime and repeat prison sentences, the cost to public purse can fall dramatically. The model estimates that an investment of £18 million per year would provide gender-specific support to more than 13,000 women across the country. Without support, these women would be likely to cost public services more than £2 billion over five years. However with investment in women’s services, this cost could be almost halved. Details: London: Revolving Doors Agency, 2011. 44p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 18, 2011 at: http://www.revolving-doors.org.uk/news--blog/news/counting-the-cost/ Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.revolving-doors.org.uk/news--blog/news/counting-the-cost/ Shelf Number: 121752 Keywords: Cost Benefit Analysis Costs of Criminal Justice Female Offenders, Services for (U.K.) Financial Support Health Services Housing, Ex-Offenders

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: Great Britain. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary Title: Adapting to Austerity: A review of police force and authority preparedness for the 2011/12 – 14/15 CSR period Summary: It has never been more important for forces and authorities to make effective decisions on how to manage their resources and improve their efficiency. Therefore in Spring 2011 HMIC carried out an inspection into the preparedness of forces and authorities to cope with the financial challenges of the CSR period. This provided an external challenge to forces by testing their assumptions and approach, and aimed to share knowledge and provide assurance to police authorities in the lead-up to publication of their medium term financial plans. This review incorporates the overall findings from our preparedness inspection, and examines:  the plans forces and authorities have made;  what this means across England and Wales as a whole;  how different forces compare;  whether frontline numbers will reduce;  the impact of this on crime and police visibility; and  the need to transform the efficiency of support functions. Details: London: HMIC, 2011. 42p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 3, 2011 at: http://www.hmic.gov.uk/publication/adapting-austerity-review-police/ Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.hmic.gov.uk/publication/adapting-austerity-review-police/ Shelf Number: 122296 Keywords: Costs of Criminal Justice Police Administration Police Budgets Policing (U.K.)

Author: Thalberg, Rebecca S. Title: Family-Based Re-Entry Programming: A Promising Tool for Reducing Recidivism and Mitigating the Economic and Societal Costs of Incarceration in California Summary: This paper explores the possibility of introducing family-based re-entry programming into California's correctional establishments as a means of facilitating an offender's successful transition from prison into society. Increasing the occurrence of successful reintegration will ultimately decrease the space constraints and costs associated with California's prison system and simultaneously work to mitigate the harmful collateral effects that imprisonment has on families and communities. After examining various models of family-based programming employed in other states, both short-term and long-term incorporation options are proposed, which are designed specifically to dovetail with California's existing structure. This proposal for gradual implementation incorporates the strongest components of the programs studied and is likely to result in higher success rates among offenders exiting prison. Details: Stanford, CA: Stanford University, Criminal Justice Center, 2006. 48p. Source: Internet Resource: Working Paper: Accessed August 11, 2011 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=976967 Year: 2006 Country: United States URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=976967 Shelf Number: 122370 Keywords: Costs of Criminal Justice Families of Inmates Prisoner Reentry (California) Rehabilitation

Author: American Civil Liberties Union Title: Smart Reform is Possible: States Reducing Incarceration Rates and Costs While Protecting Communities Summary: Since President Richard Nixon first announced the “War on Drugs” forty years ago, the United States has adopted “tough on crime” criminal justice policies that have given it the dubious distinction of having the highest incarceration rate in the world. These past forty years of criminal justice policymaking have been characterized by overcriminalization, increasingly draconian sentencing and parole regimes, mass incarceration of impoverished communities of color, and rapid prison building. These policies have also come at a great expense to taxpayers. But budget shortfalls of historic proportions are finally prompting states across the country to realize that less punitive approaches to criminal justice not only make more fiscal sense but also better protect our communities. This report details how several states with long histories of being “tough on crime” have embraced alternatives to incarceration, underscoring that reform is not only politically and fiscally viable, but that other states must also urgently follow suit. Between 1970 and 2010, the number of people incarcerated in this country grew by 700%. As a result, the United States incarcerates almost a quarter of the prisoners in the entire world although we have only 5% of the world’s population.1 At no other point in U.S. history — even when slavery was legal — have so many people been unnecessarily deprived of their liberty. Too often, lawmakers have devised criminal justice policy in emotional response to a highly publicized crime or perception of a crime trend. This misguided lawmaking has resulted in both overly punitive laws that cast too wide a net and inhumanely long prison sentences that have little to do with maintaining public safety. The massive explosion in our prison population has caused federal and state governments to dramatically escalate their spending on corrections. States have been spending an ever-increasing percentage of their budgets on prison related expenses, cutting into scarce dollars for public education and other vital services. The racial disparities resulting from this system have been staggering. Black individuals are imprisoned at nearly six times the rate of their white counterparts — and Latinos are locked up at nearly double the white rate. Most of this racial disparity is a result of the War on Drugs. While these groups engage in drug use, possession, and sales at rates comparable to their representation in the general population, the system disparately impacts people of color. For example, black individuals comprise 13% of the U.S. population and 14% of drug users, yet they are 37% of the people arrested for drug offenses and 56% of those incarcerated for drug crimes. For decades, the ACLU has been litigating and advocating to reform our criminal justice system into one that is both fair and effective. There are simply too many people in prison who do not need to be there, and whose long imprisonment does not serve society. Putting an individual behind bars should be an option of last resort, rather than a first response to social problems. Incarceration is often not necessary and can be detrimental to the widely shared goal of keeping our communities safe.In the past few years, the public and policymakers across the political spectrum have started to recognize that criminal justice reform is both necessary and politically viable. Lawmakers have steadily become interested in alternatives to incarceration that have proven to produce more effective public safety outcomes (“evidence-based” policies). “Get tough on crime” politicians are talking instead about being “smart on crime” and legislators are enacting bills supporting evidence-based programs — like diverting people charged with lower-level drug offenses into treatment instead of incarcerating them and imposing non-prison sanctions on those who violate the technical terms of their probation and parole instead of simply returning them to prison. Most recently, the U.S. Supreme Court has also weighed in on the debate. In May 2011, in Plata v. Brown, the Supreme Court recognized the dangers of overcrowded prisons, mandating that the state of California enact reforms to reduce its prison population in order to alleviate unconstitutional overcrowding. Reforms that rely less on incarceration have long made economic sense, but dramatically declining state revenues are making changes to the criminal justice system more urgent. The state budget crunch has forced many to finally realize the economic necessity of and reasoning behind reducing this country’s unnecessary overreliance on prisons. Fiscal prudence has produced new allies who agree that the nation’s addiction to incarceration is bad public policy. The need for financial austerity has created an unprecedented opening for advocates to promote fair and more effective criminal justice policies that protect public safety, reduce recidivism, keep communities intact, and move away from our overreliance on incarceration, all while saving taxpayer dollars. Recent reform efforts in several states have undermined the erroneous and misguided notion that mass incarceration is necessary to protect our public safety. States like New York, which depopulated its prisons by 20% from 1999 to 2009, and Texas, which has stabilized its prison population growth since 2007, are presently experiencing the lowest state crime rates in decades. This report offers a selection of recommendations for legislative and administrative reforms that states should implement to reduce their incarcerated populations and corrections budgets, while keeping our communities safe. These recommendations cover: systemic reforms to the criminal justice apparatus as a whole; “front-end” reforms that focus on reducing the number of people entering jails and prisons; and “back-end” reforms that increase the number of people exiting and staying out of prison. These recommendations are by no means exhaustive, but aim to provide advocates and lawmakers with a few key evidence-based and politically-tested reforms from which to craft a state-specific legislative agenda for criminal justice reform. This report documents bipartisan criminal justice reforms in six states—Texas, Kansas, Mississippi, South Carolina, Ohio, and Kentucky—and ongoing efforts in four more—California, Louisiana, Maryland, and Indiana. Several other states have also recently enacted reforms but this report deliberately focuses on states that have long had reputations for being “tough on crime.” Each state profile describes how and why state lawmakers moved from escalating prison growth and costs to significant reforms that either have already or are projected to reduce the incarcerated population and save scarce public funds. These profiles are intended to provide lawmakers and advocates with a practical “how to” guide to reform state prison systems. This report describes each of the major legislative and administrative reforms adopted in the profiled states and identifies additional states that are on the cusp of significant reforms. While lowering costs, these reforms increased or had no detrimental effect on public safety in the states profiled. While this report highlights more rational, evidence-based criminal justice policymaking, it does not suggest that the reforms enacted in the profiled states are sufficient. Indeed, to return to the nation’s incarceration rates of 1970, we would have to release four out of every five current prisoners in the United States. Instead, this report offers the examples of these states to inspire further reform in those states, as well as to provoke reform in other states and the federal system. Details: New York: ACLU, 2011. 80p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 16, 2011 at: http://www.aclu.org/files/assets/smartreformispossible.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.aclu.org/files/assets/smartreformispossible.pdf Shelf Number: 122413 Keywords: Costs of Criminal Justice Crime Control Policy Criminal Justice Policy, Reform of

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: Shubik-Richards, Claire Title: Philadelphia's Less Crowded, Less Costly Jails: Taking Stock of a Year of Change and the Challenges That Remain Summary: A new study from The Pew Charitable Trusts’ Philadelphia Research Initiative finds that Philadelphia’s jail population decreased dramatically last year due to reductions among both the number of individuals held pretrial and those held for alleged violations of their probation or parole. Join the Philadelphia Research Initiative for a Webinar to learn more about our latest analysis of the city's inmate population, including the factors that have contributed to its decline, the policies and practices that impact its size and what it means for the city's bottom line. Details: Philadelphia: Pew Charitable Trusts, Philadelphia Research Initiative, 2011. 29p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 31, 2011 at: http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/Reports/Philadelphia_Research_Initiative/Philadelphia-Jail-Population.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/Reports/Philadelphia_Research_Initiative/Philadelphia-Jail-Population.pdf Shelf Number: 122571 Keywords: Correctional Institutions Costs of Criminal Justice Jail Overcrowding Jails (Philadelphia) Pretrial Detention

Author: Bond, Brenda J. Title: Facing the Economic Crisis: Challenges for Massachusetts Police Chiefs Summary: Police chiefs across Massachusetts are embroiled in an extraordinary management struggle – balancing unrelenting public safety demands while adapting to drastic reductions in resources. The general public may not instinctively think of local police chiefs as executive-level managers engulfed by the financial and operational effectiveness of their organizations, but the exceptional financial state of the Commonwealth and municipalities requires a new level of human and financial management by police chiefs and local administrators. There remain high expectations from the community and local officials as a result of community policing and increased community participation in public safety and increased pressures for transparency and accountability. The interplay between these factors calls for a more sophisticated system for managing the contemporary police organization. More than simply “top cops,” today’s police chiefs must serve as a public safety executive, identifying ways to maintain and improve public safety in the face of rapidly declining resources, increasing costs, and limited flexibility in this time of economic adversity. To understand the experiences and challenges of local police chiefs, we interviewed six (6) Massachusetts police chiefs who represent the Commonwealth’s “Middle Cities.” In-depth interviews offered insight into the operational, strategic and community challenges facing police chiefs as a result of the state’s current economic crisis. Police chiefs reported on the significant management resources directed towards developing and revising budgets, an inescapable side-effect of the constantly changing financial environment. While their experiences and strategies mimic many in the private and non-profit sectors, the pressures surrounding budgetary decision making are decidedly different for public safety managers. Investments in community policing strategies are being tested, and increasing expectations to demonstrate value to citizens and civic leaders alike create additional pressures on public safety leaders. The chiefs interviewed expressed frustration with two common and reasonable demands: to engage with the public in a meaningful and valuable way and direct sufficient resources to emergency calls for service. While the chiefs have been able to balance these proactive and responsive services, they report that it is increasingly difficult to do. Financial predictions for the coming fiscal years are dismal, and chiefs are holding on to those strategies which allow them to get the biggest bang for their buck. These chiefs believe that safe and thriving communities require continued investment in proactive work and emergency response strategies, and they believe community economic development is directly linked to public safety. As a result, the chiefs are being strategic in the way that they address resource shortfalls. Grant programs from state and federal governments allow the chiefs to address technology or equipment shortcomings, among other gaps, and their agencies aggressively pursue these resources. Further, they are committed to partnerships with local, state, federal, non-profit organizations, and the community. Through these partnerships they work to sustain the many gains achieved through the adoption of community and problem-oriented policing. The community connections, innovative and proactive engagement, and resource multiplication that have been realized through these partnerships have helped them get through this time of financial shortfall. This paper provides a brief account of experiences and challenges facing police chiefs in several midsized cities in Massachusetts, the factors which impact their decision making and the strategies they utilize, and discusses the various ways in which chiefs are adapting to changing financial and social contexts. Details: Boston: Pioneer Institute, 2010. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: White Paper, No. 58: Accessed September 2, 2011 at: http://www.pioneerinstitute.org/pdf/100426_facing_economic_crisis.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.pioneerinstitute.org/pdf/100426_facing_economic_crisis.pdf Shelf Number: 122617 Keywords: Collaboration Costs of Criminal Justice Economics Partnerships Police Administrators Policing (Massachusetts)

Author: Boyd, Edward Title: Cost of the Cops: Manpower and Deployment in Policing Summary: The Great Police Expansion (2001-2010)...  The backdrop to the current debate around police funding is clear: the police service in England and Wales has never been better resourced. The last decade has seen an unprecedented rise in police expenditure: in nominal terms police expenditure has increased by 56% between 2001-2 and 2009-10 reaching more than £14.5 billion – up 25% in real terms since 2001.  The increases over the last decade dwarfed even the large increases that the police enjoyed in the 1980s and taxpayers in England and Wales have never spent as much on policing as they do today. In 2010, each household was paying £614 per year for policing, up from £395 in 2001.  Policing in England and Wales is among the most expensive in the developed world. A comparison of policing revenue expenditure as a proportion of gross domestic product (GDP) for a number of comparable, Common Law jurisdictions shows that UK police expenditure in 2010 was higher than the USA, Canada, New Zealand and Australia.  The decade of expansion in police funding also consisted of more local funding (including through business rates) with all police forces seeing significant increases in the police precept on council tax. Share of police funding raised from the precept increased from around 12% in 2001-2 to 23% at the end of the last decade.  At force level, elements of police personnel expenditure saw marked increases, including in overtime paymentswhich rose from £289million in 2000-1 to £381 million in 2009-10, having peaked at £437 million in 2007-8. The increase occurred concurrently with a 12% increase in officer numbers, suggesting that poor management drove the increase in overtime rather than under-resourcing (See: Police Overtime Expenditure, Policy Exchange, February 2011).  Total police officer strength rose 15% from 123,476 at March 2001 to 141,631 at March 2010. The number of Special Constables (volunteer officers) also increased 22% from 12,738 to 15,505, having dipped briefly to under 11,000 at March 2004. The increase in officer numbers was principally fuelled by the creation of The Crime Fighting Fund (CFF) in 2000, which provided a Home Office grant “designed to maintain/increase the number of police officers.”  The result of increased expenditure tied to schemes like the CFF was a large rise in recruitment and subsequently an increase in officers at every policing rank. Between 2001 and 2010 the greatest absolute increase in personnel occurred at the level of constable (12,000 were added to the ranks), yet the make-up of officers tilted in favour of more senior ranks and proportionally there were more significant increases in the middle management of police forces.  Increased spending since 2001 also translated into a large increase in the number of civilian staff (made up of police staff, PCSOs, Designated Officers and Traffic Wardens), who increased 73% from 57,104 to 98,801 over the decade. The number of civilians now employed means that there are seven civilian staff members for every ten police officers.  The number of Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs) in particular has grown since they were first piloted in 2003, reaching 16,685 in 2010, as have the number of designated officers (first introduced in 2005), who have increased to 3,809. PCSOs were a critical component in facilitating the roll-out of Neighbourhood Policing – one of the most important policing reforms of recent history – by creating a more visible and available police service.  If the police were a single company, they would be a significantly bigger (22% bigger) employer than Tesco Plc in the UK (Tesco Plc employed 196,604 FTE in 2010 (UK), the police service employed 240,432 FTE). The Next Four Years...  In this context budget reductions over the next four years will be from a high base and in this regard, policing in England and Wales is in a comparatively strong position: more officers than ever before, better supported by historically high numbers of civilian staff and new technology, and facing reduced crime demand after more than a decade of reductions in volume offences (as measured by the British Crime Survey).  The reductions planned for 2010-15 are large historically, and they will be challenging, but they are not excessive. Viewed in context, they do no more than reduce annual police funding to the level that would have been reached in 2015 if the trend rate of growth 1979-2001 had continued. The expansion after 2001 took police funding far higher than the trend increases of previous decades, and the funding agreed in the 2010 CSR will act to correct this unprecedented “surge”. The 20% budget reductions from the 2010 high amount to 14% over four years once local funding is taken into account.  By the end of the period (2014-15), we will still be spending more than £12 billion on policing each year, or £500 per household in England and Wales – more than what was spent in 2004 and £100 more than was spent in 2001 when funding totalled £9 billion.  Some forces – mostly in the north of England and the Midlands – as HMIC have noted, are facing more significant challenges, particularly if their total share of funding from central government is higher. It is certain that police forces will be smaller in 2015 than they were in 2010. Post the personnel reductions planned by forces up to 2015 there will still be 210,000 police employees in England and Wales – the same number as at March 2004. Details: London: Policy Exchange, 2011. 106p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 6, 2011 at: http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/images/publications/pdfs/Cost_of_the_Cops_-_Sep__11.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/images/publications/pdfs/Cost_of_the_Cops_-_Sep__11.pdf Shelf Number: 122651 Keywords: Costs of Criminal Justice Police Officers Police Staffing Policing (U.K.)

Author: Police Executive Research Forum Title: Is the Economic Downturn Fundamentally Changing How We Police? Summary: This report is not the first that PERF has published on the topic of the economic crisis that has been impacting police departments since 2008. In January 2009, we conducted a survey of police departments and found that nearly two-thirds of them were already preparing plans for an overall cut in their funding for the next fiscal year. And we produced a report with the title, Violent Crime and the Economic Crisis: Police Chiefs Face a New Challenge. Over the last 23 months, there has been a growing discussion about whether a “new normal” is being imposed on police agencies, about whether budget cuts are causing permanent changes in how we do our business. Thus, the title of this new report: Is the Economic Downturn Fundamentally Changing How We Police? So this report does not just tell a story about yesterday. Now we are telling a story about yesterday, today, and tomorrow. The basic facts reflect a harsh reality. A new survey that we conducted in September 2010 found that slightly more than half of the responding police departments suffered cuts in their total funding in the 2010 fiscal year, and among those agencies, the average cut was 7 percent. Furthermore, 59 percent of those departments are preparing to cut their budgets again in 2011. Overall, among all departments surveyed, there has been a 3-percent decrease in the average number of sworn officers. This report recounts compelling stories, as told by police chiefs who attended a Summit we held in Washington on September 30, 2010, of what those cuts mean in terms of daily police operations. The cuts mean layoffs, unpaid furloughs, reductions in officer training and in the development of technology, elimination of special units such as gang and drug units, and other ways of reaching budget targets. Details: Washington, DC: PERF, 2010. 52p. Source: Internet Resource: Critical Issues in Policing Series: Accessed September 16, 2011 at: http://www.policeforum.org/library/critical-issues-in-policing-series/Econdownturnaffectpolicing12.10.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.policeforum.org/library/critical-issues-in-policing-series/Econdownturnaffectpolicing12.10.pdf Shelf Number: 122755 Keywords: Costs of Crime (U.S.) Costs of Criminal Justice Economics Police Administration Police Agencies

Author: Police Executive Research Forum Title: Violent Crime and the Economic Crisis: Police Chiefs Face a New Challenge: PART I Summary: If there is one thing that police chiefs can count on, it’s that they will constantly be faced with new challenges and problems. Less than a year ago, the issues at the top of many chiefs’ agendas had to do with recent spikes in violent crime, dealing with gang-related crime, and for some departments, the hot-button issue of immigration enforcement at the local level. But then came the 2008 economic crisis, and with it the reductions in many local jurisdictions’ tax bases. Suddenly, the most pressing issue for many chiefs was how they were going to manage 5-percent cuts in their current-year budgets, with 10- or 20-percent cuts next year, and who knows what after that. Should they cut some programs to the bone in order to avoid any reductions in sworn personnel? Or cut some sworn personnel in order to avoid devastating damage to training programs or needed technological upgrades? And what will the cuts mean to the progress that has been made in crime control and community policing? None of the choices look good, and it doesn’t help that chiefs had little or no warning of the budget calamity. But that is the world of local police executives — every day, tough decisions that cannot be avoided. This report reflects the upheavals that have occurred in recent months. It is part of PERF’s Critical Issues in Policing series, which for several years has aimed to track the issues of greatest concern to police departments. We talk to chiefs every day and hear what’s on their minds; we conduct surveys to gather information on the emerging issues; and we hold Summits where chiefs and mayors come together to talk about their problems and compare notes about the solutions they are developing. This year, we conducted our Critical Issues survey in the last week of July, and began by asking chiefs for their latest crime statistics, as we have done several times since we first noticed that violent crime levels in many cities spiked in 2005. We also asked about the factors that chiefs saw as contributing to the crime problems in their jurisdictions. But as we were writing the questions for this year’s survey, it already was becoming clear that the national economy was in serious trouble. Many of the bad headlines did not come until later — Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, AIG, Washington Mutual, Wachovia, the $700-billion financial industry rescue bill, and the auto industry crisis, to name a few. But the Bear Stearns collapse and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bailouts had already occurred, and we were already hearing anecdotal reports that police budgets were being hurt. So we added some questions to our survey about the economic crisis, and the results were startling. As detailed later in this report, nearly 40 percent of the responding agencies said they had already experienced a decrease in their operating budgets. Details: Washington, DC: PERF, 2009. 60p. Source: Internet Resource: Critical Issues in Policing Series: Accessed September 16, 2011 at: http://policeforum.org/library/critical-issues-in-policing-series/VCrime&EconomyI.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: http://policeforum.org/library/critical-issues-in-policing-series/VCrime&EconomyI.pdf Shelf Number: 122757 Keywords: Costs of Criminal Justice Economics Police Administration (U.S.) Police Agencies

Author: Porter, Lindsay Title: Trends in the Use of Remand in Canada Summary: Over the last decade, the composition of Canada’s correctional population has changed, most notably as a result of an increase in the number of adults admitted to custody on remand. Remand is the temporary detention of a person while awaiting trial, sentencing or the commencement of a custodial disposition. According to the Criminal Code, adults and youth can be admitted to remand for a variety of reasons, including to ensure attendance in court, for the protection or safety of the public or to maintain public confidence in the justice system. An increase in the adult remand population can have a number of repercussions on the operations of correctional services. For example, correctional costs can increase as can the challenges for managing the safety and well-being of the remand population. Also, planning correctional space can become increasingly difficult since the length of time an individual spends in remand is not predictable (Johnson, 2003). Using data drawn primarily from the Adult Correctional Services (ACS) Survey, the Youth Custody and Community Services (YCCS) Survey, the Integrated Correctional Services Survey (ICSS) and the Key Indicator Reports (KIR) for Adults and Youth, this Juristat article analyses recent trends in the use of remand in Canada. As the principles and legislation governing detainment differ for adults and youth, separate analyses are presented for each population group. This article makes use of two basic indicators that describe the use of correctional services: the average number or count of individuals in correctional facilities on a daily basis and the number of annual admissions. Admissions are collected each time a person begins any type of custodial or community supervision, and describe and measure the case-flow in correctional agencies over time. The same person can be included several times in the admission counts where the individual moves from one type of legal status to another (e.g., from remand to sentenced custody) or re-enters the system in the same year. It is important to note that the most recent year of data for the average number of those in correctional facilities is 2009/2010 whereas the most recent year of data for annual admissions is 2008/2009. Also, in some cases, not all jurisdictions were able to report complete data. Where this is the case, exclusions are noted. Details: Ottawa: Statistics Canada, 2011. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Juristat Article: Accessed September 20, 2011 at: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2011001/article/11440-eng.pdf Year: 2011 Country: Canada URL: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2011001/article/11440-eng.pdf Shelf Number: 122795 Keywords: Corrections (Canada) Costs of Criminal Justice Pretrial Detention Prisoners

Author: Branche, Afton Title: The Cost of Failure: The Burden of Immigration Enforcement in America's Cities Summary: Faced with gaping budget shortfalls, communities across America are struggling to preserve core public services. Yet amidst cutbacks to education, street repairs, and even fire protection, one growing burden on our cities has gone largely unexamined: the local costs of enforcing the nation’s federal immigration laws. This paper explores the fiscal, administrative, public safety and civic costs that cities incur as they assume increased responsibility for immigration enforcement. We find that while the vast majority of Americans believe that the nation’s immigration system needs to be reformed, the current laws are being enforced more rigorously than ever – and our fiscally strapped cities are bearing too much of the cost. Drawing on the latest research in cities around the country, we examine three federal-local partnership programs that leverage urban communities and their resources in service of federal immigration enforcement goals—287(g), Secure Communities and the Criminal Alien Program. We find that these programs impose high costs on city budgets and local economies, prove counterproductive to protecting public safety, and draw support from a misguided understanding of the relationship between immigration and crime. KEY FINDINGS Local immigration enforcement is costly for city budgets and local economies. One joint federal-local enforcement program, 287(g), costs many local governments more than a million dollars in unreimbursed costs a year. Mecklenburg County, NC, spent an estimated $5.3 million to set up and operate the 287(g) program in its first year. According to the Government Accountability Office, 62 percent of local law enforcement agencies that participate in 287(g) receive no federal reimbursement for any costs associated with the program. The federal government reimburses cities for less than a quarter of city and county costs for jailing immigrants who have committed crimes, an expense incurred under all the federal-local enforcement programs. Immigrants produce 20 percent of the economic output in the nation’s largest metropolitan areas, according to the Fiscal Policy Institute. When immigration enforcement programs succeed in pushing local immigrant populations underground, local economies suffer: businesses close, jobs and tax revenue are lost. Local immigration enforcement is counterproductive to public safety. Enforcing civil immigration law diverts police time and resources away from criminal matters. In one extreme case, when Maricopa County, AZ began immigration enforcement, local deputies arrived late two-thirds of the time to the most serious emergency 911 calls. County detectives’ arrest rates for criminal investigations plummeted. Local immigration enforcement undermines police-community relationships in immigrant communities, deterring crime reporting. In Salt Lake City, UT, experts found that one in three city residents are unwilling to report drug-related crimes when local law enforcement has the power to detain based on immigration status. The growth of Secure Communities, a mandatory program for local governments, undermines successful community policing strategies including policies in which local authorities agree not to inquire about the immigration status of crime victims and suspects. Local immigration enforcement is misguided as a crime control strategy. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) reportedly aims to target non-citizens who have committed serious crimes. Yet 57 percent of immigrants identified by the Criminal Alien Program and 65 percent of those identified by 287(g) in FY 2009 were never convicted of a crime. Since October 2008, Secure Communities has transferred over 52,000 non-criminal immigrants to ICE custody. Among the immigrants detained by local law enforcement who were convicted of crimes, many were charged with minor offenses. In Davidson County, TN, 75 percent of immigrants marked for deportation were picked up for traffic offenses. In Irving, TX, 98 percent of individuals held under immigration detainers were charged with misdemeanors. Proponents of local immigration enforcement make false connections between immigration and crime. According to decades of research, immigrants—including undocumented immigrants—don’t commit crimes at higher rates than U.S.-born residents. The majority of communities have low or declining crime rates when they sign local immigration enforcement agreements. The proliferation of local 287(g) agreements is more closely linked to the rapid growth of a region’s immigrant population (including legal residents as well as unauthorized immigrants) and to its ideological bent than it is to rates of violent or property crime. The consequences of immigration policy decisions made—or avoided—at the federal level manifest on the ground in cities, where millions of immigrants and their families have settled. Effective immigration enforcement in cities will ultimately require a comprehensive reform of our immigration policy, including a more flexible visa program to encourage legal entry and a path to legal residence and citizenship status for currently undocumented immigrants. Federal policies that provide for the legalization and integration of immigrants and their families will help address the challenges faced by new destination cities confronting rapid demographic change. Without these and other immigration reforms, our expanding local enforcement system will continue to burden our cities and sweep up hundreds of thousands of non-criminal immigrants who are supporting urban economies by living, working and raising families. Details: Washington, DC: Drum Major Institute for Public Policy, 2011. 37p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 24, 2011 at: http://www.drummajorinstitute.org/pdfs/DMI_Cost_of_Failure.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.drummajorinstitute.org/pdfs/DMI_Cost_of_Failure.pdf Shelf Number: 122897 Keywords: Costs of Criminal Justice Illegal Immigrants (U.S.) Immigration Immigration Enforcement

Author: Shobo, Yetty Title: The Financial Burden of Substance Abuse in West Virginia: The Criminal Justice System Series 2 Summary: The growing financial cost of drug and alcohol abuse puts tremendous pressure on every social sector. The present report, part of a larger Family Funding Study project, is the first in series 2 in which the cost of drug and alcohol abuse to West Virginia’s criminal justice, healthcare, education, welfare, and workforce systems will be examined. This particular report focuses on the Criminal Justice System, which includes the Public Defender Program, Prosecuting Attorneys Institute, Parole Board, Law Enforcement, Judicial System, Division of Juvenile Services, Division of Corrections, and Regional Jail Authority. The report presents estimates of the prevalence of drug‐ and alcohol‐involved crimes and services for each agency separately and also the cost of drug‐ and alcohol‐involved crimes. Details: South Charleston, WV: West Virginia Prevention Resource Center, 2011. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 30, 2011 at: http://www.prevnet.org/Funding%20Study/PDF/2011-09-FS-CJ.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.prevnet.org/Funding%20Study/PDF/2011-09-FS-CJ.pdf Shelf Number: 122959 Keywords: Alcohol Related Crime, Disorder Costs of Crime Costs of Criminal Justice Substance Abuse and Addiction(West Virginia) Substance Abuse and Crime

Author: Rosenberg, Jennifer Title: Balanced Justice: Cost-Benefit Analysis and Criminal Justice Policy Summary: Crime and justice are not usually associated with cost-benefit analysis. But they should be. A growing body of research shows how powerful the use of economic analysis can be when applied to criminal justice policy. Public safety can be prioritized and even improved at a lower cost than traditional incarceration, using techniques like behavioral therapy for young offenders, intensive supervision, or a new iteration of a drug court. In an economic downturn, when state funding is scarce and legislatures are on the lookout for even the smallest of budget cuts, what could be more compelling than better results with a smaller price tag? Cost-benefit analysis can give state and federal lawmakers a more targeted way to identify and adopt sentencing structures and preventative programs that will save billions of taxpayer dollars without compromising public safety. Around the country, research findings are being compiled and analyzed to identify policies that achieve desired outcomes and offer taxpayers high rates of return on their investments. In many cases, credible research shows that the administrative costs of implementing a new program can be dwarfed by future benefits. These benefits spring from not only reductions in crime and avoided sentencing costs, but also increased lifetime earnings and health outcomes. In these and other ways, cost-benefit analysis injects data-driven methods and evidence-based practices into criminal justice policymaking. The outcome: comprehensive, line-item comparisons of criminal justice policy alternatives. Once each policy or program option is subjected to cost-benefit analysis, the results are presented side-by-side allowing lawmakers to select that which promises to generate the greatest net benefits. Cost-benefit analysis can be applied to a range of programs, from sentencing and parole guidelines, to family therapy programs targeting “at risk” youth. There are also challenges to utilizing cost-benefit analysis, including the need for additional research and funding for that research. Yet momentum is building and decisionmakers throughout the justice system — from sentencing boards, to judges, to prosecutors, to legislators—are seeing the fiscal savings and public safety improvements that cost-benefit analysis can provide. Details: New York: Institute for Policy Integrity, New York University School of Law, 2011. 17p. Source: Internet Resource: Policy Brief No. 11: Accessed October 21, 2011 at: http://policyintegrity.org/files/publications/Balanced_Justice.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://policyintegrity.org/files/publications/Balanced_Justice.pdf Shelf Number: 123080 Keywords: Cost-Benefit Analysis Costs of Criminal Justice Criminal Justice Policy

Author: Lawrence, Alison Title: Principles of Effective State Sentencing and Corrections Policy A Report of the NCSL Sentencing and Corrections Work Group Summary: The NCSL Sentencing and Corrections Work Group project was developed under an NCSL partnership with the Public Safety Performance Project (PSPP) of the Pew Center on the States. The NCSL project responds to the challenges faced by states as they consider corrections and sentencing policies that both manage state spending and protect the public. The Pew PSPP was launched in 2006 to help states advance fiscally sound, data-driven policies and practices in sentencing and corrections. Pew’s work has included research, technical assistance, and funding and overseeing a variety of efforts both in states and nationally to support strategies that protect public safety, hold offenders accountable and control corrections costs. The NCSL Criminal Justice Program assembled the Sentencing and Corrections Work Group in 2010. The bipartisan, 18-member group includes officers of NCSL’s Law and Criminal Justice Committee and other legislators who are recognized as leaders on these issues. The group had a one-year work plan to discuss and identify overarching principles for effective state sentencing and corrections policy and to identify key issues and approaches that explain and illustrate the recommendations. The issues addressed by the NCSL work group reflect the important role of state legislatures in enacting policies that manage prison populations and costs, address offender and community needs, and contribute to the safe and fair administration of criminal justice. The discussions took place during a difficult, recessionary budget climate. A major interest of the work group was how to have an immediate effect on state public safety dollars while also ensuring that the public safety is protected into the future. Many concepts addressed in the Principles reflect recent advances in resource-sensitive policies that actually reduce risk and recidivism. Mindful that sentencing and corrections policies reach into various levels and branches of government, the Principles also reflect the value that lawmakers place on stakeholders throughout criminal justice systems in policy development and discussions. Apparent throughout the Principles is the importance of interbranch and intergovernmental collaboration, information exchange and evaluation in working toward effective sentencing and corrections policies. It is the intent of NCSL and this work group that the Principles and examples presented here will help guide and inform many aspects of state sentencing and corrections policy now and well into the future. Details: Washington, DC: National Conference of State Legislatures, 2011. 51p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 25, 2011 at: http://www.ncsl.org/documents/cj/pew/WGprinciplesreport.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.ncsl.org/documents/cj/pew/WGprinciplesreport.pdf Shelf Number: 123141 Keywords: Corrections Administration Costs of Criminal Justice Criminal Justice Administration Criminal Justice Policy (U.S.) Sentencing

Author: Pew Center on the States Title: 2011 Kentucky Reforms Cut Recidivism, Costs Broad Bill Enacts Evidence-Based Strategies Summary: Problem: Kentucky had one of the fastest growing prison populations in the nation over the decade ending in 2009, rising by 45 percent, compared to 13 percent growth for all states. Consequences: Corrections spending jumped 214 percent over the two decades ending in FY 2010, to $440 million. Meanwhile, recidivism rates remained above levels seen in the 1990s, despite slight improvement in recent years. Drivers: Data showed an increase in overall arrests and court cases, as well as rising incarceration rates for technical parole violators. Analysis also showed offenders in Kentucky were far more likely to be sentenced to prison than the national average and an increase in the percentage of all admissions who were drug offenders. Reforms: With technical assistance from the Pew Center on the States, the Task Force on the Penal Code and Controlled Substances Act produced a set of reforms leading to the Public Safety and Offender Accountability Act of 2011. Passed unanimously in the Senate and with just one dissenting vote in the House, the law concentrates expensive prison beds on serious offenders, reduces recidivism by strengthening probation and parole, and establishes mechanisms for measuring government progress over time. Impact: The legislation is expected to enhance public safety and improve the performance of Kentucky’s correctional system on multiple levels. The state estimates the reforms will save $422 million over 10 years, allowing increased investment in programs to reduce recidivism with residual funds available for state budget relief. Details: Washington, DC: Pew Center on the States, 2011. 12p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 1, 2011 at: http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org/uploadedFiles/2011_Kentucky_Reforms_Cut_Recidivism.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org/uploadedFiles/2011_Kentucky_Reforms_Cut_Recidivism.pdf Shelf Number: 123199 Keywords: Costs of Criminal Justice Criminal Justice Reform Evidence-Based Practices Recidivism (Kentucky)

Author: Roberts, Bryan Title: An Analysis of Migrant Smuggling Costs along the Southwest Border Summary: Border enforcement is intended to prevent and deter the illegal movement of goods and people across a country’s border. The intensification of border enforcement activities creates impediments to illegal entry that increase the costs incurred by migrants when crossing the border. Increased costs may include additional time investment, physical hardship, and higher fees charged by smugglers who assist migrants across the border. The impact of enforcement on illegal immigration depends on how enforcement affects migration costs and how migration costs affect the decision to migrate. Our goal in this paper is to estimate the impact that enforcement has on the price smugglers charge to bring illegal immigrants across the U.S.-Mexico border. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics, Policy Directorate, 2010. 22p. Source: Internet Resource: Working Paper: Accessed November 1, 2011 at: http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/ois-smuggling-wp.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/ois-smuggling-wp.pdf Shelf Number: 123203 Keywords: Alien Smuggling Border Patrol Border Security Costs of Criminal Justice Human Smuggling Illegal Immigration Migrant Smuggling

Author: American Bar Association. Criminal Justice Section Title: Dialogue On Strategies to Save States Money, Reform Criminal Justice & Keep the Public Safe Summary: The American Bar Association has chosen to focus on five key issues where states can implement changes that will promote public safety, reduce recidivism, and save money. These five issues cover a range of criminal justice topics, but the goal is the same: to create an effective, low-cost system that improves our current justice system. Below is a brief description of each policy. PRE-TRIAL RELEASE REFORM According to the United States Department of Justice, over 500,000 men and women sit in jail awaiting trial. Two-thirds of these people are low bail risk, meaning they have been deemed by a magistrate to pose no significant risk to themselves or the community, as well as representing a low risk of flight. Often, these inmates will sit in jail for over a year before standing trial. While these non-violent offenders are in jail, taxpayers provide them with food, clothing, healthcare, and security – last year alone the United States spent $9 billion on services for those who could not afford bail. With the development of better tools, methods, and technologies to supervise non-violent offenders, states will be able to save money on pretrial detention and reduce risk to the community. Those who pose the lowest risk can be identified, released before trial, and then appropriately monitored and supported so they do not become a risk. Under these narrow circumstances, not only do taxpayers save money, but the community is not put in danger. DECRIMINALIZATION OF MINOR OFFENSES State budgets have very limited resources. Because of these limits, police and prosecutors simply cannot bring justice to all culprits. By declassifying certain minor crimes, law enforcement and attorneys can focus on more serious offenders. A large portion of low-level cases in this country go unsolved – declassification would not only direct more resources toward the investigation of serious crimes, but it would also provide states with a steady stream of income in from applicable civil fines. EFFECTIVE REENTRY PROGRAMS Recidivists account for a significant portion of the United States’ prison populations – it is estimated that over half of former inmates are re-arrested and incarcerated within three years following release from prison. A key component to combating these high numbers is to more effectively choose those inmates who are prepared for release and to create programs that provide those released with useful counseling and vocational training. Without guidance, former inmates are often left without necessary support and job training and quickly return to a life of crime. With the costs of incarceration skyrocketing, states simply cannot afford to repeatedly house the same prisoners. At a reduced cost, states can implement programs that provide former inmates with the tools necessary to become successful, productive members of the community. INCREASED USE OF PAROLE & PROBATION Unnecessary inctiaornce irsa a tremendous expense to the taxpayer, and can do more harm than good with regards to an offender’s rehabilitation. Lengthy periods of incarceration should therefore be reserved for offenders who commit the most serious offenses and pose the greatest danger to the community. In contrast, alternatives to incarceration should be provided for those offenders who pose minimal risk to the community and appear likely to benefit from rehabilitation efforts outside a correctional institution. Recognizing that few convicted persons require lengthy incarceration and many require none, the ABA’s Criminal Justice Standards on Sentencing call for sentencing schemes that allow administrative parole boards to decide when individuals incarcerated under inadequately determinate sentences should be released. The Standards also include probation options for the courts, substantial “good time” credit for individuals sentenced to total confinement, and the assertion that violations of parole and probation for non-violent offenders should not automatically result in incarceration. COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS PROGRAMS Community corrections consists of any number of sanctions served by an offender within the community where that offender either (a) committed an offense, or (b) currently resides. The objectives of community corrections include punishing an offender in the least restrictive setting consistent with public safety and the gravity of the crime; providing offenders with education, training, and treatment to enable an individual to become a fully functional member of the community upon release from supervision; and making offenders accountable to the community for criminal behavior. Community corrections envisions a wide-range of locally implemented, non-incarcerative sanctions such as probation, day-reporting centers, community service, home confinement with or without electronic monitoring, drug and alcohol treatment, means-based fines, and restitution to both the victim and the community. Details: Washington, DC: American Bar Association, 2011. 170p. Source: Interent Resource: Accessed November 1, 2011 at: http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/events/criminal_justice/dialogpacket.authcheckdam.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/events/criminal_justice/dialogpacket.authcheckdam.pdf Shelf Number: 123205 Keywords: Bail Community Corrections Costs of Criminal Justice Criminal Justice Policy (U.S.) Criminal Justice Reform Decriminalization Parole Pretrial Release Prisoner Reentry Probation

Author: U.S. Government Accountability Office Title: Arizona Border Surveillance Technology: More Information on Plans and Costs Is Needed before Proceeding Summary: CBP does not have the information needed to fully support and implement its Arizona Border Surveillance Technology Plan in accordance with DHS and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance. In developing the Plan, CBP conducted an analysis of alternatives and outreach to potential vendors. However, CBP has not documented the analysis justifying the specific types, quantities, and deployment locations of border surveillance technologies proposed in the Plan. Best practices for developing and managing costs indicate that a business case analysis should be rigorous enough that independent parties can review it and clearly understand why a particular alternative was chosen to support mission requirements. Without documentation of the analysis, there is no way to verify the process CBP followed, identify how the underlying analyses were used, assess the validity of the decisions made, or justify the funding requested for the Plan. CBP officials also have not yet defined the mission benefits expected from implementing the new Plan. GAO has previously reported that a solid business case providing an understanding of the potential return of large investments can be helpful to decision makers for determining whether continued investment is warranted after deployment. Defining the expected benefit could help improve CBP's ability to assess the effectiveness of the Plan as it is implemented. CBP does not intend to assess and address operational issues regarding the effectiveness and suitability of SBInet, steps that could provide CBP with information to help make decisions regarding alternatives for implementing the Plan. OMB guidance suggests that a post-implementation review occur when a system has been in operation for 6 months or immediately following investment termination. Such a review could help CBP make the most effective use of existing SBInet systems that, in connection with the Plan, could build a comprehensive and integrated approach for surveillance technology along the entire Arizona border. CBP's 10-year life-cycle cost estimate for the Plan of $1.5 billion is based on a rough order of magnitude analysis, and agency officials were unable to determine a level of confidence in their estimate as best practices suggest. Specifically, GAO's review of the estimate concluded that the estimate reflected substantial features of best practices, being both comprehensive and accurate, but it did not sufficiently meet other characteristics of a high-quality cost estimate, such as credibility, because it did not identify a level of confidence or quantify the impact of risks. GAO and OMB guidance emphasize that reliable cost estimates are important for program approval and continued receipt of annual funding. In addition, because CBP was unable to determine a level of confidence in its estimate, it will be difficult for CBP to determine what levels of contingency funding may be needed to cover risks associated with implementing new technologies along the remaining Arizona border. Thus, it will be difficult for CBP to provide reasonable assurance that its cost estimate is reliable and that its budget request for fiscal year 2012 and beyond is realistic and sufficient. A robust cost estimate--one that includes a level of confidence and quantifies the impact of risk--would help ensure that CBP's future technology deployments have sufficient funding levels related to the relative risks. GAO recommends that CBP document the analysis justifying the technologies proposed in the Plan, determine its mission benefits, conduct a post-implementation review of SBInet and determine a more robust life-cycle cost estimate for the Plan. DHS concurred with the recommendations. Details: Washington, DC: GAO, 2011. 58p. Source: Internet Resource: GAO-12-22: Accessed November 4, 2011 at: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1222.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1222.pdf Shelf Number: 123229 Keywords: Border Security (Arizona) Costs of Criminal Justice Video Surveillance

Author: McLeod, Jeffrey S. Title: State Efforts in Sentencing and Corrections Reform Summary: States continue to struggle during what is the most difficult fiscal environment since the Great Depression. Projections are that the economic recovery will be slow, forcing states to think longterm about how to do more with less. Full economic recovery may not happen until the end of the decade. With corrections among states’ largest expenditures, many are rethinking their approaches to sentencing and corrections practices as they seek to constrain spending. Between 2009 and 2010, at least 40 states made cuts to general fund expenditures for corrections. They are reducing staff salaries, benefits, or overtime, eliminating prison programs, and making food-service changes. Furthermore, states have been increasingly focused on finding ways to decrease overall prison populations. Given that the average prison bed now costs $29,000 a year, they are looking for ways to reduce the number of nonviolent and low-risk individuals going to prison, to move offenders who can be safely managed in the community out of prison sooner, and to keep ex-offenders out of prison through improved prisoner reentry practices. Ultimately, states aim to reduce prison populations enough to allow them to close prisons. States are accomplishing reductions through sentencing reform, efforts to reduce offender recidivism, and parole and probation reform. For example:  South Carolina approved a sentencing reform package in 2010 that the state estimates will reduce the need to build and operate new prison beds by 1,786, saving up to $241 million by reducing incarceration of nonviolent offenders and more closely supervising released inmates to reduce recidivism;  Nevada saved $38 million in operating expenditures by FY 2009 and avoided $1.2 billion in new prison construction by making key sentencing reforms, including expanding the number of credits inmates could earn for “good time” and the number of credits those on community supervision could earn for complying with conditions; and  Kentucky passed legislation expected to save the state $422 million over the next decade by diverting certain drug offenders into treatment rather than prison and reserving prison space for violent and career criminals. The challenge to states is to make cuts in corrections spending while maintaining public safety. Fortunately, there now exists a significant body of research about which sentencing and corrections practices work and which do not. Research shows that implementation of evidence-based practices leads to an average decrease in crime of between 10 percent and 20 percent. Programs that are not evidence-based, on the other hand, tend to see no decrease or even a slight increase in crime. States can use that knowledge to make more informed decisions about which policies and programs to support as they seek to reduce spending on corrections. This Issue Brief provides an overview of the cost drivers behind corrections expenditures and identifies critical decision-points for states to consider as they take action to reduce costs. It also examines challenges to enacting reforms and makes recommendations for states looking to improve public safety with fewer resources. Those recommendations include:  Pursue an approach to reform that involves coordination and collaboration among state executive, legislative, and judicial branches;  Adopt evidence-based practices proven to reduce recidivism and eliminate programs shown to be ineffective or harmful;  Target high-risk offenders and tailor sentencing, treatment, and release decisions to individual risk factors;  Support mandatory supervision and treatment in the community; and  Use real-time data and information for decision-making. Details: Washington, DC: NGA Center for Best Practices, 2011. 26p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 11, 2011 at: http://www.nga.org/files/live/sites/NGA/files/pdf/1110SENTENCINGREFORM.PDF Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.nga.org/files/live/sites/NGA/files/pdf/1110SENTENCINGREFORM.PDF Shelf Number: 123315 Keywords: Costs of Criminal Justice Evidence-Based Practices Expenditures in Criminal Justice Sentencing (U.S.) Sentencing Reform

Author: Malloch, Margaret Title: Interventions for Drug Users in the Criminal Justice System: Scottish Review Summary: The purpose of this review was to examine the available research evidence on criminal justice interventions in Scotland in terms of „effectiveness‟, (measured by rates of reconviction/reoffending, and reductions in drug use) and costs. The review also recognises the current policy emphasis on „recovery‟, which requires a wider acknowledgement of the possible mechanisms for measuring „success‟ and a wider vision for the process of recovery itself. The review was undertaken between August and November 2010. This review found that there are a number of difficulties in determining effectiveness in the area of drug interventions - sample numbers within evaluations are often small, the nature of interventions make it difficult to identify control groups and therefore to isolate factors making an impact or indeed, to measure the overall impact of the intervention itself; change often comes from a number of different factors; different methods are often used to measure different outcomes over different periods of time making it impossible to compare effectiveness across interventions. The existence of major gaps in the evidence base for drug interventions is acknowledged internationally. In spite of these limitations, some broad observations can be made from the evidence currently available and which has been considered as part of this review. The rationale for providing drug interventions through the criminal justice system is to fast-track individuals whose criminal activity is directly related to problem drug use into treatment. Evidence on treatment outcomes suggests that the benefit-cost ratio for structured interventions makes such intervention cost-effective (ranging from 2.5:1 to 9.5:1 depending on methods used) making drug treatment in general an economically viable option in terms of costs and benefits. Evidence from Scotland suggests that the total social and economic cost of illicit drug use is just under £3.56 billion (around £61,000 per problem drug user). Estimated costs of crime are reduced significantly for individuals in treatment (from £12,713 for individuals with no intervention in place; to £1,536 for those in treatment for more than one year). Reductions in re-offending appear to be consistent features of evaluations of interventions (where this outcome is available) along with reductions in drug use for individuals who engage with the interventions. Where re-offending continues, evidence suggests that there is a reduction in the rate of re-offending from levels of re-offending prior to the intervention. There is evidence to indicate that retention in treatment and a consequent „good‟ outcome is consistently predicted by the relationship between readiness for treatment and change, motivation and commitment, and the therapeutic relationship. There does not appear to be any significant difference in outcome between those who access treatment through the criminal justice system and those who access it voluntarily. While this highlights the viability of coerced treatment, it would equally suggest that diverting individuals into treatment may be as effective as intervening through the criminal justice system. In order to avoid „net-widening‟, it is important that intensive interventions are used for „high tariff‟ individuals and ensuring that community resources can be accessed outside the criminal justice system. Qualitative evidence, gathered from both professional respondents and service users, provides some positive elements from the Scottish evaluations of criminal justice interventions for drug users; however in terms of outcome and cost effectiveness, there is limited data from which conclusions of overall effectiveness can be drawn: There is currently no evidence to indicate that mandatory drug testing of arrestees provides any benefits, although it does provide some indication of the incidence of drug use among those tested and can provide a basis for directing individuals to appropriate services. Evaluations of arrest referral schemes are unable to provide evidence of benefits beyond the immediacy of the intervention, largely due to lack of evidence on longer-term outcomes including take-up of onward referrals. However, the recent evaluation of the arrest referral intervention for persistent offenders in Glasgow does provide some evidence of reductions in reconviction rates and benefits in terms of cost when individuals engage with services. Drug Treatment and Testing Orders (DTTOs) and Drug Courts are both associated with reductions in drug use and reoffending, with improved outcomes for those who complete Orders. Drug Courts appear to be slightly more successful in terms of reconviction rates than DTTOs. Evidence on the effectiveness of lower tariff DTTOs (DTTO IIs) is inconclusive, however international literature on the use of intensive interventions mitigates against the use of intensive interventions for individuals who are low tariff offenders. Combined residential and community-based interventions such as the 218 Centre and Turnaround have much to offer in promoting recovery, given the holistic nature of the intervention; however although cost data is available there is currently no corresponding data on rates of reoffending/reconviction with which to measure cost-effectiveness. While prison may be an effective point of intervention for some problem drug users, evidence from Scotland is limited, with no reconviction analysis of prison-based drug related interventions currently available. Levels of re-offending on release from prison appear to be directly related to the availability of aftercare provision. Details: Edinburgh: Scottish Centre for Crime & Justice Research, 2011. 48p. Source: Internet Resource: Research Report No. 05/2011: Accessed November 19, 2011 at: http://www.sccjr.ac.uk/documents/SCCJR%20REVIEW%20OF%20EFFECTIVENESS.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.sccjr.ac.uk/documents/SCCJR%20REVIEW%20OF%20EFFECTIVENESS.pdf Shelf Number: 123364 Keywords: Cost-Benefit Analysis Costs of Criminal Justice Drug Abuse and Crime Drug Offenders (Scotland) Drug Treatment Substance Abuse Treatment

Author: National Immigration Forum Title: The Math of Immigration Detention: Runaway Costs for Immigration Detention Do Not Add Up to Sensible Policies Summary: One symptom of our broken immigration system is the exorbitant spending wasted on the detention of immigrants. The vast majority of these immigrants, if ever Congress acted to reform our immigration system, would be encouraged to stay and continue contributing to our economy. Even for those who must eventually be removed, billions of dollars could be saved if the government properly allocated resources towards more humane and cost-effective alternative methods of monitoring. Physical detention, as costly as it is, should only be used in limited circumstances, such as for holding immigrants whose release would pose a serious danger to the community. For the majority of immigrants, the government could use less expensive alternatives to detention prior to removal. A cost-effective approach to monitoring immigrants who face removal is unlikely to be implemented as long as Congress continues to throw money at the detention operations of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), located in the Department of Homeland Security. For the Fiscal Year beginning October 1, 2011 (Fiscal Year 2012), the House of Representatives has approved a budget of $2.75 billion for Detention and Removal — more than $184 million more than the previous year and enough for ICE to keep 34,000 immigrants detained at any one time. The Obama Administration‘s most recent request to Congress for immigration detention alone amounts to $5.5 million per day spent on immigration detention (the House increased that amount). The current cost to detain an immigrant is approximately $166 per day at a capacity of 33,400 detention beds. Less wasteful alternatives to detention range in cost from as low as 30 cents to $14 a day. If only individuals convicted of serious crimes were detained and the less expensive alternative methods were used to monitor the rest of the detained population, taxpayers could save more than over $1.6 billion—over an 80% reduction in annual costs. The government should focus on expanding its alternatives to detention program and reforming its immigration laws. An examination of the numbers makes it clear — the dollars spent to detain immigrants do not add up to something that makes sense. Details: Washington, DC: National Immigration Forum, 2011. 10p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 23, 2011 at: http://www.immigrationforum.org/images/uploads/MathofImmigrationDetention.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.immigrationforum.org/images/uploads/MathofImmigrationDetention.pdf Shelf Number: 123441 Keywords: Costs of Criminal Justice Illegal Aliens Illegal Immigrants (U.S.) Immigrant Detention Immigration Enforcement

Author: Georgia. Special Council on Criminal Justice Reform for Georgians Title: Report of the Special Council on Criminal Justice Reform for Georgians Summary: Seeking new ways to protect public safety while controlling the growth of prison costs, the 2011 Georgia General Assembly passed HB 265 to establish the inter-branch Special Council on Criminal Justice Reform for Georgians (Council). Beginning in the summer of 2011, the Council members began a detailed analysis of Georgia’s sentencing and corrections data and solicited input from a wide range of stakeholders to identify ways to improve public safety for the citizens of Georgia. The Council used that information to develop tailored policy options, including proposals that would invest a portion of any savings from averted prison spending into evidence-based strategies to improve public safety by strengthening probation and parole supervision and reducing recidivism. During the past two decades, the prison population in Georgia has more than doubled to nearly 56,000 inmates. As a result, Georgia has one of the highest proportions of adult residents under correctional control. This growth has come at a substantial cost to Georgia’s taxpayers. Today the state spends more than $1 billion annually on corrections, up from $492 million in FY 1990. Yet despite this growth in prison, Georgia taxpayers haven’t received a better public safety return on their corrections dollars: the recidivism rate has remained unchanged at nearly 30 percent throughout the past decade. If current policies remain in place, analysis indicates that Georgia’s prison population will rise by another 8 percent to reach nearly 60,000 inmates by 2016, presenting the state with the need to spend an additional $264 million to expand capacity. The Council’s analysis revealed that inmate population growth is due in large part to policy decisions about who is being sent to prison and how long they stay. The data shows that drug and property offenders represent almost 60 percent of all admissions. Importantly, many of these offenders are identified as lower-risk. In 2010, Georgia courts sent more than 5,000 lower-risk drug and property offenders to prison who have never been to prison before, accounting for 25 percent of all admissions. Looking more closely at drug admissions, more than 3,200 offenders are admitted to prison each year on a drug possession conviction (as opposed to a sales or trafficking conviction), and two-thirds of these inmates are assessed as being a lower-risk to re-offend. The Council also identified several challenges to the state’s ability to effectively supervise offenders on probation and parole and provide interventions that can reduce the likelihood of reoffending. Since 2000, Georgia’s felony probation population has grown by 22 percent to 156,000 and the state’s parole population has grown by 9 percent to 22,000. Currently, probation and parole agencies operate effective programs using evidence-based tools to identify and supervise higher risk offenders. But the Council’s analysis shows that these options are limited and supervision agencies do not have the resources required to supervise offenders adequately. With greater investment in these and other programs and expansion to additional sites to serve more offenders, the state can reduce recidivism and create viable sentencing options for judges that can achieve better public safety outcomes at a lower cost. This report provides analysis and options for policymakers to consider. These policy options increase public safety and avert the growth currently projected for the state’s prison population. The Council considered these recommendations and options and, despite not reaching consensus on every one, agreed to forward the report to the legislature for consideration and action in the 2012 legislative session. The Council recommends that where potential savings are achieved, a portion should be reinvested into those options proven to reduce recidivism and improve public safety. These include expanding the availability of drug and other accountability courts and strengthening community supervision. The Council also recommends investing in effective information and performance measurement systems. Many of the policy proposals in this report focus on improving community-based supervision, sanctions and services as well as other practices proven to reduce recidivism, which are essential to improving public safety. Some of these proposals will require investment by the state. In order to allow for this reinvestment, the policy proposals in this report provide the legislature with options to avert much if not all of the projected growth in the prison population and corresponding costs over the next five years. Details: Atlanta, GA: The Special Council, 2011. 25p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 26, 2011 at: http://www.legis.ga.gov/Documents/GACouncilReport-FINALDRAFT.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.legis.ga.gov/Documents/GACouncilReport-FINALDRAFT.pdf Shelf Number: 123450 Keywords: Costs of Criminal Justice Criminal Justice Policy Criminal Justice Reform Criminal Justice Systems (Georgia, U.S.)

Author: Leachman, Michael Title: Improving Budget Analysis of State Criminal Justice Reforms: A Strategy for Better Outcomes and Saving Money Summary: This report details how a change to the way states evaluate the budgetary effects of proposed laws could help states find better budget solutions while protecting public safety and decreasing our incarceration rate. According to the report, “Improving Budget Analysis of State Criminal Justice Reforms: Strategies for Improving Outcomes and Saving States Money,” poorly performed state evaluations of the budgetary consequences of criminal justice legislation are causing some states to spend unnecessarily on prisons while cutting other vital state programs. Earlier this year, for example, legislators from both sides of the political aisle in Maryland sought to pass a law that would have allowed nonprison sanctions for individuals who commit technical parole violations, such as missing a meeting with their parole officer or failing to complete community service. More than one-third of the people behind bars around our nation are there for similar technical violations, not for new crimes. This Maryland bill would have allowed the state to put a portion of the $1 billion it spends annually on corrections to better use while keeping the public safe. If implemented, this reform could have started saving the state money within three years, since that’s when most people return to prison for technical violations. But a misguided state budget estimate of the bill’s impact considered only the up-front costs, ignoring the future savings and thus incorrectly concluding that the program would cost too much. As a result, the bill was scaled back to only three counties. Now, the rest of Maryland will continue to send individuals who violate parole conditions back to prison. According to the new report released today, Maryland isn’t the only state where this is happening. Many state budget analyses tend to focus on the upfront start-up costs of a bill, but fail to examine the later savings these programs will bring—even savings that could be realized in the following year. The upshot: When states examine policies through a cost-only lens, instead of a cost-effectiveness lens, legislators and the public are more likely to reject policies that would actually save money overall. Amid this mess, however, there is hope. Bipartisan leaders in some states, among them Texas, Mississippi, and Ohio, recognized the short- and long-term benefits of cutting prison spending. Over the last few years, these states implemented reforms to cut their incarceration rates and their costs—all the while protecting public safety and reducing recidivism. Such reforms—like providing effective addiction treatment instead of prison to more people convicted of drug crimes and increasing parole eligibility for elderly prisons who no longer pose safety risks—free up precious state dollars to reallocate to other societal resources such as education, infrastructure, or returning tax dollars back to working families. Details: Washington, DC: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities; American Civil Liberties Union, 2012 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 18, 2012 at: http://www.aclu.org/files/assets/improvingbudgetanalysis_20120110.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.aclu.org/files/assets/improvingbudgetanalysis_20120110.pdf Shelf Number: 123657 Keywords: Budgets Costs of Criminal Justice Criminal Justice Reform Criminal Justice Systems (U.S.) Expenditures in Criminal Justice

Author: Davies, Elizabeth Title: Impact & Influence: The Role of Local Jurisdictions in Managing Prison Population Size Summary: Budgetary pressures, court mandates on crowding, and social justice concerns have prompted many states throughout the country to develop laws and administrative policies intended to control the size of the prison population. While long-term strategies often look to offender rehabilitation and reductions in new criminal activity to achieve this goal, the most common short-term strategies focus on requiring, encouraging, and permitting decision makers to use local options in lieu of prison at the time of sentencing, inmate release and transfer, and supervision violation response. By modifying decision making at the system points that influence prison population size, legislatures and other state-level policy makers hope to avert projected growth in prison populations, control corrections spending, and potentially reinvest in strategies that have been shown to improve public safety. Although many strategies to control the size of the prison population are developed in consultation with local stakeholders, a number of states create policy that relies on local jurisdictions to assume responsibility for the offender population without fully considering how this shift might impact the resources and capacity of jails, supervision offices, and community service and treatment providers. Further, they often do not account for how the policies and practices of those local agencies, which are largely responsible for the day-to-day operation of the criminal justice system, can influence the success of state prison population control efforts. Incarceration is not a problem limited to state government, nor can its solutions be conceived and executed solely by state governments. In designing strategies to manage the size of the prison population, states must consider the effect that these changes will have on local jurisdictions and the important role of local policy and support in the success of their efforts. The purpose of this white paper is to explore the role of local jurisdictions in state prison population management strategies by examining the three policy levers in the criminal justice system that can most directly and immediately influence the number of people in prison. Details: Washington, DC: Urban Institute, Justice Policy Center, 2011. 50p. Source: Internet Resource: White Paper: Accessed January 26, 2012 at: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412437-Role-of-Local-Jurisdictions.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412437-Role-of-Local-Jurisdictions.pdf Shelf Number: 123760 Keywords: Correctional Administration Costs of Criminal Justice Criminal Justice Policies Prison Administration Prisons

Author: Henrichson, Christian Title: The Price of Prisons: What Incarceration Costs Taxpayers Summary: Staff from Vera’s Center on Sentencing and Corrections and Cost-Benefit Analysis Unit developed a methodology to calculate the taxpayer cost of prisons, including costs outside states’ corrections budgets. Among the 40 states that participated in a survey, the cost of prisons was $38.8 billion in fiscal year 2010, $5.4 billion more than what their corrections budgets reflected. States’ costs outside their corrections departments ranged from less than 1 percent of total prison costs in Arizona to as much as 34 percent in Connecticut. The full report provides the taxpayer cost of incarcerating a sentenced adult offender to state prison in 40 states, presents the methodology, and concludes with recommendations about steps policy makers can take to safely rein in these costs. Fact sheets provide details about each of the states that participated in Vera’s survey. Details: New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2012. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 26, 2012 at: http://www.vera.org/download?file=3407/the-price-of-prisons.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.vera.org/download?file=3407/the-price-of-prisons.pdf Shelf Number: 123766 Keywords: Costs of Criminal Justice Expenditures in Criminal Justice Prisons (U.S.)

Author: Ipsos MORI, Scotland Title: Best Value in the Police: Research report for Audit Scotland and Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary for Scotland Summary: Ipsos MORI was commissioned by Audit Scotland (on behalf of the Accounts Commission for Scotland) and Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary for Scotland, to conduct an independent review of the pilot Best Value Audit and Inspections of Police. The research covered the following themes: attitudes towards joint audit and inspection; the set up and overview process; the on-site audit and inspection process; the audit and inspection team; and the audit and inspection report. The review was conducted through in depth interviews with chief constables, senior police officers and elected members in pilot police forces and authorities, as well as with national stakeholders. Additionally, a workshop was held with members of the audit and inspection teams. All fieldwork was carried out between February and April 2010. Details: Edinburgh: Audit Scotland, 2010. 34p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 6, 2012 at: http://www.audit-scotland.gov.uk/docs/best_value/2010/bv_100823_police_evaluation.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.audit-scotland.gov.uk/docs/best_value/2010/bv_100823_police_evaluation.pdf Shelf Number: 123994 Keywords: Costs of Criminal Justice Police Performance Policing (Scotland)

Author: Bernsen, James A. Title: The Costs of Illegal Immigration to Texas Summary: Texas, which accounts for about half of the U.S. border with Mexico, has been particularly hard hit by the costs of illegal immigration. The state has seen an extraordinary growth in immigration over the last few decades. In 1970, there were only 310,000 foreign-born citizens in the state. By 1990, that number had increased 391 percent, to 1.5 million. The immigration rate since then has exploded. According to a 2004 U.S. Census Bureau estimate, the number of foreign born residents of Texas in that year was 3.45 million – 1,100 percent of the 1970 number. In 1970, the foreign-born population of Texas was three percent. In 1990, it was eight percent. In 2004, foreign-born residents represented 15.7 percent of all Texans. Although Texas has seen widespread migration from within the United States as well, this wave of external immigration comes with much more profound social – and fiscal – consequences. The majority of this increase comes from legal immigrants, but a large – and proportionately growing – percentage comes from illegal immigrants. Texas, according to the Census Bureau, is now home to 15 percent of all illegal immigrants in the United States. Since 1993, the population has doubled by conservative estimates. Some studies have estimated that the population has even tripled. Details: Austin, TX: Lone Star Foundation, 2006. 23p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 10, 2012 at: http://www.lonestarreport.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=5Vg_zxX8oz8%3D&tabid=162&mid=687 Year: 2006 Country: United States URL: http://www.lonestarreport.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=5Vg_zxX8oz8%3D&tabid=162&mid=687 Shelf Number: 124036 Keywords: Costs of Criminal Justice Illegal Aliens Illegal Immigrants Illegal Immigration

Author: U.S. Government Accountability Office Title: Bureau of Prisons: Eligibility and Capacity Impact Use of Flexibilities to Reduce Inmates’ Time in Prison Summary: The Department of Justice’s Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) is responsible for the custody and care of federal offenders. BOP’s population has increased from about 145,000 in 2000 to about 217,000 in 2011 and BOP is operating at 38 percent over capacity. There is no longer parole for federal offenders and BOP has limited authority to affect the length of an inmate's prison sentence. BOP has some statutory authorities and programs to reduce the amount of time an inmate remains in prison, which when balanced with BOP’s mission to protect public safety and prepare inmates for reentry, can help reduce crowding and the costs of incarceration. GAO was asked to address: (1) the extent to which BOP utilizes its authorities to reduce a federal prisoner’s period of incarceration; and (2) what factors, if any, impact BOP's use of these authorities. GAO analyzed relevant laws and BOP policies; obtained nationwide data on inmate participation in relevant programs and sentence reductions from fiscal years 2009 through 2011; conducted site visits to nine BOP institutions selected to cover a range of prison characteristics and at each, interviewed officials responsible for relevant programs; and visited four community-based facilities serving the institutions visited. Though not generalizable, the information obtained from these visits provided insights. GAO recommends that BOP establish a plan, including time frames and milestones, for requiring contractors to submit prices of RRC beds and home detention services. BOP concurred with this recommendation. Details: Washington, DC: GAO, 2012. 44p. Source: Internet Resource: GAO-12-320: Accessed February 13, 2012 at: http://www.gao.gov/assets/590/588284.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.gao.gov/assets/590/588284.pdf Shelf Number: 124115 Keywords: Costs of Criminal Justice Early Release Federal Prisons (U.S.) Inmates Prison Overcrowding

Author: Bryant, Phil Title: The Impact of Illegal Immigration on Mississippi: Costs and Population Trends Summary: The focus of this report is costs and population trends associated with illegal immigration in the State of Mississippi. The report attempts to differentiate between lawful immigrants who are here within the legal framework and process established by the U.S. federal government and illegal immigrants who have broken federal and state laws. The report provides limited regional and national background material and draws on national data sources where data collected by Mississippi State government is unavailable. Further, it contemplates recommendations for government data collection and changes to Mississippi law. Details: Jackson, MS: Office of the State Auditor, 2006. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: Audit Report #102: Accessed February 13, 2012 at: http://www.osa.state.ms.us/documents/performance/illegal-immigration.pdf Year: 2006 Country: United States URL: http://www.osa.state.ms.us/documents/performance/illegal-immigration.pdf Shelf Number: 124116 Keywords: Costs of Criminal Justice Illegal Aliens Illegal Immigrants (Mississippi)

Author: Higa, Marion: Hawaii Office of The Auditor. Title: Management Audit of the Department of Public Safety's Contracting for Prison Beds and Services Summary: This report responds to a request by the speaker of the House of Representatives and the president of the Senate asking the Auditor to exercise her authority to conduct a management audit that 1) focuses on the Department of Public Safety’s contracting for prison beds and services with non-Hawai‘i entities and 2) compares in-state and out-of state incarceration costs. The audit was undertaken pursuant to Section 23-4, Hawai‘i Revised Statutes (HRS) and Article VII, Section 10 of the Hawai‘i State Constitution, which requires the State Auditor to conduct post audits of the transactions, accounts, programs, and performance of all departments, offices, and agencies of the State of Hawai‘i and its political subdivisions. This report on the management audit of the Department of Public Safety focuses on contracting for prison beds and services with non-Hawai'i entities and compares in-state and out-of-state incarceration costs. Details: Honolulu, Hawaii: The Auditor, State of Hawaii, 2010. 84p. Source: Report No. 10-10: Internet Resource: Accessed February 19, 2012 at http://www.state.hi.us/auditor/Reports/2010/10-10.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.state.hi.us/auditor/Reports/2010/10-10.pdf Shelf Number: 124188 Keywords: Corrections (Hawaii) Corrections Administration Costs of Criminal Justice

Author: Nortern Ireland. Criminal Justice Inspection Title: An announced inspection of Woodlands Juvenile Justice Centre Summary: The last Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland (CJI) report on Woodlands Juvenile Justice Centre (the JJC) was published in May 2008. It made 38 recommendations of which the Youth Justice Agency (YJA) fully accepted 33, partially accepted five, and published an action plan to implement accordingly. The JJC had only recently opened when CJI last inspected and in the intervening period it has consolidated its practice. This inspection found that the JJC has continued to provide high levels of care and control to children sent into its custody. It was delivering a good service in close consultation with children and their adult carers. Appropriate governance arrangements had been maintained and management practices were strengthened. There had been no escapes since the last inspection and considerable effort was being invested in addressing children’s offending behaviour. There had been some positive developments in the child custody system since 2008 and Inspectors found: the JJC had become the default location for all girls aged under 18-years-old; the age profile of its population had changed. Some 25% of the children admitted were 17-years-old at the time of our inspection; and collaboration with Social Services had also improved and this appears to have reduced inappropriate admissions. However, a better response is required from some Social Services Trusts to support the work of the JJC. There were several examples of progress within internal JJC management and practice. These included: a significant reduction in the use of force; continued investment in staff training and development, and high numbers of staff had qualified in relevant disciplines; the appointment of a Deputy Director of SocialWork and part-time Forensic Psychiatrist; improved performance management - overtime and sick leave were reduced and there was closer managerial control over annual leave and night staff deployment; better management information systems; new JJC rules had been published and were more fit-for-purpose; children’s file recording had improved; and monthly monitoring visits by the Office of Social Services and bi-annual unannounced CJI inspections had been initiated. Standards of healthcare and education were high though Inspectors were concerned about professional isolation of healthcare and education personnel. Feedback from partner agencies and community providers about the JJC was positive and it was recognised as a model of good practice. Senior personnel were invited to advise on the design of new Secure Children’s Homes (SCH) in England and the Republic of Ireland, and were also represented on the England and Wales Restraint Management Board. The JJC buildings were well-maintained and security had been enhanced by the extension of closed-circuit television (CCTV) to all communal areas. Inspectors were therefore satisfied the JJC was fulfilling its legislative remit to ‘Protect the public by accommodating children ordered to be detained therein in a safe, secure and caring environment; and work to reintegrate children into the community ….’ Despite this the inspection also raises major issues. These are outwith the JJC and the YJA, and are not to do with its operational management or care and control of children held there. Rather they are systemic matters around the high numbers of children being sent to the JJC for very short periods on foot of Police and Criminal Evidence (PACE) proceedings, the impact of delay and the location of 17-year-old boys who require custody. These issues are not new. They are already being addressed to varying degrees, but there is scope for further progress and we make recommendations only accordingly. Things are better in some respects than the child custody arrangements in England and Wales, but it should be possible to further improve the position in the small Northern Ireland jurisdiction. The JJC service comes at a very high financial cost, but it is impossible to accurately relate costs to re-offending levels since there have been so few sentenced children and re-offending data is limited. For the majority of children who are sent there yet never receive a sentence, we can only conclude that the JJC represents a very expensive way to detain them, usually for short periods from which they are unlikely to gain much benefit. It is also anomalous that while there is surplus bed space in the JJC, many 17-year-old boys are held in HydebankWood Young Offenders Centre (the YOC) which is ill-equipped to deal with them. This situation begs early implementation of the obvious remedy-transfer of 17-year-old boys from the YOC to the JJC - on grounds of both good practice and value for money. There will be challenges in the future including budget pressures and changes in the population profile. Measurement of outcomes for children, including their reconviction rates needs to be improved. However, the main challenge is for the wider criminal justice and child care systems to build on the positive collaboration that has begun and ensure the JJC is only used for children who really need to be held in custody. Details: Belfast: Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland, 2011. 60p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 19, 2012 at http://www.cjini.org/CJNI/files/c1/c1f1690b-190f-4788-90b8-5d1b48578f57.pdf Year: 2011 Country: Europe URL: http://www.cjini.org/CJNI/files/c1/c1f1690b-190f-4788-90b8-5d1b48578f57.pdf Shelf Number: 124199 Keywords: Costs of Criminal Justice Juvenile Detention Juvenile Justice (Northern Ireland) Re-Offending

Author: Great Britain. National Audit Office Title: The Cost of a Cohort of Young Offenders to the Criminal Justice System. Technical Paper Summary: This paper follows on from our 2010 value for money study on the youth justice system. It examines 83,000 young offenders who committed their first proven offence in 2000, in England and Wales. We analysed the offending behaviour of this cohort for the period 2000 to 2009, based on data from the Police National Computer. Our analysis provides details of sex, age, ethnicity, types of offences and reoffending patterns over time. We also estimated the cost of proven offending to the criminal justice system, including the costs of police, courts, offender management teams, and custody. Our conclusion is that, on average, each young offender costs £8,000, per year, to the criminal justice system. On the same basis, each of the most costly 10 per cent costs £29,000. Details: London: National Audit Office, 2011. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 27, 2012 at: www.nao.org.uk Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: Shelf Number: 124280 Keywords: Costs of Criminal Justice Juvenile Justice System Juvenile Offenders (U.K.)

Author: Hall, Maximilian J.B. Title: The Economic Efficiency of Rehabilitative Management in Young Offender Institutions in England and Wales Summary: This paper analyses the efficiency of English and Welsh Young Offender Institutions (YOIs) during the period 2007-08 to 2010-11 accounting for the fact that prisons can both promote good behaviour but also generate undesirable outcomes. With these problems in mind, a new non-parametric program is estimated that allows both good and undesirable outputs/outcomes to determine the ‘best practice’ YOIs, giving policy-makers a basis for implementing cost reductions within the Criminal Justice System by using the ‘best practice’ YOIs as a beacon for good management of public resources. Apart from identifying such ‘frontier’ institutions, we show that, although the smallest YOIs are typically the most efficient, the size-efficiency relationship is quite complicated. This calls into question the wisdom of building ‘titan’ prisons in England and Wales which, perversely, might decrease the efficiency of rehabilitating young offenders. Details: Nottingham, UK: Nottingham University Business School, 2012. 40p. Source: Internet Resource: NUBS Research Paper Series No. 2012-04: Accessed February 27, 2012 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1992468 Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1992468 Shelf Number: 124284 Keywords: Costs of Criminal Justice Juvenile Corrections Juvenile Detention Juvenile Justice Juvenile Offenders (U.K.) Rehabilitation

Author: Baxter, David Title: Innovation in Justice: New Delivery Models and Better Outcomes Summary: Continued budgetary pressure and associated austerity measures are forcing a rethink of how justice services are delivered in the UK. Police forces, courts, probation trusts, prisons and community organisations must continually reduce their spending in the coming years. In this environment, innovation can and should play a major role in driving efficiency, meeting cost targets and developing new and better ways of delivering justice services. While these organisations are required to cut back, the social impact of austerity brings further challenges. New and quite different forms of criminal activity are emerging, from the riots this summer to developments in cyber-crime. Innovation has thus now become absolutely essential if organisations are to ‘square the circle’ and rise to the challenge of delivering more, lowering costs and ensuring criminal justice services can continue to protect the values and integrity of society. It is not enough to simply recognise that innovation is important, a number of hurdles must be overcome to implement new ideas in justice organisations. It is widely recognised that successful innovation in the public sector is difficult. However, the barriers to innovation are all the more acute in justice. Public protection by its nature obviously prefers to avoid taking risks that might lead to high profile failures endangering citizens and communities. Given its increasing importance, and appreciating the challenges and barriers, we undertook a major study to investigate the key success factors for effective innovation in criminal justice services. Twenty eight senior leaders were surveyed in diverse justice organisations across the UK, Netherlands and Czech Republic, and four detailed case studies of successful justice innovation were undertaken: Warwickshire Justice Centres, Restorative Justice in the Greater Manchester Police, Detention Centre Rotterdam and the Roma Mentoring Programme in the Czech Republic. Important insights from the research •Breakthrough improvements are possible by taking innovative approaches, in particular by engaging offenders, communities and the private sector in new forms of service delivery: new processes, new services and new business models. In the current climate, successful innovation will involve combinations of these three. •Although there are significant examples of innovation in the justice sector, it appears that innovation is not systemic, ie there are no innovation frameworks that exist from a justice perspective and as a result it is not visibly and deliberately managed. Innovation needs to become integral to service delivery. Policy makers and managers need to be more proactive in creating formal mechanisms for stimulating, managing and implementing ideas. There are significant lessons to be learned from the commercial sector’s approach to managing innovation but these ideas will need to be adapted to make them effective in the justice sector. •Acute barriers to innovation exist in the justice sector. Innovators have to contend with organisational silo structures, a reluctance to deviate from established performance targets and a general culture of risk aversion. These barriers call for an approach that challenges existing ways of working. •Effective leadership is important at all stages in the innovation process. At the early stages, senior managers must be seen to be open to new ideas and thinking, and demonstrate that new ideas will be considered. During development, leaders play a key role in defining how new ideas relate to existing performance measures and governance structures. During implementation, sponsorship and continued support of the project team is critical. The willingness of senior leaders to fight for local initiatives in a national setting also emerged as a key success factor. Wide Range of Successful Innovations The published literature does not reflect the true breadth of innovation currently taking place in justice. The authors have discovered a wide range of successful innovations and yet awareness of these across the sector seems limited. Innovators in the justice sector need to publicise initiatives more effectively and this includes clear articulation of the benefits achieved. Publicising success will allow other organisations to consider adopting similar initiatives. Central departments and policy makers should reward innovation that addresses local challenges in addition to the development and assessment of national targets. However, ‘bottom-up’ innovation is only part of the solution. The centre also needs to find a way to effectively promote and scale up innovation without being overly prescriptive. Funding mechanisms are an area for improvement because they can hinder innovation that works across traditional boundaries. It is recommended that the way justice services are funded should be reviewed, better value for money could be achieved by starting with locally relevant outcomes and allocating funding accordingly. In conclusion Innovation is now critically important in ensuring that criminal justice services can meet new and increasing demands, and protect the values and integrity of society. Successful innovation in criminal justice appears to be more about effective leadership and creating the right environment for new ideas to be developed and adopted, and less about the centre dictating ‘best practice’ and demanding adherence to performance metrics. The challenge is about maintaining the space for ideas to be developed, accepting and learning from failure and encouraging organisations to adopt new approaches. This can be achieved by developing an innovation strategy supported by systematic methods to identify, assess and implement new ideas. Details: Bedfordshire, UK: School of Management, Cranfield University, 2011. 44p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 6, 2012 at: http://www.steria.com/uk/fileadmin/assets/yourBusiness/homelandSecurity/files/Innovation_in_Justice.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.steria.com/uk/fileadmin/assets/yourBusiness/homelandSecurity/files/Innovation_in_Justice.pdf Shelf Number: 124882 Keywords: Costs of Criminal Justice Criminal Justice Reform Criminal Justice Systems (U.K.)

Author: Wiseman, Jane Title: Strategic Cutback Management: Law Enforcement Leadership for Lean Times Summary: The United States is experiencing the 10th economic decline since World War II. This document presents lessons learned from past experience and suggests approaches leaders can use to address financial crises in law enforcement agencies. Leadership is the most critical element for success. We know from the past that an organization's leaders create a shared sense of the importance of the priorities and tasks of the group. It is this inspiration that induces workers to follow along in support of the group's mission. Additional lessons learned from the past: - Avoid across-the-board cuts. They cause disproportionate harm. - Use the crisis to improve management and improve productivity. In law enforcement, examples abound of departments faced with unfortunate crises "from consent decrees to accidental shootings" where the events provided meaningful moments of reflection, learning and process improvement. Budget crises are no different. - Think long term. Research has shown that organizations capable of enduring a deep fiscal crisis had developed and were able to stick to a strategic plan with a multiyear time frame. - Do not just cut costs, look for revenue opportunities. Research on past recessions shows that increasing a tax or fee provides relief faster than cutting expenditures. Although police agencies do not have the power to levy taxes, they may be able to charge user fees for some services. - Invite innovation. During past fiscal crises, new approaches were tried that are now standard in many cities. For example, local governments have privatized certain city services and sold public facility naming rights. - Look outside for help. Law enforcement can look outside the department to other government agencies, or to suppliers, academics or other subjectmatter experts for suggestions on improving operations at reduced cost. - Targeted layoffs are more effective than hiring freezes. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, national Institute of Justice, 2011. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 11, 2012 at: https://ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/232077.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: https://ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/232077.pdf Shelf Number: 124924 Keywords: Costs of Criminal Justice Police Administration Police Management (U.S.) Police Policies and Procedures

Author: Green, Anthony Title: Auditing the Cost of the Virginia Tech Massacre: How Much We Pay When Killers Kill Summary: Five years ago, on April 16, 2007, an English major at Virginia Tech University named Seung-Hui Cho gunned down and killed 32 people, wounded another 17, and then committed suicide as the police closed in on him on that cold, bloody Monday. Since then, 12 more spree killings have claimed the lives of another 90 random victims and wounded another 92 people who were in the wrong place at the wrong time when deranged and well-armed killers suddenly burst upon their daily lives. This carnage includes the very recent killing by Ohio high school student T.J. Lane of three of his fellow students with a gun he took out of his grandfather’s barn, which also wounded two others. Lane’s revolver held 10 bullets, and he fired all 10. As we went to press, still another spree killing took place on a university campus where at least seven were killed and three wounded. This most recent spree killing— the 13th, including Cho’s rampage at Virginia Tech five years ago—occurred at a small religious college near Oakland, California, called Oikos University. What links these tragedies? It’s simple: histories indicating dangerousness combined with the lack of adequate gun control. Cho had a history of mental illness but was able to bypass the national gun purchase background check system and buy two weapons to accomplish his meticulously planned spree killing. He also bought a number of high-capacity magazines, which supersized his weapons. Well-armed, he was able to commit his carnage in no more than 15 minutes, pausing in between his two attacks. The human toll of this, the worst spree killing in recent American history, is incalculable, but there are financial costs that can be calculated. In March 2012 a state court jury in Montgomery County, Virginia, found that Virginia Tech was negligent and awarded $4 million each to two families of victims. The lawsuit was based on the families’ allegations that the lives of the students could have been saved if the university warned the campus community more quickly after the first of the two killings, which took place on the same morning. The damage award may be reduced to $100,000 for each family due to the state’s cap on damages. But as we go to press, the issue of the damages is being argued by the parties before the trial court judge. Further, whether the university appeals the verdict is still an open question. In a completely different legal action, the U.S. Department of Education fined the university $55,000 under the Clery Act, which requires universities to give notice of dangers affecting students. The university appealed, the U.S. Department of Education rejected the appeal, and subsequently a federal administrative court judge in April 2012 ruled in favor of Virginia Tech. These possible courtroom costs, however, pale in comparison to the cost of negligence due to the failure of ambiguous gun control laws alongside the lack of any genuine effort by federal or state officials to clarify the laws so that state police and courts can enforce them to the fullest extent of the law. This lack of enforcement of poorly written laws enables mentally ill people to pass background checks and purchase guns legally even if they have a history indicating dangerousness, including those found by courts to be mentally ill or subject to orders of confinement to a mental health facility. This breakdown in our legal system results in the inestimable loss of life and its horror and consequence. Sadly, we can calculate this cost another way. Another outcome of the lack of gun control is the taxpayer’s bill for a spree killing. In this report we share the findings of our survey of the monetary costs incurred as a result of this murderous rampage at Virginia Tech five years ago. This paper assesses this cost at $48.2 million for the taxpayers of the United States and the commonwealth of Virginia, and for Virginia Tech, a public university. This report also demonstrates how the background-check system, still rife with loopholes, failed to protect American citizens from an armed and dangerous Seung-Hui Cho, costing innocent lives—many of them young ones. The loss of one innocent life to a mentally disturbed shooter should be reason enough to close the gaping holes in the system that permit gun purchases and access to high-capacity magazines that can cause such mayhem. The Virginia Tech tragedy drives this point home in the most dramatic of ways because of the sheer number of deaths and extraordinary financial costs. For this reason, we recommend several commonsense measures designed to curb gun violence without taking a single gun away from the great majority of Americans who have the right to own a weapon. These measures are detailed in main pages of our report, but briefly we recommend: Completing state compliance with requirements to post appropriate mental health records in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System; Establishing clear reporting guidelines for when and how mental health records are required to be posted in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System so that states can be held accountable for compliance; Requiring a full background check in all gun transactions, including private sales at gun shows and those online, so that dangerous people cannot purchase guns legally in these nontraditional venues; Fully funding state technology efforts to comply with the federal background check system requirements; Requiring states to comply fully with the protocols of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System or taking away their federal funding if they do not; and Mandating federal compliance with a proposed presidential executive order directing all agencies to submit records to this instant background check system and certifying that they have done so twice yearly to the U.S. attorney general. In addition we offer two other recommendations for Congress to enact arising from the lessons of Virginia Tech: Outlawing high-capacity bullet magazines; and Requiring campuses to establish a threat assessment process. Taking these commonsense steps would go a long way toward ending the spree killing rampages that continue to haunt our nation. Details: Washington, DC: Center for American Progress, 2012. 56p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 15, 2012 at http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2012/04/pdf/vt_gun_control.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2012/04/pdf/vt_gun_control.pdf Shelf Number: 124968 Keywords: Background Checks Campus Crime Costs of Criminal Justice Gun Violence Gun-Related Violence Mass Shootings School Shootings Violent Crime

Author: Lachman, Pamela Title: Tracking Costs and Savings through Justice Reinvestment Summary: This publication is one of three policy briefs designed to guide local policymakers in undertaking justice reinvestment, a data-driven strategy to identify the drivers of criminal justice system costs and make more efficient use of resources while maintaining public safety. This brief focuses on the specific justice reinvestment task of tracking costs and anticipated savings to target reinvestment. It provides guidance on how to: conduct a comprehensive assessment of local justice spending; assess cost implications for agencies outside of the criminal justice system; and target reinvestment efforts. Additional resources and a "getting started" worksheet are included in an appendix. Details: New York: Urban Institute, 2012. 12p. Source: Justice Reinvestment at the Local Level Brief 1: Internet Resource: Accessed June 19, 2012 at http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412541-Tracking-Costs-and-Savings-through-Justice-Reinvestment.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412541-Tracking-Costs-and-Savings-through-Justice-Reinvestment.pdf Shelf Number: 125367 Keywords: Costs of Criminal Justice

Author: Pew Center on the States Title: Time Served: The High Cost, Low Return of Longer Prison Terms Summary: Over the past four decades, criminal justice policy in the United States was guided largely by a central premise: the best way to protect the public was to put more people in prison. A corollary was that offenders should spend longer and longer time behind bars. The logic of the strategy seemed inescapable—more inmates serving more time surely equals less crime—and policy makers were stunningly effective at putting the approach into action. As the Pew Center on the States has documented, the state prison population spiked more than 700 percent between 1972 and 2011, and in 2008 the combined federal-statelocal inmate count reached 2.3 million, or one in 100 adults. Annual state spending on corrections now tops $51 billion and prisons account for the vast majority of the cost, even though offenders on parole and probation dramatically outnumber those behind bars. Indeed, prison expansion has delivered some public safety payoff. Serious crime has been declining for the past two decades, and imprisonment deserves some of the credit. Experts differ on precise figures, but they generally conclude that the increased use of incarceration accounted for one-quarter to one-third of the crime drop in the 1990s. Beyond the crime control benefit, most Americans support long prison terms for serious, chronic, and violent offenders as a means of exacting retribution for reprehensible behavior. But criminologists and policy makers increasingly agree that we have reached a “tipping point” with incarceration, where additional imprisonment will have little if any effect on crime. Research also has identified new offender supervision strategies and technologies that can help break the cycle of recidivism. Across the nation, these developments, combined with tight state budgets, have prompted a significant shift toward alternatives to prison for lower-level offenders. Policy makers in several states have worked across party lines to reform sentencing and release laws, including reducing prison time served by nonviolent offenders. The analysis in this study shows that longer prison terms have been a key driver of prison populations and costs, and the study highlights new opportunities for state leaders to generate greater public safety with fewer taxpayer dollars. Details: Washington, DC: Pew Charitable Trusts, 2012. 65p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 26, 2012 at: http://www.pewstates.org/uploadedFiles/PCS_Assets/2012/Prison_Time_Served.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.pewstates.org/uploadedFiles/PCS_Assets/2012/Prison_Time_Served.pdf Shelf Number: 125400 Keywords: Costs of Criminal Justice Criminal Justice Expenditures Criminal Justice Policy Imprisonment Inmates Prison Population Sentencing

Author: Rolles, Steve Title: The Alternative World Drug Report: Counting the Costs of the War on Drugs Summary: The Alternative World Drug Report, launched to coincide with publication of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime’s 2012 World Drug Report, exposes the failure of governments and the UN to assess the extraordinary costs of pursuing a global war on drugs, and calls for UN member states to meaningfully count these costs and explore all the alternatives. After 50 years of the current enforcement-led international drug control system, the war on drugs is coming under unparalleled scrutiny. Its goal was to create a "drug-free world". Instead, despite more than a trillion dollars spent fighting the war, according to the UNODC, illegal drugs are used by an estimated 270 million people and organised crime profits from a trade with an estimated turnover of over $330 billion a year – the world’s largest illegal commodity market. In its 2008 World Drug Report, the UNODC acknowledged that choosing an enforcement-based approach was having a range of negative "unintended consequences", including: the creation of a vast criminal market, displacement of the illegal drugs trade to new areas, diversion of funding from health, and the stigmatisation of users. It is unacceptable that neither the UN or its member governments have meaningfully assessed these unintended consequences to establish whether they outweigh the intended consequences of the current global drug control system, and that they are not documented in the UNODC’s flagship annual World Drug Report. This groundbreaking Alternative World Drug Report fills this gap in government and UN evaluations by detailing the full range of negative impacts resulting from choosing an enforcement-led approach. Details: Count the Costs.org, 2012. 111p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 2, 2012 at: http://www.countthecosts.org/sites/default/files/AWDR.pdf Year: 2012 Country: International URL: http://www.countthecosts.org/sites/default/files/AWDR.pdf Shelf Number: 125458 Keywords: Costs of Crime Costs of Criminal Justice Drug Abuse and Addiction Drug Enforcement Drug Policy Illegal Drugs Organized Crime

Author: Mallender, Jacque Title: Final Report: An Economic Analysis of Alternatives to Short Term Custody Summary: The objective of this research was to generate evidence on the economic benefits of providing Intensive Alternatives to Custody (IAC order) as an alternative to short term custodial sentences. An IAC order is a comprehensive community based intervention which focuses on reducing the risk of reoffending. Typically an IAC order involves a combination of intensive supervision and a variety of requirements such as unpaid work, curfews, mandatory hours of structured activity per week, and enrolment in accredited programmes. The nature of the IAC order varies, however, between recipients and models of delivery. Practitioners of IAC orders maintain a high level of confidence in the programmes they are running and believe they make a measurable impact on reoffending. However, to date no evaluation has been done on the effect of IAC orders on reoffending. In this context, Matrix Evidence was commissioned by Make Justice Work to estimate the economic benefits of providing an IAC order in two pilot sites – Manchester and Bradford – in comparison to providing short term custodial sentences. The report then attempted to take these findings and consider what economic benefits could be generated if the IAC order were rolled out nationally. Specifically the economic benefits are estimated in terms of cost savings due to both reduced intervention costs and reduced reoffending. Details: London: Make Justice Work and Matrix Evidence, 2012. 37p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 5, 2012 at: http://www.matrixknowledge.co.uk/Documents/Matrix%20MJW_updated%20Final%20Report_June%202012%20(2).pdf Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.matrixknowledge.co.uk/Documents/Matrix%20MJW_updated%20Final%20Report_June%202012%20(2).pdf Shelf Number: 125475 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration (U.K.) Costs of Criminal Justice Economic Analysis Intensive Supervision Prisoners

Author: Great Britain. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary Title: Policing in Austerity: One Year On Summary: In spring 2011 Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) carried out an inspection into the preparedness of forces and authorities across England and Wales to make savings over the four years of the spending review period (2011/12–2014/15). We provided an independent commentary on the estimated scale of the challenge, and on how forces and authorities planned to meet it. The results were published in Adapting to Austerity. In this report we shine a light on whether forces and authorities have achieved their goals for the Year 1 of the spending review, and on how they now plan to meet the remaining challenge as they enter Year 2 (2012/13). Our review contains data and analysis which enables the public, their elected representatives and the police to see how their force compares with others. HMIC found that:  Forces are balancing their books by cutting the workforce and reducing their spending on goods and services;  The front line is being protected, although not preserved;  The nature of the front line is changing;  Service to the public has largely been maintained; but  There are some concerns around sustainability. Details: London: HMIC, 2012. 86p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 7, 2012 at: http://www.hmic.gov.uk/media/policing-in-austerity-one-year-on.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.hmic.gov.uk/media/policing-in-austerity-one-year-on.pdf Shelf Number: 125497 Keywords: Costs of Criminal Justice Expenditures in Criminal Justice Police Administration (U.K.) Police Performance

Author: Oxford Economics Title: Cost of Crime in Northern Ireland With Supplementary Annex The Costs of Crime against Government Departments in Northern Ireland Summary: The Statistics and Research Branch of the Northern Ireland Office (NIO SRB) has requested that Oxford Economics prepare a report on the costs of crime in Northern Ireland (NI). In accordance with the terms of the study brief (outlined in Appendix 2), this report has provided estimates of: • the total costs of crime in Northern Ireland; • unit costs of crime associated with the main categories of crime against individuals, households and businesses; and • costs of crime to individual Departments, public and private bodies arising from different categories of crime. This report estimates that the total cost of crime in NI in 2006-07 was some £2.9 billion. Details: Belfast: Northern Ireland Department of Justice, 2010. 184p. Source: Internet Resource: DOJ Research and Statistical Series: Report No. 1; Accessed July 17, 2012 at: http://www.rethinking.org.nz/assets/Cost%20of%20Crime/N%20Ireland%20Costs%20of%20Crime%202010.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.rethinking.org.nz/assets/Cost%20of%20Crime/N%20Ireland%20Costs%20of%20Crime%202010.pdf Shelf Number: 125651 Keywords: Costs of Crime (Northern Ireland) Costs of Criminal Justice Economic Analysis

Author: Gilchrist-Scott, Douglas Title: Frequent Users of Jail and Shelter Systems in the District of Columbia: An Overview of the Potential for Supportive Housing Summary: Using available data describing 196 frequent users identified by the District of Columbia Frequent Users Service Enhancement Pilot Program, this brief provides an overview of the characteristics, needs, and jail and shelter use costs of frequent users in the District of Columbia (DC). UI estimates that, on average, each frequent user costs the DC government approximately $8,607 a year through their jail and shelter use alone. To inform future policies and practices, this brief presents the potential cost savings to the DC government of reducing jail and shelter use through supportive housing, based on the success of a supportive housing program based in another large city. Details: Washington, DC: Urban Institute, Justice Policy Center, 2012. 4p. Source: Internet Resource: Research Brief: Accessed July 18, 2012 at: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412504-Frequent-Users-of-Jail-and-Shelter-Systems-in-the-District-of-Columbia.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412504-Frequent-Users-of-Jail-and-Shelter-Systems-in-the-District-of-Columbia.pdf Shelf Number: 125668 Keywords: Costs of Criminal Justice Jails Shelters Supportive Housing (U.S.)

Author: Florida. Legislature. Office of Program Policy Analysis & Government Accountability Title: Redirection Saves $51.2 Million and Continues to Reduce Recidivism Summary: Over the past five years, the Redirection Program has operated at a lower cost than residential juvenile delinquency programs and has achieved better outcomes. Youth who successfully completed the Redirection Program were significantly less likely to be subsequently arrested for a felony or violent felony, adjudicated or convicted for a felony, or sentenced to prison after treatment than similar youth who successfully completed residential commitment programs. The Redirection Program has achieved $51.2 million in cost savings for the state since it began five years ago due to its lower operating costs compared to residential delinquency programs. If the Legislature wishes to expand the program, it could consider authorizing the Redirection Program to treat certain juvenile sex offenders who are considered appropriate for community treatment and/or gang members; such programs would be less expensive than residential commitment. Details: Tallahassee: Office of Program Policy Analysis & Government Accountability, 2010. 12p. Source: Internet Resource: Report No. 10-38: Accessed July 20, 2012 at: http://www.oppaga.state.fl.us/MonitorDocs/Reports/pdf/1038rpt.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.oppaga.state.fl.us/MonitorDocs/Reports/pdf/1038rpt.pdf Shelf Number: 125708 Keywords: Costs of Criminal Justice Juvenile Corrections Juvenile Delinquency Prevention Juvenile Offenders (Florida) Juvenile Residential Treatment Programs Recidivism

Author: Males, Mike Title: Can California County Jails Absorb Low-Level State Prisoners? Summary: California spends nearly $1.3 billion per year to imprison 26,300 offenders whose primary sentencing offense was a low-level property or drug crime. For nearly 11,000 of these, the low-level sentencing offenses were classed as second or third strikes. The advisability of imposing long, strike-enhanced sentences for low-level second or third offenses is the subject of other publications. This publication focuses on the remaining 15,400 low-level, non-strike prisoners who constituted 9% of the state prison population as of December 31, 2009, and cost taxpayers nearly $750 million annually to lock up (CDCR, 2011). California counties vary 13-fold in their rates of sentencing such low-level offenders to California state prison, from 227 per 100,000 population in Kings County to 17 per 100,000 in Contra Costa (see Appendix). More than one-fourth of the total prisoners from Calaveras county were sentenced for low-level, non-strike offenses, five times the percentage in Los Angeles. Counties are imposing radically varying burdens on state taxpayers to incarcerate their lowpriority offenders at $50,000 each per year. This publication addresses the question of whether sufficient jail capacity is available at the county level to which state prisoners can be transferred in order to help achieve Governor Jerry Brown’s goal of reducing state prison populations by moving low-level offenders to local jails (CCPOA, 2011). Under Governor Jerry Brown’s realignment policies, counties will no longer be allowed to commit certain categories of offenders to state prison, but instead will be required to develop county-based alternatives. A second question involves how low-level offenders should be handled in terms of incarceration versus alternative sentencing. Details: San Francisco: Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, 2011. 6p. Source: Internet Resource: Legislative Policy Study: Accessed July 25, 2012 at: http://www.cjcj.org/files/Can_California_County_Jails_Absorb_Low-Level_State_Prisoners.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.cjcj.org/files/Can_California_County_Jails_Absorb_Low-Level_State_Prisoners.pdf Shelf Number: 125765 Keywords: Costs of Criminal Justice Costs of Imprisonment Jails (California) Prisons Sentencing

Author: National Immigration Forum Title: Immigrants Behind Bars: How, Why, and How Much? Summary: States across the U.S. are facing large budget deficits leading to significant reductions in local programs and services, including cuts to police and Sheriff's departments. But in spite of shrinking resources, many local law enforcement agencies assist in enforcement of federal immigration law, including helping with the identification and detention of immigrants believed—sometimes wrongly—to be subject to deportation. The following backgrounder provides explanations of the ways that immigrants end up in local custody and are held there on the basis of their immigration status. It also explores the associated fiscal costs of increased detention to states and counties. In recent years police have increasingly been drawn into immigration enforcement operations, and as a result, local jails are holding increased numbers of immigrants, even those not facing criminal charges. Detaining immigrants in state or local custody creates additional costs and burdens on local law enforcement agencies, and the unnecessary and prolonged detention of immigrants costs local budgets millions of taxpayer dollars per year. The enforcement of our nation’s immigration laws has historically been a federal duty. However, throughout the last decade, the distinction between federal immigration enforcement and state and local criminal law enforcement has been eroding. Since its creation in 2003, the Department of Homeland Security has pursued broad expansions of local involvement with federal authorities in enforcement of federal immigration laws. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is the Department of Homeland Security’s primary interior immigration enforcement bureau and the manager of the largest detention system in the country. ICE has aggressively sought both formal and informal relationships with state and local law enforcement agencies. This collaboration broadens ICE’s ability to identify, apprehend, and detain immigrants around the country. Notably, ICE’s efforts are not limited to undocumented immigrants. All non-citizens who may possibly be subject to deportation are under ICE’s jurisdiction, even if they have been permanent residents of the United States for decades. In 2007, ICE grouped its major programs for apprehending non-citizens identified or arrested by local law enforcement under an umbrella called “Agreements of Cooperation in Communities to Enhance Safety and Security” (ICE ACCESS). ICE ACCESS encompasses 14 different programs that connect ICE agents to state and local law enforcement agencies and operations. Three ICE ACCESS programs engender particularly broad-ranging consequences for immigrants who interact with the criminal justice system: the Criminal Alien Program (CAP), Secure Communities, and the 287(g) program. All of these programs are designed to help ICE identify immigrants who come into contact with the criminal justice system. The increased collaboration between DHS and local law enforcement agencies has resulted in greater numbers of non-citizens being held in local jails for prolonged periods of time, at great expense. When jails go beyond handling regular local criminal matters to holding civil detainees for federal agencies, many additional bodies of law and logistical requirements come into play. Questions of custody and responsibility now involve both federal and state agencies, and inmates may be juggling both criminal and civil proceedings involving different legal rights. The result has been widespread confusion and frequent civil rights violations. Immigrants who come into contact with police may end up in the local jail, being held for ICE, without even being suspected of or charged with a crime. Non-citizens involved in the criminal justice process spend more time behind bars than citizens facing similar charges. And non-citizen inmates due to be released from local custody are unlawfully detained on a regular basis. Imprisoning people is a very expensive endeavor, and the impact of this unnecessary and excessive detention amounts to millions of dollars per year for local budgets. This paper seeks to identify the ways, legal and illegal, that immigrants end up in local custody, and the associated costs to states and counties. Details: Washington, DC: National Immigration Forum, 2011. 17p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 25, 2012 at: http://www.immigrationforum.org/images/uploads/2011/Immigrants_in_Local_Jails.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.immigrationforum.org/images/uploads/2011/Immigrants_in_Local_Jails.pdf Shelf Number: 125767 Keywords: Costs of Criminal Justice Illegal Aliens Illegal Immigrants Immigrant Detention (U.S.)

Author: Justice Policy Institute' Ashton, Paul Title: Rethinking the Blues: How We Police in the U.S. and At What Cost Summary: Despite crime rates being at their lowest levels in more than 30 years, the U.S. continues to maintain large and increasingly militarized police units, spending more than $100 billion every year, according to a report released today by the Justice Policy Institute. Police forces have grown from locally-funded public safety initiatives into a federally subsidized jobs program, with a decreasing focus on community policing and growing concerns about racial profiling and “cuffs for cash,” with success measured not by increased safety and well-being but by more arrests. Rethinking the Blues: How we police in the U.S. and at what cost, highlights the negative effects of over-policing by detailing how law enforcement efforts contribute to a criminal justice system that disconnects people from their communities, fills prisons and jails, and costs taxpayers billions. The report also highlights both alternatives to improve public safety and examples of effective community policing efforts. Details: Washington, DC: Justice Policy Institute, 2012. 63p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 30, 2012 at: Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 125801 Keywords: Community Policing Costs of Criminal Justice Criminal Justice Expenditures Policing (U.S.)

Author: Shelden, Randall G. Title: Collateral Consequences of Interstate Transfer of Prisoners Summary: In 2011, the Supreme Court ordered the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to immediately take actions to reduce its state prison overcrowding to 137% capacity. As a result California has embarked on sweeping criminal justice reforms which realign responsibility for low level offenders to the counties, through passage of Assembly Bill 109. Prior to the Supreme Court mandate, California had been addressing overcrowding concerns by utilizing out-of-state private prisons, the majority of which are operated by the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA). The temporary transfer of California inmates to other states began in late 2006, rose to a peak of 10,400 in early 2011, and declined to under 10,000 by mid-2011. Continued utilization of private out-of-state facilities is slated under the 2011-2012 budget to fall by nearly half by June 2012. In light of California’s extensive budget crisis, in early 2012, CCA offered to purchase California state prisons and operate them through a 20-year management contract. In exchange CCA requested an assurance that the prisons would remain at least 90% capacity (CCA, 2012). California not only declined the offer, but CDCR released plans in April 2012, to return out-of-state inmates to state facilities and terminate its contracts with private out-of-state facilities by FY 2015- 16. This proposal estimates savings of $318 million. In addition to cost savings, returning out-of-state inmates is a sound public policy decision. The purpose of this publication is to provide an overview of the effects of out-of-state transfers on inmates and families, to evaluate the potential public safety and policy merits of CDCR’s proposal. Details: San Francisco: Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, 2012. 9p. Source: Internet Resource: Research Brief: Accessed August 2, 2012 at: http://www.cjcj.org/files/Out_of_state_transfers.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.cjcj.org/files/Out_of_state_transfers.pdf Shelf Number: 125842 Keywords: Costs of Criminal Justice Criminal Justice Reform Prison Overcrowding Prisoners, Interstate Transfer (California) Private Prisons

Author: Parlow, Matthew J. Title: The Great Recession and Its Implications for Community Policing Summary: During the last twenty years, community policing has been the dominant approach to local law enforcement. Community policing is based, in part, on the broken windows theory of public safety. The broken windows theory suggests a link between low-level crime and violent crime — that is, if minor offenses are allowed to pervade a community, they will lead to a proliferation of crime and, ultimately, a community plagued by violent crime. To maintain a perception of community orderliness, many local governments adopted “order maintenance” laws — such as panhandling ordinances and anti-homeless statutes. This emphasis on cracking down on such low-level offenses brought with it an increase in the needs and costs of policing, prosecutions, jails, social services, and other related resources. When the economy was flourishing, local governments were able to pay for the time- and resource-intensive broken windows approach to community policing. The Great Recession, however, has forced localities to think critically about whether they can sustain these practices given budget cuts. This Article analyzes the effects that the downturn in the economy has had on public safety budgets and the changes that many local governments have made, and are continuing to make, to adjust to decreasing revenue and resources. This Article will also explore proposed changes to the current criminal justice and social service systems that seek cost-effective approaches to deliver the same level of public safety to which communities are accustomed. In particular, this Article will assess and evaluate evidence-based decision-making — an emerging trend in some criminal justice systems — as part of an evolving trend driven by the effects of the Great Recession, but also stemming out of community policing. Finally, this Article will use Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, as an example of an evidence-based decision-making approach and explain how it can fulfill the public safety goals of the broken windows theory of community policing while creating a framework that provides for “smart” decision-making that accounts for the financial realities that most cities face. Details: Milwaukee, WI: Marquette University Law School, 2012. 47p. Source: Internet Resource: Marquette Law School Legal Studies Paper No. 12-12: Accessed August 3, 2012 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2083754 Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2083754 Shelf Number: 125851 Keywords: Broken Windows Policing Broken Windows Theory Community Policing Costs of Criminal Justice Economics and Crime Municipal Budgets

Author: Klingele, Cecelia M. Title: Changing the Sentence Without Hiding the Truth: Judicial Sentence Modification as a Promising Method of Early Release Summary: Last year, as the State of California struggled with a $42 billion budget deficit, its financial inability to correct constitutionally-deficient prison conditions led a federal court to order the release of 40,000 state prisoners. In Oregon, Michigan, Connecticut, Vermont, and Delaware, spending on corrections now exceeds spending on higher education. Across the nation, more than 1 of every 100 Americans is behind bars. When the financial crisis of 2008 dealt its blow, state correctional budgets were already nearing a breaking point. Now, in the wake of unprecedented budget shortfalls, state governments have been forced to confront a difficult reality: the ever-increasing prison population has come at too high a price. The question is no longer whether to reduce the number of prisoners, but how. Reversing years of ever-harsher sentencing policies, jurisdictions throughout the United States are trying to cut costs by expanding good time credit, increasing parole eligibility, and authorizing new forms of early release. This Article examines judicial sentence modification, an often overlooked ameliorative mechanism that has potential benefits many other forms of early release lack. For states wishing to promote early release in a manner that is both transparent and publicly accountable, judicial sentence modification is a promising, and potentially sustainable, new mechanism for sentence reduction. Details: Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Law School, 2010. 49p. Source: Internet Resource: University of Wisconsin Legal Studies Research Paper No. 1109: Accessed August 3, 2012 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1576131 Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1576131 Shelf Number: 125853 Keywords: Compassionate Release Costs of Criminal Justice Early Release Earned Release Credit Good Time Meritorious Good Time Parole Sentencing State Budgets

Author: Klingele, Cecelia M. Title: The Early Demise of Early Release Summary: Reversing the tough-on-crime policies that have defined American criminal justice for the past two decades, cash-strapped states across the nation have begun reducing the number of people they confine in prisons and jails. In their efforts to reduce correctional populations, numerous states have passed laws that allow parole boards, prison officials, or judges to shorten the sentences of people already serving time in custody. These so-called "early release" laws have proven highly controversial, and in at least three states have been repealed outright. In others, they remain on the books but have provided less savings than anticipated because of the failure of decision-makers to utilize their newly-conferred authority. This Article examines the early demise of early release in several jurisdictions, identifying practical, political, and moral obstacles to the practice of early release that may account for the failure of recent legislation. Responding to those concerns, I suggest principles to guide future efforts to reduce custodial populations through the use of early release. These include drafting laws that respect the limits of institutional capacity, adopting principled rules about who may be released early and for what reasons, and emphasizing the moral concerns that justify efforts to reduce prison populations. Details: Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Law School, 2011. 46p. Source: Internet Resource: Univ. of Wisconsin Legal Studies Research Paper No. 1179: Accessed August 7, 2012 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1968432 Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1968432 Shelf Number: 125901 Keywords: Costs of Criminal Justice Early Release Parole Prisoners

Author: Chicago Appleseed Fund for Justice Title: Strategies to Enhance and Coordinate Cook County Diversion Programs Summary: This document proposes strategies for Cook County to employ a smarter, more effective, cost efficient system of administering justice for the people. These are neither radical ideas nor unrealistic aspirations. Every recommendation is based on the documented successes of other jurisdictions in grappling with the issues that we address: how do we make our criminal justice system more efficient, decrease government costs, and improve the quality of life for the citizens of Cook County? Improving the criminal justice system in Cook County is not as difficult as it may appear. Making the system more efficient need not come at the cost of decreasing services or reducing public safety. To the contrary, the strategies proposed will decrease crime rates while increasing cost savings. There is plenty of opportunity for diversion. This is because Cook County expends tremendous resources sending people to jail on charges that are later dismissed. Other offenders are put on probation and released after spending time in jail. The County does not benefit from paying the jail costs in these cases, and jailing these people does not make the County safer. Nonviolent cases and cases with a low likelihood of successful prosecution present ideal opportunities for diversion. In 2010, the Cook County Jail admitted 78,534 individuals, seventy percent of whom – 55,000 people – were held on the basis of nonviolent charges. Also in 2010, 12,446 Cook County prisoners were released because the charges against them were dismissed entirely. On average, these detainees spent 25 days in jail before release. The County estimates the total cost of operating the jail to be $229,449,000 per year. This breaks down to a cost of about $142.60 per inmate per day. Even if we just improve the system so that we jail 10% fewer of the defendants whose cases are ultimately dismissed, we save the County over $4,000,000 a year. And we think that Cook County can do better than a 10% improvement. Not diverting is no longer an option. Our institutions and justice personnel are stretched beyond their limits. In order to allow them to address the most serious and strongest cases, we must divert nonviolent and weak cases. To reduce reliance upon incarceration safely and cost-effectively, we offer the following strategies, divided into three categories: 1. Centralize & Coordinate Diversion Court Efforts We suggest that the existing diversion courts, also known as specialty courts, remain in place. The County should convene a blue ribbon task force, a coalition, to help create a diversion system and centralize these diversion efforts in two dedicated courtrooms in the Criminal Division. Judges and staff would focus on the issues that overburden the criminal justice system: people suffering from addiction and mental health problems. These courts would also handle cases of many first time offenders who are suitable to be diverted from the traditional court system. 2. Improve Access Points We recommend three key stages after arrest where defendants may be identified for formal diversion programs and recommended for release from jail: Stationhouse Felony Drug Review, Enhanced Pretrial Services, and Bond Court. These stages are opportunities to improve the administration of justice and create savings. We propose strategies for limiting involvement in the criminal justice system through optimizing efficiency at each stage. 3. Collect Data on Performance and Use It Perhaps the most common sense strategy is that the County should be collecting data on program performance and using that data to monitor and evaluate progress. Currently, data is collected piecemeal, and often only by the people responsible for program management: not surprisingly, each program reports excellent performance. We suggest that the County create an independent data collection group to ensure that the County is using methods that objectively analyze performance. The real question is: if we are not using objectively collected data to gauge performance now, do we even know how we are doing? Details: Chicago: Chicago Appleseed Fund for Justice, 2012. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 8, 2012 at: http://chicagoappleseed.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/chicago-appleseed-diversion-strategies-for-cook-county1.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://chicagoappleseed.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/chicago-appleseed-diversion-strategies-for-cook-county1.pdf Shelf Number: 125906 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration (Chicago) Costs of Criminal Justice Criminal Justice Reform Criminal Justice Systems Diversion

Author: Heaton, Paul Title: Sunday Liquor Laws and Crime Summary: Many jurisdictions have considered relaxing Sunday alcohol sales restrictions, yet such restrictions' effects on public health remain poorly understood. This paper analyzes the effects of legalization of Sunday packaged liquor sales on crime, focusing on the phased introduction of such sales in Virginia beginning in 2004. Differences-in-differences and triple-differences estimates indicate the liberalization increased minor crime by 5% and alcohol-involved serious crime by 10%. The law change did not affect domestic crime or induce significant geographic or inter-temporal crime displacement. The costs of this additional crime are comparable to the state's revenues from increased liquor sales. Details: Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2011. 41p. Source: Internet Resource: Working Paper, WR-818-ISEC: Accessed August 10, 2012 at: http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/working_papers/2011/RAND_WR818.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/working_papers/2011/RAND_WR818.pdf Shelf Number: 125951 Keywords: Alcohol Related Crime, Disorder Costs of Criminal Justice

Author: Jones, Lisa Title: The Economic and Social Costs of Alcohol-Related Harm in Leeds 2008-09 Summary: Alcohol plays an important role in society, being consumed by the majority of adults and making an important contribution to the economy. However, the consumption of alcohol has health and social consequences borne both by individuals and their families, and by the wider community - the cost of alcohol in Leeds to the NHS alone has been estimated to be in excess of £20 million per year. The purpose of this report is to present estimates of the wider economic and social costs of alcohol-related harm in Leeds. Identifying the costs of alcohol-related harm is essential in informing decision-making across government and multi-agency partners regarding alcohol policy, investment in and commissioning of alcohol interventions at a regional and local level, and at an individual level, influencing lifestyle behaviour. Using cost of illness methodology this report attempts to identify and quantify, in economic terms, the impact of alcohol-related harm in Leeds through expenditure on: • The costs of health and social care for people with alcohol-related ill health, including services provided by NHS Leeds and Leeds City Council; • Criminal justice system costs for alcohol-specific and alcohol-related crimes; • The costs of productivity losses in the workplace due to absenteeism, reduced productivity and premature mortality; and • An estimate of the intangible or human costs, representing the wider impacts of premature death. Alcohol also makes an important contribution to the economy, for example through the key role it plays within the leisure and tourist industry, and the report considers the contribution that the production, distribution and sale of alcohol makes to the Leeds economy. The methods used to estimate the economic and social costs of alcohol-related harm in Leeds were based on approaches used in other costing studies, in particular those related to alcohol misuse. These methods aim to identify and measure all costs related to alcohol misuse, including the direct costs, indirect costs in the form of production losses, and intangible or ‘human’ costs. Estimates of the economic and social costs of alcohol-related harm in Leeds in 2008/09 totalled £438.0 million across the four categories as follows: Health and social care; Criminal justice system; Workplace and lost productivity; and Wider social and economic costs. Details: Liverpool: Centre for Public Health, Faculty of Health and Applied Social Sciences, Liverpool John Moores University, 2010. 76p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 11, 2012 at: http://www.cph.org.uk/showPublication.aspx?pubid=713 Year: 2010 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.cph.org.uk/showPublication.aspx?pubid=713 Shelf Number: 125985 Keywords: Alcohol Abuse Alcohol Related Crime, Disorder (U.K.) Costs of Crime Costs of Criminal Justice

Author: Soeiro, Mafalda Title: Determinants of Highter Education Students' Willingness to Pay for Violent Crime Reduction: A Contingent Valuation Study Summary: By eliciting an individual’s Willingness to Pay (WTP) for a reduction in crime risks, the contingent valuation method is one of the most solid methodologies in use to estimate the intangible costs of crime. However, very few studies have applied contingent valuation methods to random samples of the population located in high crime rate areas. This study is, to the best of our knowledge, the first attempt to apply the contingent valuation method to estimate how much a specific group of society, which is relatively prone to falling victim to (violent) crime, i.e., students, is willing to pay to reduce the likelihood of being the victim of violent crime. In contrast to the existing literature, our study focuses on a rather unexplored context, Portugal, where criminality and violent crime rates are relatively low by international standards, even though they have been on the rise. Based on responses from 1122 higher education students in a broad range of degrees (from Economics to Psychology and the Humanities), we found that 33% of our respondents have been victims of crime in the past, although in general they did not result in physical or psychological injuries. A reasonable percentage of the students (almost 40%) is very worried about falling victim to a crime and 52.8% worries moderately. Over 40% of our respondents were willing to pay a certain amount but less than 50€, whereas 20.8% were willing to pay between 50€ and 250€. On average, all other determinants constant, younger and female students revealed that they were more inclined to pay so as to avoid violent crime than their older and male counterparts. Low and high income Portuguese students do not differ in their willingness to pay more to avoid being victims of violent crime. Cautious behaviour, such as locking doors at home, and a strong opinion about policies and payment vehicles with potential to reduce the risk of crime is positively associated with the WTP. Finally, the students’ field of study surfaced as a key determinant of WTP – students enrolled in Economics and Management revealed a higher WTP. Such findings are likely to have a critical impact on crime and insurance policies. Details: Porto, Brazil: Faculdade de Economia, Universidade do Porto, 2010. 41p. Source: FEP Working Papers N. 384: Internet Resource: Accessed August 13, 2012 at http://wps.fep.up.pt/wps/wp384.pdf Year: 2010 Country: International URL: http://wps.fep.up.pt/wps/wp384.pdf Shelf Number: 126018 Keywords: Costs of Crime Costs of Criminal Justice Crime Reduction Violent Crime

Author: Subramanian, Ram Title: Realigning Justice Resources A Review of Population and Spending Shifts in Prison and Community Corrections Summary: Ongoing state budget deficits have placed the centerpiece of U.S. penal policy—incarceration—under intense scrutiny. Although crime rates have been on the decline since 1992, prison populations and spending continue to grow, spurring state policymakers to question whether resources can be better used to enhance public safety. State officials are beginning to rethink long-held tough-on-crime policies and turn their attention to decades of research showing that many offenders are dealt with more effectively in the community. To control rising costs, many states have adopted policies that aim to lower prison populations by moving people who are incarcerated to less-expensive supervision in the community, though there is recognition that for such a shift to be successful further investment in community supervision is often required. In these states, policymakers and corrections administrators hope not only to reduce correctional costs but also improve public safety outcomes. In this study, the Vera Institute of Justice, in partnership with the Pew Center on the States’ Public Safety Performance Project, set out to determine whether—in light of recent state-level policy changes and the economic recession—there have been observable shifts from prisons to community corrections between 2006 and 2010 by examining changes in 1) prison populations, 2) prison spending, 3) community corrections populations, and 4) community corrections spending. Staff from Vera’s Center on Sentencing and Corrections surveyed state corrections agencies, reviewed recent sentencing and corrections legislation, and conducted interviews with criminal justice officials knowledgeable about their states’ corrections policies and budgets. Although approaches to corrections and responses to budget shortfalls varied widely across responding states, for most states the overall trend between 2006 and 2010, in both prison and community corrections, was one of growth. However, when the findings from just the last two years of the study period are considered, a different story emerges. Between 2009 and 2010, Vera observed a stark downward shift in expenditures across many states and systems of prison and community corrections despite variations in population change—a consequence, perhaps, of shrinking state budgets and the contraction in correctional spending as a whole. Vera’s study demonstrated that there is not always a discernible relationship between population and spending shifts from one part of the system to another. Policy changes that aim to cut spending on prisons do not necessarily have the expected impact on community corrections populations or spending. Larger fiscal realities, other legislative changes, and factors outside of policymakers’ control can upset predictions of a policy’s impact. However, several states—such as, Michigan, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Wisconsin, and Virginia—have successfully implemented policies that curb both prison populations and spending. These states demonstrate that cost-savings can be realized through sentencing reform that addresses the number of people entering prison or placed on community supervision and the dedication of appropriate resources to support research-driven community supervision practices and programs. It remains to be seen, however, whether more states will achieve this type of outcome from similar policy efforts, given current fiscal pressures and external factors. Continuing efforts by states to reduce their prison populations and expenditures, strengthen their community corrections systems, and improve public safety suggest that further research may be needed. Details: New York, NY: Vera Institute of Justice, 2012. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 23, 2012 at http://www.vera.org/files/Full%20Report.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.vera.org/files/Full%20Report.pdf Shelf Number: 126405 Keywords: Correctional Administration Costs of Criminal Justice Criminal Justice Policy

Author: Great Britain. Her Majesty's Iinspectorate of Constabulary Title: Valuing the Police: Policing in an Age of Austerity Summary: In times of increasing budgets, the police in England and Wales were successful in achieving the measures set for them – reducing crime and improving public confidence. This report considers the effect of budget cuts on policing, and in particular the impact on sustaining the number of police who are visible and available to the public. Police forces receive between 50 and 90% of their funding from central government, with most of the remainder coming from Council Tax. The Emergency Budget on 22 June 2010 announced that on average there would be a 25% cut in central government budgets between now and 2013/14, and that Council Tax would remain stable for a year. We will not know what this means for policing until it is announced by the Government later this year. However, we do know that a fixed percentage cut applied to all forces would impact disproportionately on those forces that receive a higher proportion of their funding from central government. Our report with the Audit Commission, Sustaining Value for Money in the Police Service, also published today indicates that cost cutting and improvements in productivity could, if relentlessly pursued, generate a saving of 12% in central government funding (see the ‘Re-design’ section below). But we should not underestimate the challenge in reducing costs and, importantly, retaining a police service that is visibly effective in the eyes of the public. Details: London: HMIC, 2010. 31p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 27, 2012 at: http://www.hmic.gov.uk/media/valuing-the-police-policing-in-an-age-of-austerity-20100720.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.hmic.gov.uk/media/valuing-the-police-policing-in-an-age-of-austerity-20100720.pdf Shelf Number: 126479 Keywords: Costs of Criminal Justice Criminal Justice Expenditures Policing (U.K.)

Author: Great Britain. National Audit Office Title: Restructuring of the National Offender Management Service Summary: The U.K. National Offender Management Service, an Executive Agency of the Ministry of Justice, faces substantial financial and operational challenges, including a vulnerability to unexpected changes in the prison population, and will find it more difficult to meet its savings targets following decisions to drop some sentencing reforms designed to reduce the size of the prison population. The National Offender Management Service achieved value for money in 2011-12, as it hit its savings target of £230 million while restructuring its headquarters and it has broadly maintained its performance, such as in reducing reoffending. As a result of some sentencing reforms not going ahead, the Ministry of Justice lost around £130 million of savings. Given the loss of these reforms, the prison population is now unlikely to fall significantly over the next few years. This limits the Agency’s plans to close older, more expensive, prisons and bring down costs. The Agency’s savings target for 2012-13 of a further £246 million is challenging and it currently projects it will spend £32 million more than its budget. Its cumulative annual savings target increases to over £880 million by 2014-15. The Agency currently has a £66 million shortfall in the £122 million needed over the next two years to fund early staff departures aimed at bringing long-term reductions in its payroll bill. The Agency has restructured its headquarters, reducing staff numbers by around 650 from around 2,400. Despite having fewer staff at its headquarters, prison governors, probation trust chief executives and other stakeholders consulted by the NAO generally regarded the restructure positively, considering it produced a more efficient organization with greater clarity on accountability. The Agency relies on the probation profession to deliver reforms and to reduce costs, but there are some tensions in the relationship. The NAO found that the Agency has done much to ensure knowledge of probation is captured at its headquarters but has recommended the Agency continue to engage with probation trusts to address their perception it lacks understanding of probation issues. The Agency’s responsibility for offenders means that its core business is managing risk. It has strong risk management mechanisms at its headquarters and in the oversight of prisons. However, there are gaps in how the Agency consolidates the recording of risks from prisons at a regional level, meaning the Agency may be unaware of risks in different areas. Details: London: The Stationery Office, 2012. 44p. Source: Internet Resource: HC: 593, 2012-2013; Accessed September 29, 2012 at: http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/1213/restructuring_noms.aspx Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/1213/restructuring_noms.aspx Shelf Number: 126489 Keywords: Costs of Criminal Justice Expenditures in Criminal Justice Offender Supervision (U.K.) Probation Probationers

Author: Buentello, Tara Title: Operation Streamline: Drowning Justice and Draining Dollars along the Rio Grande Summary: Operation Streamline, a policy begun in 2005 by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in conjunction with the Department of Justice (DOJ), mandates that nearly all undocumented immigrants apprehended near the southern border in designated areas be detained and prosecuted through the federal criminal justice system, a dramatic departure from previous practices when most immigration cases were handled exclusively within the civil immigration system. According to the Department of Homeland Security’s Operation Streamline press release: “Those aliens who are not released due to humanitarian reasons will face prosecution for illegal entry. The maximum penalty for violation of this law is 180 days incarceration. While the alien is undergoing criminal proceedings, the individual will also be processed for removal from the United States.” Operation Streamline’s key component is that it mandates that immigrants crossing the border in designated areas be arrested, detained while awaiting trial, prosecuted with a misdemeanor or felony charge, incarcerated in the federal justice system, and finally deported. On December 16, 2005, The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) launched Operation Streamline along a section of the Texas-Mexico border near Del Rio, Texas, spanning a total of 210 miles. Operation Streamline has spread to other areas along the U.S.-Mexico border, including much of Arizona and Texas. Operation Streamline has exposed undocumented immigrants crossing the southern border to unprecedented rates of incarceration; overburdened the federal criminal justice system in the districts where it has been implemented; and added enormous costs to the American taxpayer while providing a boon to the for-profit private prison industry. The extent of the program is so sweeping that by 2009, 54% of all federal prosecutions nationwide were for immigration offenses. The effect is more pronounced in border districts. In April 2010, prosecutions of 1325 and 1326 alone accounted for 84% of all prosecutions in the Southern District of Texas, which includes Houston. Since Operation Streamline began in 2005, there has been a 136% in prosecutions for unauthorized entry and an 85% increase in prosecutions for unauthorized re-entry in the Western and Southern Districts of Texas. More than 135,000 migrants have been criminally prosecuted in these two border districts since 2005 under the two sections of the federal code that make unauthorized entry and re-entry a crime. Operation Streamline has funneled more than $1.2 billion into the largely for-profit detention system in Texas, driving the expansion of private prisons along the border. Operation Streamline has significantly increased the caseload of public defenders and federal judges while radically increasing the number of individuals incarcerated for petty immigration violations in for-profit private prisons and county jails throughout Texas. Data in this report show an increase in criminal prosecutions of undocumented border-crossers even as the estimated number of migrants to the United States has dropped. In 2009, two border districts in Texas prosecuted 46,470 immigrants, representing approximately 186 entry and re-entry prosecutions a day for federal courts along the border. Proponents of Operation Streamline argue that it has deterred illegal entry. However, research conducted amongst migrants in the United States indicates that the decreased migration has largely been caused by the economic downturn, while the ironic impact of beefed-up border enforcement has been to deter migrants from returning to their countries of origin during the recession. Operation Streamline: Drowning Justice and Draining Dollars along the Rio Grande presents facts, figures, and testimony highlighting the human and financial costs Operation Streamline exacts on migrants, the federal judiciary, and the detention system in Texas. The recommends report recommends the repeal of Operation Streamline. Successor policies to Operation Streamline addressing undocumented border crossers should return jurisdiction over immigration violations to civil immigration authorities, reduce the use of detention for border crossing violations, and promote and promote a pathway for legal and reasonable means for immigrants to obtain legal status in the United States. Details: Charlotte, NC: Grassroots Leadership, 2010. 31p. Source: Internet Resource: Green Paper: Accessed October 1, 2012 at: Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 126536 Keywords: Border Security Costs of Criminal Justice Homeland Security Illegal Aliens Illegal Immigrants (U.S.) Immigrant Detention Immigration Policy

Author: Robertson, Alistair Graham Title: Operation Streamline: Costs and Consequences Summary: In 2005, the Del Rio sector of the Border Patrol, an agency within the federal Department of Homeland Security’s Customs and Border Protection, faced a peculiar issue. With civil detention facilities at capacity and voluntary return to Mexico available only to Mexican citizens, non-Mexican migrants were given a notice to appear in front of an immigration judge and released in the United States.” In 2004, Border Patrol apprehended approximately 10,000 non-Mexican migrants in the Del Rio sector; just one year later, the figure spiked to 15,000. The solution to this enforcement issue, Border Patrol decided, was to circumvent the civil immigration system by turning non-Mexican migrants over for criminal prosecution, a practice until then relegated almost exclusively to cases of violent criminal history or numerous reentries. Upon considering the proposition, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Texas responded with one caveat: in order to avoid an equal protection violation, the courts would have to criminally prosecute all migrants within a designated area, not just those from countries other than Mexico. With the signature of Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, it was decided to do just that. Starting in December of 2005, “Operation Streamline” required all undocumented border-crossers in the Eagle Pass area of the Del Rio Border Patrol sector to be funneled into the criminal justice system and charged with unlawful entry or re-entry (8 U.S.C. § 1325 or 1326). Those charged with improper entry usually face a sentence of up to 180 days, and a judge may impose a sentence of over ten years dependent upon criminal history. Re-entry offenders also face tough sentences, including a felony charge that places up to a ten-year bar on legal immigration. The Department of Homeland Security since has drastically expanded the criminal referral model through similar programs in the Yuma sector in 2006, the Laredo sector in 2007, and the Tucson sector in 2008. By 2010, every U.S.-Mexico border sector except California had implemented a “zero-tolerance” program of some sort, the whole of which are commonly referred to by the moniker of the original program— Operation Streamline. Depending upon the sector, the degree of implementation may vary significantly. For example, according to Federal Public Defenders in the Yuma and Del Rio sectors, Border Patrol refers nearly 100% of apprehended immigrants in those areas for criminal prosecution. In the Tucson sector, where greater migrant volume renders such high referral rates logistically unfeasible, the percentage on immigrants “Streamlined” may be closer to 10%, or about 70 of the 800 migrants apprehended each day. The resulting prisoner volume has led the Bureau of Prisons in the Department of Justice to depend upon private prison corporations like Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) and GEO Group. Through increased facility use and contracts for other services, CCA and GEO have enjoyed a combined $780 million increase in annual federal revenues since 2005. In FY2011, the federal government paid immense sums of taxpayer money to private prison companies, $744 million and $640 million to CCA and GEO Group, respectively. Much of this revenue derives from contracts for Criminal Alien Requirement (CAR) prisons, where federal immigrant prisoners are segregated in privately owned, privately operated prisons contracted by the Bureau of Prisons. The terms of CAR contracts include incentives (and sometimes guarantees) to fill facilities near capacity with immigrant prisoners. Each year, these companies dedicate millions of dollars to lobbying and campaign contributions. The federal dollars behind immigrant incarceration come at a significant cost to the taxpayer, climbing in 2011 to an estimated $1.02 billion annually. Before the announcement of Operation Streamline in 2005, the federal government annually committed about 58% of that total, or $591 million toward incarcerating immigrants. In 1994, the amount was about $72 million, 7% of its current level. Recent budget proposals indicate that federal spending on 2 Operation Streamline: Costs and Consquences prosecution and incarceration will likely increase, as Congress recently stated an ambition to “expand Operation Streamline to additional Border Patrol sectors” alongside a record-setting DHS budget request of $45.2 billion. The sheer volume of immigration cases has also severely burdened the courts in border districts, which have been forced to handle a near 350% increase of petty immigration cases from 12,411 in 2002 to 55,604 in 2010. In Tucson, courts may see as many as 200 immigrants lined up for prosecution in a single morning. To handle the expanded caseload, the Department of Justice has pursued a combination of resource-intensive options, including privately contracting with defense attorneys, deputizing Border Patrol agents as special Assistant U.S. Attorneys, and bringing several magistrate judges out of retirement. Furthermore, Operation Streamline strips Assistant U.S. Attorneys of the power to prosecute the crimes they deem pressing. Immigration cases made up 36% of all criminal prosecutions nationwide in 2011, surpassing drug and fraud prosecutions combined. Details: Charlotte, NC: Grassroots Leadership, 2012. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed october 1, 2012 at: http://www.grassrootsleadership.org/files/GRL_Sept2012_Report%20final.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.grassrootsleadership.org/files/GRL_Sept2012_Report%20final.pdf Shelf Number: 126537 Keywords: Border Security Costs of Criminal Justice Homeland Security Illegal Aliens Illegal Immigrants Immigrant Detention Immigration Operation Streamline (U.S.) Private Prisons

Author: Dwyer, Allison M. Title: Data-Driven Decisionmaking for Strategic Justice Reinvestment Summary: This publication is one of three policy briefs designed to guide local policymakers in undertaking justice reinvestment, a data-driven strategy to identify the drivers of criminal justice system costs and make more efficient use of resources while maintaining public safety. This brief discusses the central role of strategic planning entities in the justice reinvestment process; outlines how these bodies are structured and operated; and provides guidance in establishing or expanding such a collaborative. A case study from one local justice reinvestment site is presented to highlight the recommended process. Additional resources and a "getting started" worksheet are included in an appendix. Details: Washington, DC: Urban Institute, Justice Policy Center, 2012. 10p. Source: Justice Reinvestment at the Local Level, Brief 2: Internet Resource: Accessed October 10, 2012 at http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412543-Data-Driven-Decisionmaking-for-Strategic-Justice-Reinvestment.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412543-Data-Driven-Decisionmaking-for-Strategic-Justice-Reinvestment.pdf Shelf Number: 126668 Keywords: Costs of Crime Costs of Criminal Justice Crime Statistics Evaluative Studies

Author: PFM Group Title: A 21st Century Criminal Justice System for the City of New Orleans. Part I: Overview of the Criminal Justice System, its Costs and the Case for Better Coordination Summary: A University of New Orleans survey recently found that 61 percent of New Orleans residents cited crime as the most important issue in the city: the percentage of respondents citing crime as their primary concern was up from just 46 percent two years ago. Finding solutions to this problem is the top priority for Mayor Landrieu and the rest of the city’s leadership. Many factors go into the problem of crime in the United States and New Orleans. Decades of studies have demonstrated that certain individuals – based on socio-economic factors – are both more likely to commit crime and more likely to be victims of crime. Nationally, violent crime rates in the U.S. are higher than in other nations and scholars have noted that one difference may go to the availability of firearms. For years, law enforcement officials have argued that so much of what goes into defining a place’s crime problem is beyond their responsibility. Police are not responsible for school dropout rates. Prosecutors are not responsible for poverty rates. And judges are not responsible for the incidence of mental health problems in a community. Nevertheless, in most communities, we charge those who comprise “the criminal justice system” with the responsibility for keeping streets and neighborhoods safe. At the same time, there are bounds set by law – by statute, by state constitution and by the federal constitution – as to what steps these officials may take to fulfill that responsibility. Overall, we want to have a community where both civil rights and civil order are maintained. Meeting these twin goals – civil rights and civil order – is made more complicated by the fragmented nature of the criminal justice system. It has been noted that: “[I]f a system is thought of as a smoothly operating set of arrangements and institutions directed toward the achievement of common goals, one is hard pressed to call the operation of criminal justice in the United States a system….a more accurate representation may be that of a criminal justice nonsystem.” The New Orleans criminal justice system is highly fragmented – with the Mayor having direct control over some agencies (e.g. Police, Human Services), but with independently elected officials (e.g. Sheriff, District Attorney, judges, clerks) controlling the rest. The fragmentation in authority is matched by a fragmented process of funding – including funds from the City, state and federal governments, as well as outside grants and a significant amount of funding derived through fees and fines collected from defendants. Over the last several years, the city and various parts of the criminal justice system have launched a series of reforms. • In July, the city entered into a consent decree with the Department of Justice that addresses a wide variety of issues at the New Orleans Police Department from community policing practices and training to internal investigations and paid police details. The Mayor has already implemented many of the requirements in the decree and in the next four years it will serve as a detailed, comprehensive road map for reform. • NOLA for Life is a strategy to reduce homicides. Prevention is at the core of this plan - jobs, opportunity, rebuilding neighborhoods and improving the police department. But it all starts with one goal: stop the shooting. • The Mayor’s Strategic Command to Reduce Murders regularly brings together representatives of the criminal justice system, schools, community and civic organizations to review and analyze each homicide so as to develop prevention strategies. • After his appointment in May 2010, Police Superintendent Ronal Serpas announced a 65 point plan to reform the New Orleans Police Department and implementation of the plan began late that year. • The New Orleans Police Department has significantly reduced the number of individuals stopped for committing a crime who are arrested. Instead, the Department now routinely issues summonses to offenders for lower level offenses. • With the support of the Mayor and the City Council, a pre-trial services program was launched in the Criminal District Court under the guidance of the Vera Institute of Justice and with the cooperation of the Orleans Criminal Sheriff. The program is designed to help judges who set bond better assess the threat criminal defendants pose to the public. The result is that many low level offenders who are not a threat to public safety are released on their own recognizance rather than being held in jail awaiting trial. • The Mayor convened a Criminal Justice Working Group that included the Sheriff, Judges, District Attorney, and other community leaders to consider a variety of topics relating to the Orleans Parish Prison. • Greater cooperation between the New Orleans Police Department and the District Attorney has significantly reduced screening time for felony arrests. • The District Attorney now brings misdemeanor charges under provisions of municipal ordinance. The DA has also shifted nearly all state misdemeanor cases to Municipal Court. This has significantly reduced the workload at the Criminal District Court. • The New Orleans Police and Justice Foundation with funding from the federal government, and partners across the criminal justice system are working collaboratively to upgrade the system’s technological capabilities through the Orleans Parish Information Sharing and Information System (OPISIS). • The City Council has also actively supported efforts for reform across the criminal justice system and its Criminal Justice Committee has frequently served as a forum for discussion of new and innovative approaches to public safety. All of these developments are reason to be optimistic about the city’s ability to improve the criminal justice system. Despite these significant developments, our report finds that there is a need to do more. Interviews with leadership across the criminal justice system – and with organizations outside of the criminal justice system – indicate a consensus on the need to do more and to do more in a collaborative and coordinated manner. As detailed below, the cost of the criminal justice system is significant – with approximately $300 million annually expended in local, state, federal, grant and self generated dollars on a system that employs more than 3,200 full time employees or equivalents. This system includes police, prosecutors, public defenders, investigators, coroner’s staff, judges and clerks and their judicial support staff. In addition, because of the disproportionate number of state prisoners, probationers and parolees who come from New Orleans, the state – independent of funds expended through local agencies – also spends an estimated additional $75 million on the criminal justice system and these estimates of spending do not account for costs in the education, health and human services agencies that are directly related to the operations and policies of the criminal justice system. Details: Philadelphia, PA: The PFM Group, 2012. 69p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 15, 2012 at: http://images.skem1.com/client_id_15553/PFM_Report,_Part_1_October_2012.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://images.skem1.com/client_id_15553/PFM_Report,_Part_1_October_2012.pdf Shelf Number: 126708 Keywords: Costs of Criminal Justice Criminal Justice Reforms Criminal Justice Systems (New Orleans, U.S.)

Author: Roman, John K. Title: The Costs and Benefits of Electronic Monitoring for Washington, D.C. Summary: This is the second in a series of reports that forecast how cost-effective various evidence-based programs would be if operated/expanded in the District of Columbia (DC). These reports use data from many prior research studies, combined with DC-specific costs and DC-specific case processing statistics, to forecast the costs and benefits of implementing the target programs in the District. This report analyzes the annual costs and benefits of probation augmented with electronic monitoring (EM) compared to probation without EM. After briefly describing the expected outcomes of the average EM program, we estimate the savings from those outcomes for DC residents and local and federal agencies, and describe expected program costs. These data are then combined to produce estimates of the cost-benefit of EM in the District. Most cost-benefit analyses (CBAs) generate only average cost-benefit (CB) results without discussing uncertainty, statistical significance, or confidence bounds. Without knowing how widely results are expected to vary, such average results provide insufficient basis to forecast the cost-effectiveness of a new program. It is common in criminal justice for positive results to be largely driven by a few program participants with large benefits. In that case, the average is driven by many offenders with little program benefit and a few offenders with large program benefits. This is more likely to be the case if the program to be implemented is small. As a result, while the program may on average yield benefits greater than the costs, in any one replication, there may be a reasonable chance that a program will not be cost-beneficial. The District of Columbia’s Crime Policy Institute’s (DCPI’s) CBA predicts the range and distribution of expected costs and benefits, and forecasts both the average expected CB result and the probability that the result will be positive. We find that there is an 80 percent chance that an EM program for 800 offenders would yield benefits that exceed its costs. The expected net benefit per participant of EM is more than $4,500, suggesting that the program is generally quite cost-effective. Details: Washington, DC: District of Columbia Crime Policy Institute, Urban Institute, 2012. 15p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 22, 2012 at http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412678-The-Costs-and-Benefits-of-Electronic-Monitoring-for-Washington-DC.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412678-The-Costs-and-Benefits-of-Electronic-Monitoring-for-Washington-DC.pdf Shelf Number: 126779 Keywords: Costs of Criminal Justice Electronic Monitoring

Author: Haldenby, Andrew Title: Doing It Justice: Integrating Criminal Justice and Emergency Services Through Police and Crime Commissioners Summary: As new Reform research shows, the most successful criminal justice organisations integrate services to deliver a better service to communities and end-to-end rehabilitation for offenders. In Glasgow, joint working between police, local government and health services within the Violence Reduction Unit has transformed a city previously blighted by violent gang crime. By working together to target gang members, agencies have reduced violent crime by 38 per cent since 2006 and improved police detection rates by a fifth. Serious assaults have fallen by 42 per cent and murders have fallen by nearly a third. In Warwickshire, a similar approach has been used to improve services for victims and the community. The creation of two Justice Centres has brought police, prisons, courts, youth offending teams and victim support under the same roof, delivering a more coordinated service and higher satisfaction for users. Police and Crime Commissioners, as a single point of accountability and budgetary control, offer a vehicle to make this type of approach the rule, rather than the exception. There is another, even more pressing, imperative for the criminal justice system: austerity. Police and justice services are currently halfway through one of the most stringent Spending Reviews in their history, in which the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice must reduce real terms spending by 23 per cent each by 2014-15. Yet even as they reduce spending by a fifth by 2015, services are facing up to the prospect of further cuts thereafter. If healthcare spending is protected in line with GDP, as seems likely, criminal justice spending will fall by a further 3.4 per cent a year between 2014-15 and 2016-17. As Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and the National Audit Office have shown, the “burning platform” of cuts is already driving innovation and better value for money, but efficiencies are time-limited and new models of delivery will be needed to ensure the fiscal sustainability in the future. With wider powers, PCCs would be well placed to achieve such sustainability. Already joint emergency control centres, such as the Tri-Service centre in Gloucestershire, are reducing costs while improving responsiveness. Leading fire services such as Greater Manchester have shown how to reduce costs and make communities safer at the same time, by shifting their resources into fire prevention. The achievement of lower crime and greater safety will enable sustainable reductions in spending, in particular on costly prison places. Commissioners would have a clear incentive to save money since they will be able to pass on savings to their electorates through reductions in the precept portion of local council tax. Such integrated models could be complimented by more creative commissioning and greater use of alternative providers, including private companies. The success of private provision in prisons and police support should give candidates confidence to extend competition elsewhere, for example to fire and rescue, ambulance services and probation. In the UK, private companies already provide fire and rescue services, for example at airports. Privately managed prisons, such as HMP Parc and HMP Doncaster, have shown the value of private sector expertise in integrating through-the-gate services to improve prisoner resettlement and reduce reoffending. Those PCC candidates who have rejected the use of the private sector before they even take office may find themselves unable to effect real change when they are elected. Police and Crime Commissioners are a significant step in the right direction, but they risk losing the confidence of the public if they do not have the tools to effectively address the causes of crime. Of the 43 force areas, more than half have similar boundaries to local probation and fire and rescue authorities, meaning there is already a ready-made framework for integration and local accountability that could be extended to remaining areas with minimal restructuring. If the Government is serious about criminal justice reform, it should take this flagship reform to its logical, local conclusion and devolve power and budgets for all criminal justice and emergency services to PCCs. Details: London: Reform, 2012. 73p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 24, 2012 at: http://www.reform.co.uk/resources/0000/0498/DoingItJustice.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.reform.co.uk/resources/0000/0498/DoingItJustice.pdf Shelf Number: 126790 Keywords: Consolidation Costs of Criminal Justice Criminal Justice Partnerships (U.K.) Criminal Justice Reform Emergency Services

Author: Archer, Justin Title: Improving Strategic Planning through Collaborative Bodies Summary: Justice reinvestment is a systemwide process of data analysis and collaborative decisionmaking used to identify drivers of criminal justice costs and reinvest resources to yield a more cost-beneficial impact on public safety. It is not a single decision, project, or strategy, but rather a multistaged, ongoing process involving the collaboration of local stakeholders across city, county, and state systems. It is therefore critical that, at the onset of engaging in this process, sites establish a strategic planning entity whose primary mission is to direct efforts and ensure that goals are met. Beyond directing efforts and tracking goals, this type of collaborative body can also ensure that the right decisionmakers are involved in reinvestment efforts and that no critical stakeholders are excluded. This brief will first discuss the importance of strategic planning entities within criminal justice systems and explain why a jurisdiction may want to pursue the formation of a strategic planning body. The discussion should help localities examine the collaborative efforts among its agencies and determine if the formation of an organized planning body is appropriate. The brief will then outline how these bodies are structured and operated, giving guidance for those who wish to form such a collaboration. Finally, a case study from one local justice reinvestment site, Allegheny County, is presented to highlight how a successful collaborative body can conduct a case review to identify systemic issues and develop solutions. Details: Washington, DC: Justice Policy Center, Urban Institute, 2012. 10p. Source: Justice Reinvestment at the Local Level Brief 3: Internet Resource: Accessed November 12, 2012 at http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412542-Improving-Strategic-Planning-through-Collaborative-Bodies.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412542-Improving-Strategic-Planning-through-Collaborative-Bodies.pdf Shelf Number: 126918 Keywords: Costs of Criminal Justice Crime Prevention Programs Criminal Justice Administration Justice Reinvestment

Author: Minnesota Sex Offender Program Title: Options for Managing the Growth and Cost of the Minnesota Sex Offender Program: Facility Study Summary: Throughout Minnesota, managing sexual offenders and combating sexual violence is a complex issue with a wide scope and multi-agency approach. For years, Minnesota has been a leader on many fronts in this area from specialized caseloads for supervision agents, to the development of one of the first actuarial risk tools in the field (MNSOST-R). The Minnesota Legislature has requested several studies related to sexual violence and sexual offenders in the past 15 years which is indicative of its commitment to continue to evaluate and strengthen current practice and to develop strategies consistent with advancements in the field. Many recommendations from these reports have been implemented and have resulted in an improved system. Minnesota is one of 20 states that enacted civil commitment statutes to indeterminately detain individuals for treatment to address their sexual dangerousness and as part of a broader strategy to manage the risks presented across the continuum of sexual offenders. The civil commitment program is expensive to maintain and the program continues to expand because more sexual offenders are entering than are being released. The cost and growth of the Minnesota Sex Offender Program (MSOP) continues to be an area of concern particularly given the current economic issues facing the state. Public safety cannot be compromised yet the growth of this program creates a strain on the state budget as the per diem for MSOP clients is $328 and projections indicate an expected annual growth of at least 50 additional clients. To address future growth and cost, the 2010 Legislature included a subdivision in the capital investment bonding bill requiring the commissioner of the Department of Human Services (DHS) to submit a report to the Legislature by January 15, 2011. The commissioner tasked MSOP with the completion of this study. MSOP then convened four topical teams to provide analysis and recommendations for sex offender treatment, the civil commitment process, sexual abuse perpetration prevention, and bed space options for MSOP clients. These other facets of this issue were incorporated in this study to paint a complete picture of the growth of Minnesota’s civil commitment program for sexual offenders and its subsequent need for expansion. Developing options to manage the growth and decrease the cost of MSOP was the charge for each topical team as they researched and provided analysis of their topic. The treatment topical team found treatment systems in Minnesota have the potential to further reduce the need for civil commitments and to help support the release of some civilly committed individuals if they have made sufficient progress to warrant any court ordered release to society from MSOP. This results in an increased reliance on community-based treatment to manage higher risk sexual offenders. To make this shift responsibly, Minnesota should work to strengthen its community-based treatment options in several ways. These changes will require additional resources but it is likely that these additional costs will be more than offset through reductions in expected future MSOP operating costs and capital costs associated with program expansions. The team that reviewed the current civil commitment process concluded these programs for sexual offenders are an expensive yet necessary tool in an effective, comprehensive statewide management strategy. The challenge for the State of Minnesota is to utilize MSOP efficiently while maintaining public safety in a fiscally responsible manner. Opportunities exist to impact the future cost and growth of MSOP by making modifications and revisions in the current process of civil commitment. Evaluating the application of commitment criteria in the referral process and considering options to indeterminate commitment would impact the number of new clients admitted to MSOP. Enhancing coordinated community-based resources would increase the ability to manage this challenging population at a decreased cost. Once modifications and new policies are in place, an ongoing evaluation of the statewide management system for sex offenders would assist in maintaining efficiency and better ensure public safety. Managing the growth and decreasing the cost of MSOP could be most effectively achieved if sexual abuse was prevented before someone perpetrated sexual harm. Prevention of sexual abuse perpetration was included in this study and report to illuminate the importance of preventing the creation of civilly committed sex offenders as well as preventing recidivism once MSOP clients are reintegrated into the community. By investing in a population-based public health approach to sexual violence prevention, Minnesota will be investing in long-term cost-savings for the state. A complex web of social norms, environmental factors, peer influence and individual decision-making that precedes an act of sexual violence. Ample opportunities for intervention and prevention exist. After reviewing several options for renovation and expansion, the bed space options topical team concluded that both a short-term and a long-term solution are needed to address the projected growth of MSOP. In the short-term, MSOP should work with the Minnesota Security Hospital to move clients out of the Shantz building on the St. Peter campus. This allows MSOP to request asset preservation funds from the Legislature to complete the infrastructure renovations of the Shantz building. This will increase the capacity of MSOP by 55 additional beds, which will accommodate MSOP’s bed space needs for one more year. This timing allows MSOP to review next year’s projections and develop a bonding request for the 2012-2013 legislative sessions. The low operating costs of this recommendation will assist MSOP in lowering the overall per diem. The long-term solution is the lowest on-going operating cost per client in adding a 400 bed living unit within the original design of the MSOP Moose Lake facility. This allows MSOP to take advantage of existing support infrastructure, security perimeter and administrative staff. The MSOP Moose Lake facility expansion also allows for building only 200 or 100 beds. The 200 bed addition would include adding only two of the five housing wings. The 100 bed option only builds one of the wings. These options will still require building the additional support infrastructure, but require less bonding dollars in the near term and still allow for the additional expansion of the other wings. Minnesota would do well to continue to strengthen its multi-faceted, multi-agency approach to the issue of sex offender management and also, in preventing sexual violence. In moving forward, Minnesota should create and fund an on-going entity to coordinate, assess and improve statewide responses to sex offender management as well as to identify new and emerging issues. As this report demonstrates, the issue of sexual violence is exceedingly complex and thus requires an approach equal in its complexity including prevention, intervention and response. It should be noted that the Office of Legislative Auditor (OLA) is in the process of conducting a program evaluation of MSOP. The OLA report to the Legislature will likely address some of these areas in further detail as well as provide suggestions and or recommendations for future direction. Details: St. Paul: Minnesota Department of Human Services, 2011. 58p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 7, 2012 at: http://archive.leg.state.mn.us/docs/2011/mandated/110064.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://archive.leg.state.mn.us/docs/2011/mandated/110064.pdf Shelf Number: 127187 Keywords: Civil Commitment of Sex Offenders Correctional Supervision Costs of Criminal Justice Prisoners Risk Assessment Sex Offenders (Minnesota, U.S.) Sexual Violence

Author: Coburn, Tom Title: Safety At Any Price: Assessing the Impact of Homeland Security Spending in U.S. Cities Summary: The Oklahoma City bombing in 1995 and the attacks of September 11, 2011 will forever be etched in our collective memory and forever serve as painful reminders that the enemies of freedom are many and our security often comes at a steep price—in dollars, lives and liberty. We no longer can assume our distant shores from foreign lands or having the greatest military force in the history of the world are enough to protect us. We now live with the reality terrorists are within our midst and they may look, sound and act like us, but they hate everything we are and the values we share. The balancing act between liberty and security has been tenuous throughout the history of our nation, founded upon basic freedoms granted by our Creator and protected from government infringement within the Bill of Rights of our Constitution. But a new element has been added to this equation over the past decade that threatens to undermine both our liberty and security—excessive government spending and insurmountable debt. We cannot secure liberty and guarantee security simply by spending more and more money in the name of security. Every dollar misspent in the name of security weakens our already precarious economic condition, indebts us to foreign nations, and shackles the future of our children and grandchildren. Our $16 trillion national debt has become the new red menace not only lurking in our midst, but created and sustained by shortsighted and irresponsible decisions made in Washington. We can only defend our freedoms by ensuring the dollars we spend on security are done so in a fiscally responsible manner, meet real needs, and respect the very rights we are aiming to preserve and protect. This report, Safety at Any Price, exposes misguided and wasteful spending in one of the largest terror-prevention grant programs at the Department of Homeland Security – the Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI). We cannot assume that because the UASI program has an important mission and a large budget it is accomplishing its goals, however. Significant evidence suggests that the program is struggling to demonstrate how it is making U.S. cities less vulnerable to attack and more prepared if one were to occur—despite receiving $7.1 billion in federal funding since 2003. After ten years, a clear danger for the Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI) grant program is that it would be transformed from a risk-based program targeting security gaps into an entitlement program for states and cities. My office has conducted a year-long inquiry into the this grant program found that to wide of latitude is given to states and urban areas to determine the projects they will fund, and program parameters defining what constitute allowable expenses are extremely broad. Congress and DHS failed to establish metrics to measure how funds spent through the UASI program have made us safer or determine the right amount to dedicate to counterterrorism programs to mitigate the threat. While DHS recently established its first National Preparedness Goal, it has yet to develop a robust assessment of the nation’s current preparedness capabilities or defined performance metrics to assess the effectiveness of federal expenditures made to date. If in the days after 9/11 lawmakers were able to cast their gaze forward ten years, I imagine they would be surprised to see how a counter-terrorism initiative aimed at protecting our largest cities has transformed into another parochial grant program. We would have been frustrated to learn that limited federal resources were now subsidizing the purchase of low-priority items like an armored vehicles to protect festivals in rural New Hampshire, procure an underwater robot in Ohio and to pay for first responder attendance at a five-day spa junket that featured a display of tactical prowess in the face of a “zombie apocalypse.” As we mark the tenth anniversary of the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, the time has come for Congress to reconsider DHS’s mission and approach to counterterrorism. We must be honest with the American people that we cannot make every community around the country invulnerable to terrorist attacks by writing large checks from Washington, D.C. Not only is this an unrealistic goal, but it also undermines the very purpose of our efforts. By letting every level of government – federal, State and local – do the things each does best, we can secure our cities and our freedoms. Confusing these roles, as we have done with UASI, leads to waste, inefficiency and a false sense of security. We must rededicate ourselves to ensuring that every dollar the federal government spends on terrorism prevention programs is spent wisely, yielding the largest improvement in security and best return on investment for your tax dollars. Facing a $16 trillion national debt, Congress needs to have a conversation about what we can afford to spend on the Department of Homeland Security’s terrorism prevention programs and where to spend it. The American people recognize and understand the limits we face. They understand that we should never sacrifice all of our freedoms in the name of security. We similarly cannot mortgage our children and grandchildren’s future by funding unnecessary and ineffective programs, even including those that have important missions. Details: Washington, DC: Office of U.S. Senator Tom Coburn; Member, Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, 2012. 55p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 13, 2012 at http://www.coburn.senate.gov/public//index.cfm?a=Files.Serve&File_id=b86fdaeb-86ff-4d19-a112-415ec85aa9b6 Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.coburn.senate.gov/public//index.cfm?a=Files.Serve&File_id=b86fdaeb-86ff-4d19-a112-415ec85aa9b6 Shelf Number: 127209 Keywords: Costs of Criminal Justice Counterterrorism Crime Prevention Homeland Security Security

Author: Abrams, David S. Title: The Imprisoner's Dilemma: A Cost Benefit Approach to Incarceration Summary: Depriving an individual of life or liberty is one of the most intrusive powers that governments wield. Decisions about imprisonment capture the public imagination. The stories are told daily in newspapers and on TV, dramatized in literature and on film, and debated by scholars. The United States has created an ever-increasing amount of material for discussion as the state incarceration rate quadrupled between 1980 and 2000. While the decision to incarcerate an individual is given focused attention by a judge, prosecutor, and (occasionally) a jury, the overall incarceration rate is not. In this article, I apply a cost-benefit approach to incarceration with the goal of informing public policy. An excessive rate of incarceration not only deprives individuals of freedom, but also costs the taxpayers large amounts of money. Too little imprisonment harms society in a different way – through costs to victims and even non-victims who must increase precautions to avoid crime. Striking the right balance of costs and benefits is what good law and public policy strive for. Changes to the inmate population may be made in several different ways. One insight that I stress in this article is that the precise form of a proposed incarceration policy change is crucial to properly evaluating the impact of the change. Therefore, I analyze several potential policy changes and their implications for sentencing and imprisonment. The calculations are informed by recent empirical work on the various ways in which imprisonment impacts overall welfare. I find that the benefits of limited one-time prisoner releases, as well as the reclassification of some crimes exceed the costs. Details: Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Law School, 2012. 58p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 16, 2012 at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2109703 Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2109703 Shelf Number: 127227 Keywords: Correctional Administration Corrections Cost Benefit Analysis Costs of Criminal Justice Imprisonment

Author: Kyckelhahn, Tracey Title: State Corrections Expenditures, FY 1982-2010 Summary: Presents data on state corrections expenditures from fiscal years 1982 to 2010. This bulletin examines trends in state corrections spending for building and operating institutions and for other corrections functions. The report also details institutional operating expenditures per inmate over the study period. It compares trends in state corrections expenditures with state spending for public welfare, education, health and hospitals, and highways. Data are drawn from the Census Bureau's State Government Finance Survey, which collects information on state expenditures and revenues, and the Bureau of Justice Statistics' National Prisoner Statistics, which collects information on state prison populations. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2012. 14p. Source: BJS Bulletin: Internet Resource: Accessed January 13, 2013 at http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/scefy8210.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/scefy8210.pdf Shelf Number: 127264 Keywords: Correctional Administration Corrections Costs of Criminal Justice Expenditures in Criminal Justice

Author: Meissner, Doris Title: Immigration Enforcement in the United States: The Rise of a Formidable Machinery Summary: The US government spends more on federal immigration enforcement than on all other principal federal criminal law enforcement agencies combined, and has allocated nearly $187 billion for immigration enforcement since 1986. Deportations have reached record highs, border apprehensions 40-year lows, and more noncitizens than ever before are in immigration detention. The report traces the evolution of the immigration enforcement system, particularly in the post-9/11 era, in terms of budgets, personnel, enforcement actions, and technology – analyzing how individual programs and policies have resulted in a complex, interconnected, cross-agency system. Details: Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute, 2013. 182p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 17, 2013 at: http://carnegie.org/fileadmin/Media/Image_Galleries/immigration_enforcement_in__us_MPI_report.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://carnegie.org/fileadmin/Media/Image_Galleries/immigration_enforcement_in__us_MPI_report.pdf Shelf Number: 127284 Keywords: Border Security Costs of Criminal Justice Illegal Aliens Illegal Immigrants Immigrant Detention Immigration (U.S.) Immigration Enforcement

Author: Institute for Economics and Peace Title: Violence Containment Spending in the Untied States: A New Methodology to Categorize and Account for the Economic Activity Related to Violence Summary: It has been well established that violence has a marked effect on economic activity with many studies demonstrating the negative economic impacts of crime, incarceration, insurgencies and especially war. However, there have been no studies to systematically aggregate the economic costs of all forms of violence, including the costs of prevention and protection, to understand how much of an economy is captured by violence and violence containment. For the purposes of classification, this form of economic activity has been defined as the violence containment industry (VCI). Aggregated as an industry sector it would be the single largest in the United States. The Institute for Economics and Peace (IEP) has developed a new methodology to quantify the cost of violence and the economic gains associated with peace for the U.S. economy. All expenditure that is related to violence containment, whether performed by the military on the international stage or domestically through the provision of services to fight crime, has been classified together as the Violence Containment Industry or alternately, as violence containment spending. This provides a framework to classify and better understand a substantial part of the U.S. economy as well as providing a platform for future research. Given the sheer size of the U.S. economy that is dedicated to containing violence, quantifying the expenditure as a discrete industry creates a unique basis for further analysis and debate. IEP defines violence containment spending as economic activity that is related to the consequences or prevention of violence where the violence is directed against people or property. This includes all expenditures related to violence, including but not limited to medical expenses, incarceration, police, the military, insurance, and the private security industry. It is divided into local, state, and federal government expenditure as well as private spending by corporations, households, and individuals. While expenditures on containing violence are an important and necessary public good, the less a nation spends on violence related functions the more resources a nation can allocate to other, more productive areas of economic activity. Expenditure on violence containment is economically efficient when it effectively prevents violence for the least amount of outlay. However, money that is spent on surplus violence containment, or money that is spent on inefficient programs has the potential to constrain a nations’ economic growth. This is simply because much of this type of expenditure is fundamentally unproductive, and if redirected toward productive pursuits, would improve government balance sheets, company profits and ultimately, the productivity and wellbeing of society. The research presented in this report shows that in 2010, VCI accounted for $2.16 trillion or around 15% of U.S. gross domestic product. This figure is considered conservative due to the difficulties of accounting for all private and public sector spending. Having not conducted an analysis of the size of the violence containment spending in other countries it is difficult to assess independently how the U.S. fares compared to other countries. Given the size of its defense and associated homeland security spending, the final size of the VCI in the U.S. is likely higher than other developed nations. THE KEY FINDINGS OF THE STUDY ARE: • Violence Containment spending in the U.S. amounted to $2.16 trillion in 2010 equivalent to just over $15,000 for each taxpayer or $7,000 per year for every man, woman and child.¹ • If violence containment spending was represented as a discrete industry, it would be the largest industry in the United States economy, larger than construction, real estate, professional services or manufacturing. • If violence containment spending was represented as a discrete national economic entity, it would be the seventh largest economy in the world - only slightly smaller than the UK economy. • Violence containment spending is four times higher than the national defense budget. • Public sector spending on VCI accounts for 10.8% of GDP while private sector spending is 4.2% of GDP.² • If U.S. federal violence containment spending was reduced by $326 billion or 25%, i.e. to the same relative levels as in 2001, then in one year the saved funds would be sufficient to entirely update the energy grid, rebuild all levies and renew the nation’s school infrastructure. Violence containment spending has been broken down into both the public and private sectors, and is represented in terms of net value added.³ It shows that the Federal Government spends over $1.3 trillion or approximately 9% of GDP on violence containment. This is more than was spent on pensions and more than double what was spent on infrastructure in 2010. National defense spending includes the Department of Defense, Homeland Security, Veterans Affairs and the debt servicing on these expenditures which is based on the proportion of military related government expenditure.4 Private sector spending on violence containment is conservatively estimated to be $605 billion or 4.2% of 2010 GDP. The remaining amount is spent by state and local government on police, justice, corrections and other security related measures. The approach presented in this report enables a new and novel approach to understanding the international economic competitiveness of a nation, based on calculating the percentage of GDP spent on violence containment. The less a nation spends on violence containment, providing it is also more peaceful, then the more competitive the economy should be, due to the ability to deploy its resources more efficiently. This evidently is only one dimension of national competitiveness, but a uniquely original and important one. For business, higher violence containment spending can result in unaccounted costs such as higher taxes, increased sunken costs and increased ancillary costs such as investing in security systems, security guards or even higher insurance premiums. Additionally, the higher the level of violence in a corporation’s area of operations then the more management time is devoted to responding to security rather than market development or competitive issues. This represents ‘lost’ opportunity which could be transferred into developing capital and expanding profits. Given the enormity of the number of items that needed to be counted in this exercise, it is inevitable many much smaller items were excluded given the difficulty of obtaining data on the true value-added figure. As an illustrative example some of the more meaningful items excluded have been included on page ten. The sheer size of spending on the Violence Containment Industries very clearly illustrates the enormous benefits of investing in the prevention of violence. If policymakers clearly understood the economic burden of non-productive violence containment then improving the levels of peacefulness would be seen as central to long term structural reforms. Details: New York: Institute for Economics and Peace, 2012. 48p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 17, 2013 at: http://www.visionofhumanity.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Violence-Containment-in-the-US-Report.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.visionofhumanity.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Violence-Containment-in-the-US-Report.pdf Shelf Number: 127342 Keywords: Costs of Crime Costs of Criminal Justice Economics of Crime (U.S.) Violence Violent Crime

Author: Vera Institute of Justice, Center on Sentencing and Corrections Title: Performance Incentive Funding: Aligning Fiscal and Operational Responsibility to Produce More Safety at Less Cost Summary: America’s tough-on-crime sentencing policies are often cited as the primary reason the United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world. Yet there is another contributing factor that is often overlooked: a structural flaw in the way most states fund their criminal justice systems that discourages local decision makers from supervising offenders in the community and makes it easier to send them to prison. It is the state corrections agency that bears the cost of incarcerating people in prison. However, both the decision to send an offender to prison and the cost of keeping an offender in the community almost always rest with a different state agency or a local jurisdiction. This is true for either a new conviction or a revocation from probation or parole. In the eyes of local decision makers and in cases involving low-level offenders, sending someone to prison is all too often the preferred option because it saves the actual expense of supervision and avoids the political cost should an offender commit a serious crime while in the community. Because of ongoing state budget deficits and decades of prison population growth, state policymakers have recently begun to focus attention on this misalignment of fiscal and operational responsibility by devising solutions that make system actors more accountable and collaborative. Since 2003, eight states have enacted legislation creating performance incentive funding (PIF) programs that aim to align the interests of the state corrections agency and local decision makers. PIF programs are premised on the idea that if the supervision agency or locality sends fewer low-level offenders to prison—thereby causing the state to incur fewer costs—some portion of the state savings should be shared with the agency or locality. With PIF, agencies or localities receive a financial reward for delivering fewer prison commitments through reduced recidivism and revocations that, in turn, must be reinvested into evidence-based programs in the community. In September 2011, the Vera Institute of Justice, the Pew Center on the States, and Metropolis Strategies brought together more than 50 practitioners from the states that have enacted or were considering PIF legislation. In addition to outlining how PIF programs can lead to better offender outcomes while reducing overall corrections costs, this report discusses seven key challenges and tasks, identified by summit participants, that a state must address when designing and implementing a PIF program: (1) choosing an administrative structure, (2) selecting a funding mechanism, (3) deciding whether to provide seed funding, (4) selecting outcome measures, (5) determining baseline measures, (6) estimating savings, and (7) engaging stakeholders. The report suggests that including multiple measures to evaluate performance and determine eligibility for incentive funding, rather than focusing on just the single outcome of reduced prison commitments, will ensure that public safety is protected while positive outcomes are still achieved. This report also highlights the importance of incorporating evidence-based practices into the incentive funding structure and providing agencies and localities with the resources and support they need to pursue the program’s goals. A successful PIF program can significantly curb prison population growth and costs while increasing public safety: in the first year of its PIF program, California experienced a 23-percent drop in prison commitments of felony probationers, and $88 million of the savings was distributed to county probation agencies. Most important, PIF can transform public safety by contributing to a reduction in recidivism, crime, and revocation rates. Details: New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2012. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 23, 2013 at: http://www.vera.org/files/performance-incentive-funding-report.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.vera.org/files/performance-incentive-funding-report.pdf Shelf Number: 127369 Keywords: Costs of Criminal Justice Criminal Justice Expenditures Prisons Sentencing (U.S.)

Author: Council of State Governments Justice Center Title: The Impact of Probation and Parole Populations on Arrests in Four California Cities Summary: One of the first questions as officer asks when arresting someone is “Are you on probation or parole?” and the answer generally expected is “yes.” Given this expectation, it is understandable for officers on the beat to believe that it is only a matter of time before people on parole or probation commit a crime. As longstanding and prevalent as this assumption has been, very little research exists quantifying the extent to which people under community supervision are, in fact, driving local law enforcement’s arrest activity. Law enforcement executives across the country have been forced to make deep cuts to their budgets as a result of plunging local tax revenues and shrinking federal funding for local police departments. This has certainly been the case in California. For example, the police departments in Sacramento, Los Angeles, and Redlands experienced significant declines in funding between 2008 and 2012, which have resulted in, among other things, major reductions in personnel. On top of the fiscal pressures police departments are experiencing, local governments in California are struggling with the transformation of the state corrections system currently underway. Compelled by federal court order to address overcrowding in the California prison system, state policymakers have taken a number of steps to reduce the prison population. For example, they have mandated that non-violent, non-serious and non-sex offenders serve their sentences at the local level rather than in state prisons. In addition, state officials have transferred post-release supervision responsibilities for people convicted of these crimes already in state prison to county probation officers. As a result of these and other actions, the number of people incarcerated in state prison has plummeted by nearly 40,000 people, from more than 173,000 in 20063 to fewer than 133,000 in November 2012. During the same timeframe, the state’s parole supervision population has declined by nearly 50 percent, from almost 120,000 to fewer than 61,000.5 The downsizing of the prison population has enabled the state to address dangerous levels of overcrowding in its system and to reduce state spending on corrections by billions ofdollars. Some of these savings have been passed along to the county governments, which must decide what to do with people who had previously been incarcerated in a state prison or under state parole supervision. Local law enforcement officials generally have received few of these redirected funds. Many police chiefs and sheriffs have asserted that the growing numbers of people released from state prison, combined with supervision responsibility shifting from state to local government for people convicted of particular offenses, will intensify demands on the resources of local law enforcement, which are already stretched to the breaking point. In 2010, Chief Charlie Beck of the Los Angeles Police Department, Chief James Bueermann of the Redlands Police Department, Chief Rick Braziel of the Sacramento Police Department, and Chief George Gascón of the San Francisco Police Department asked the Council of State Governments Justice Center (CSG Justice Center) to help them to determine the extent to which people on probation and parole contribute to the demands on the resources of local law enforcement, and to identify what opportunities exist to use data to target their limited resources more effectively. They asked CSG Justice Center to conduct an unprecedented analysis of arrest, probation, and parole data to answer these questions: 􀁑 To what extent do people on probation and parole contribute to crime, as measured by arrests? 􀁑 What types of crimes are these people most likely to commit? 􀁑 Are there particular subsets of people on probation and parole who are most likely to reoffend? If so, what characteristics do they have in common? 􀁑 What strategies can law enforcement employ to better respond to the people being released from prisons and jails to community supervision? Considerable research exists documenting rearrest or reincarceration rates for people under probation or parole supervision. Little research, however, has been published about the extent to which people on probation and parole contribute to the overall volume of arrests in a particular jurisdiction. This groundbreaking study addresses this gap in the research. Researchers had access to separate information systems maintained by multiple independent agencies. They assembled a vast, comprehensive dataset covering a lengthy time period that is without precedent. Researchers amassed more than 2.5 million adult arrest, probation, and parole supervision records maintained by 11 different agencies over a 42-month period stretching from January 1, 2008 to June 30, 2011. Because California does not mandate the uniform statewide collection of arrest data, each local jurisdiction maintains this information independently and distinctly. Needless to say, the gathering and matching of records for this study proved to be a complex undertaking. The research presented here is not a recidivism study. Researchers did not follow a particular group of people post-release for a prescribed period of time to determine that group’s rates of reoffense and compare that number to another, similar group of people for a similar length of time. The dataset assembled for this study encompassed all people arrested (as opposed to a narrower universe limited to people released from prison or jail) during a three-and-a-half-year time period. By using this cohort, which was far larger than just the number of people under correctional supervision, researchers could learn about the proportion of arrests that involve people under supervision compared to those not under supervision, as well as characteristics of the subset of parolees and probationers who contribute to police arrests. Details: New York: Council of State Government Justice Center, 2013. 54p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 24, 2013 at: http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Reports/docs/External-Reports/CAL-CHIEFS-REPORT.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Reports/docs/External-Reports/CAL-CHIEFS-REPORT.pdf Shelf Number: 127372 Keywords: Arrests Costs of Criminal Justice Parole Parolees Probation Probationers (California)

Author: Moll, Jeanette Title: Putting “Corrections” Back in State Jails: How to Reform Texas’ Expensive, Ineffective State Jail System Summary: State jails in Texas are a part of the prison system. State jails are managed by the state, but unlike prisons, almost exclusively house inmates charged with low-level larceny and drug possession crimes. State jails were designed to be a low-cost alternative to prison, with dual goals of reducing prison populations and reducing recidivism rates in low-risk defendants. Unfortunately, state jails are universally failing in their objective. Almost as expensive as prisons, with higher recidivism rates, state jails merely cycle state jail felons in and out of the jailhouse doors, doing little to reduce risks of future criminality, but doing a great deal to burden Texas taxpayers. This paper details the bad deal Texas taxpayers get for the their state jails, both in high costs and increased risks to the public safety, as well as the ways the Texas Legislature can fix the state jail system for good. Details: Austin, TX: Texas Public Policy Foundation, 2012. 16p. Source: Internet Resource: Policy Perspective: Accessed January 30, 2013 at: http://www.texaspolicy.com/sites/default/files/documents/2012-11-PP29-PuttingCorrectionsBackInStateJails-CEJ-JeanetteMoll.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.texaspolicy.com/sites/default/files/documents/2012-11-PP29-PuttingCorrectionsBackInStateJails-CEJ-JeanetteMoll.pdf Shelf Number: 127444 Keywords: Costs of Criminal Justice Expenditures in Criminal Justice Jail Reform Jails (Texas, U.S.)

Author: Dunklee, Caitlin Title: Effective Approaches to Drug Crimes In Texas: Strategies to Reduce Crime, Save Money, and Treat Addiction Summary: During the past 30 years, Texas has enacted laws and policies meant to enhance public safety, resulting in crowded prisons and jails, and a corrections budget that comprises a huge slice of the state budget. Laws that focus on incarcerating men and women have been founded in genuine concern. However, a considerable percentage of the people arrested, charged, and incarcerated have been low-level drug users. Since 1999, arrests for drug possession in Texas have skyrocketed. In fact, almost all drug arrests in Texas are not for delivery or distribution, but for possession of a controlled substance. These numbers include people arrested for possession of illicit drugs, as well as the increasing number of Texans who have become addicted to prescription drugs. Both of these groups share a common thread: their substance abuse problems are often rooted in addiction. A proper response to this public health issue is treatment, not incarceration. Many people prosecuted for low-level drug crimes battle other obstacles, including mental illness, homelessness, joblessness, and poverty. Prosecuting and incarcerating Texans whose addictions push them into using illicit drugs or abusing prescription drugs burdens them with the collateral consequences associated with conviction and incarceration; it (further) limits their housing options, employment opportunities, and access to educational and medical programs, and it ultimately lessens the likelihood that they will become healthy, contributing members of their communities. Incarceration-driven policies are also egregiously expensive: treatment is a fraction of the cost of imprisoning an individual in Texas. Finally, our prisons and jails are simply not equipped with staff or resources to adequately combat the root causes of substance abuse and addiction, which means that untreated individuals are much more likely to commit other crimes after release, threatening public safety and creating a continual drain on limited coffers. For those with addiction, drug treatment is a more effective strategy to treat the individual, reduce recidivism, and lower costs to the state. Texas should take steps to aggressively and proactively address drug addiction, and thereby decrease associated crime, by promoting medical and public health responses to this issue. Specifically, policy-makers must support the efforts of practitioners, including probation departments and judges, who are seeking to effectively treat those with substance abuse problems by improving and making more widely available community-based rehabilitation and treatment diversion alternatives. Details: Austin, TX: Texas Criminal Justice Coalition, 2013. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: accessed February 4, 2013 at: http://www.texascjc.org/sites/default/files/uploads/TCJC%20Addiction%20Primer%20(Jan%202013).pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.texascjc.org/sites/default/files/uploads/TCJC%20Addiction%20Primer%20(Jan%202013).pdf Shelf Number: 127469 Keywords: Alternative to Incarceration Costs of Criminal Justice Drug Abuse and Addiction (Texas, U.S.) Drug Offenders Drug Treatment

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: Police Executive Research Forum Title: Policing and the Economic Downturn: Striving for Efficiency Is the New Normal Summary: This report provides details about PERF’s 2012 survey of law enforcement agencies, which found that 41 percent of responding departments were planning budget cuts for their next fiscal year. This was an improvement over a PERF survey two years earlier, which found that 61 percent of those same agencies were planning budget cuts. The report also includes a number of case studies of law enforcement agencies that have developed innovative strategies for dealing with significant budget cuts, including the departments in Corpus Christi, TX; Camden, NJ; Lane County, OR; and Manchester, England. Details: Washington, DC: PERF, 2013. 48p. Source: Internet Resource: Critical Issues in Policing Series: Accessed February 16, 2013 at: http://policeforum.org/library/critical-issues-in-policing-series/Economic_Downturn.pdf Year: 2013 Country: International URL: http://policeforum.org/library/critical-issues-in-policing-series/Economic_Downturn.pdf Shelf Number: 127645 Keywords: Costs of Crime (U.S.) Costs of Criminal Justice Criminal Justice Expenditures Economics Police Administration Police Agencies Police Budgets

Author: Schaenman, Phil Title: Opportunities for Police Cost Savings Without Sacrificing Service Quality: Reducing False Alarms Summary: This report focuses on ways to reduce calls to police for what turn out to be false alarms from security systems. In many cities, such false alarms often number in the tens of thousands each year, waste millions of dollars of officer time, and detract from attention to reducing crimes. We welcome feedback from local or state governments on the usefulness of this report, and information on other ways police departments have obtained cost savings relating to false alarms. The information provided here was primarily drawn from the experiences of three local governments: Montgomery County (MD); Seattle (WA); and Salt Lake City (UT). The report is presented in two sections. The first provides a summary of the findings for public officials. The second provides detailed findings for those wanting more specific information on the various options for reducing the costs of false alarms, and details on how a series of approaches was implemented over time in each jurisdiction examined. Details: Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 2012. 30p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 22, 2013 at: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412729-Opportunities-for-Police-Cost-Savings-Without-Sacrificing-Service-Quality.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412729-Opportunities-for-Police-Cost-Savings-Without-Sacrificing-Service-Quality.pdf Shelf Number: 127697 Keywords: Burglar Alarms Costs of Criminal Justice Crime Prevention False Alarms Security Systems

Author: Bradford, Spike Title: Common Ground: Lessons Learned from Five States that Reduced Juvenile Confinement by More than Half Summary: After decades of expanding correctional populations in the United States, there is a growing awareness that we need to end the era of over-incarceration. Primarily this realization has formed around the adult correctional population, with less attention paid by the media or the general public to young people who are confined for delinquent behavior or prior to adjudication. This is perhaps because of the small percentage of youth that makeup the total incarcerated population: in 2010, approximately 2,270,100 adults were incarcerated in the U.S., compared to 70,792 youth. Simply by its scale, the “adult problem” dominates the conversation. However, as confinement is the least effective method of addressing delinquent behavior in young people and increases the likelihood that they will become justice-involved adults, systemic reforms that will reduce the number of confined youth are urgently needed. Such reforms–including reducing the number of youth held in secure confinement, improving the conditions of juvenile facilities and expanding community-based services that can be used instead of confinement, among other issues–have been aggressively pursued in a number of states around the country for over a decade. In fact, juvenile correctional populations have dropped by about a third, nationally, since 1999, when they peaked at over 107,000 confined youth. Restructuring the “fiscal architecture” of juvenile justice is one approach to reducing youth confinement that has attracted national attention. This approach seeks to remove the incentive of counties and local jurisdictions to send youth to state-run and state-funded institutions. Certainly, the current economic environment has played a role in states wanting to reduce their juvenile corrections expenses, which run upwards of $240 per day, per youth. Creating financial incentives for counties to keep youth close to home has the potential to lower net costs (state confinement and local community-based services), and improve outcomes for youth. Because this approach has showed early success in several states, other jurisdictions are considering whether they, too, should reform the fiscal architecture of their state juvenile justice systems to reduce youth confinement. Four years ago, the Justice Policy Institute, in its publication, Costs of Confinement: Why Good Juvenile Justice Policies Make Good Fiscal Sense, highlighted fiscal reform as a promising practice. Given the drop in juvenile confinement just in the past four years, we decided to look at what role fiscal changes–and other reforms–have played in reducing the number of youth locked up in the U.S. We discovered that adjusting funding schemes was just one of many successful strategies for juvenile confinement reform and, in fact, there are many states that have significantly reduced their juvenile confined populations without fiscal reform. States have initiated top-down policy changes, requiring police and courts to treat juveniles differently, resulting in fewer youth confined. Others have simply closed their state’s juvenile correctional facilities, forcing judges to adopt less restrictive responses to juvenile delinquency. What follows is a critical analysis of those elements that appeared to contribute to the greatest reductions in rates of confinement over the past decade. Keeping in mind juvenile justice in each state operates as a system, the actors, policies and problems are necessarily intertwined. For example, the creation of a juvenile justice reform committee within a state is one way to further deinstitutionalization reforms but this process is often the result of settlement agreements among litigants over poor juvenile justice conditions. In this report, each of these strategies will be addressed. After discussing commonalities of reform activities among the states, we provide a brief overview of each state’s experience. These are not case studies per se of specifics of each state’s work, but more of an aerial view to further describe the transformations made. Through the diversity of strategies, as well as the commonalities between states, we hope advocates and policymakers who seek better outcomes for youth will find inspiration and pursue those strategies that are fiscally and politically achievable in their jurisdictions. Details: Washington, DC: Justice Policy Institute, 2013. 44p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 5, 2013 at: http://www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/justicepolicy/documents/jpicommonground.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/justicepolicy/documents/jpicommonground.pdf Shelf Number: 127829 Keywords: Costs of Criminal Justice Juvenile Corrections Juvenile Detention Juvenile Justice Systems Juvenile Offenders

Author: Zhang, Ting Title: An Estimation of the Economic Impact of Spousal Violence in Canada, 2009 Summary: This report provides an estimate of the economic impact of spousal violence that occurred in Canada in 2009. Spousal violence is a widespread and unfortunate social reality that has an effect on all Canadians. Victims of spousal violence are susceptible to sustaining costly and long-lasting physical, emotional, and financial consequences. Children who are exposed to spousal violence suffer in many ways and are at increased risk of developing negative social behaviours or disorders as a result (Dauvergne and Johnson 2001). The victims’ family, friends, and employers are also affected to varying degrees. Every member of society eventually feels the impact of spousal violence through the additional financial strain imposed on publicly funded systems and services. The more Canadians understand about the costly and serious impact of spousal violence, the better prepared we are to continue efforts to prevent it and where it does occur, to protect and assist victims, to hold perpetrators accountable, and to take measures to break the cycle of violence. Estimating the economic impact of a social phenomenon such as spousal violence, a process known as costing, is a way to measure both the tangible and intangible impacts of that phenomenon. By placing a dollar value on the impact, a common unit of measurement is provided. The dollar value for the economic impact of spousal violence can then be compared to the corresponding estimates of other social phenomena. Proponents of costing contend that the understanding of economic impacts and the comparison of different social issues in the same units are important to policymakers, activists, social workers, and the public by assisting in the proper allocation of resources, and in evaluating the effectiveness of programs. Two complementary data sources reflect the incidents of spousal violence in Canada: the policebased Uniform Crime Reporting Survey 2 (UCR2) and the self-reported 2009 General Social Survey (GSS, cycle 23, Victimization). While the UCR2 captures detailed information on all Criminal Code violations reported to police services, the GSS interviews Canadians aged 15 and older regarding their experience of physical or sexual victimization regardless of whether or not the incident was reported to police. The UCR2 Survey reports that 46,918 spousal violence incidents were brought to the attention of police in 2009, 81% involving female victims and 19% involving male victims. More victims were victimized by current spouses (71%) than by former spouses (29%). According to the 2009 GSS, 335,697 Canadians were victims of 942,000 spousal violence incidents in 2009; 54% of the victims were female, and 46% of the victims were male. More victims were victimized by current spouses (69%) than by ex-spouses (31%). It is important to note that police-based surveys (such as the UCR2) and self-reported surveys (such as the GSS) normally report different proportions of female and male victims of spousal violence. Specifically, police-based survey data show a significantly higher proportion of female victims of spousal violence while GSS data depict gender parity in experiences of spousal violence. Many studies offer some reasons for this discrepancy. For instance, Allen (2011) states that this inconsistency can be explained by the fact the two types of surveys may actually capture different types of spousal violence; police-based surveys capture the more serious intimate terrorism (IT), which involves the use of severe violence to gain domination and control over a spouse, whereas self-reported surveys capture the generally more minor common couple violence (CCV), which involves poor resolution of typical conflict issues without the appearance of one party trying to completely dominate or control the other. Kevan and Archer (2003) find that perpetration rates for CCV are fairly even between genders (45% perpetrated by men), but that the large majority of IT is perpetrated by men (87% perpetrated by men). These findings may help to explain the disparity in the results of the GSS and the UCR2. Details: Ottawa: Department of Justice Canada, 2012. 162p. Source: Internet Resource: rr12-07-e: Accessed March 20, 2013 at: http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/pi/rs/rep-rap/2012/rr12_7/rr12_7.pdf Year: 2012 Country: Canada URL: http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/pi/rs/rep-rap/2012/rr12_7/rr12_7.pdf Shelf Number: 128049 Keywords: Costs of Criminal Justice Economics of Crime Family Violence Intimate Partner Violence Spouse Abuse (Canada) Violence Against Women

Author: Great Britain. Comptroller and Auditor General Title: Police Procurement Summary: Although the 43 police forces in England and Wales and the Home Office are making savings in the procurement of goods and services for the forces and are implementing initiatives to improve value for money, many opportunities remain unexploited. Police forces procure a wide range of goods and services, from uniforms and police vehicles to estate and facilities management services such as cleaning, spending some £1.7 billion in 2010-11. The Department oversees the police service, and central government provides most of its funding, but individual forces have traditionally bought many goods and services independently. With central government funding being reduced by some £2 billion in real terms over the spending review period, however, the Home Office has taken a role in providing leadership and support to help forces improve their procurement and make savings. Many forces are now working with others to improve their buying power and make administrative savings, but most collaborations involve few forces and nearly half of all forces still have independent procurement teams. Some forces have set up regional or national approaches to purchase common goods and services which many other forces take advantage of. However, common specifications for many types of goods and services do not exist, which reduces scope for collaborative buying. The NAO found at least nine separate specifications for each of five common types of equipment used by police officers, such as boots, body armour and high-visibility jackets. The NAO estimates forces could save up to a third of their costs in such areas, for example by agreeing a common specification for a uniform, such as that agreed by the Prison Service. The Home Office’s efforts so far have been hampered by the lack of timely, accurate and detailed data, with national level data collection enjoying limited success and expenditure data up to two years out of date. This makes it difficult for it to target its interventions. Forces also reported mixed views about the support the Department provides. It has set up frameworks for body armour and vehicles which forces are legally compelled to use, and forces are on the whole positive about these, but it has been slow to build on this despite support from two-thirds of forces for further mandatory frameworks. There are also tensions between the Department’s strategy to increase procurement at a national level, and its reforms to increase local accountability, such as the introduction of Police and Crime Commissioners. The Department, forces and Commissioners will need to work together more effectively to identify and deliver further savings, particularly given the need to minimize the impact that cost reductions have on frontline policing. Details: London: National Audit Office, 2013. 44p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 30, 2013 at: http://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/10092-001-Police-procurement.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/10092-001-Police-procurement.pdf Shelf Number: 128165 Keywords: Cost-Benefit Analysis Costs of Criminal Justice Police Administration Police Management Police Procurement Policing (U.K.)

Author: Weiss, Alexander Title: City of Holland, Michigan Public Safety Services Summary: In January 2009, the City of Holland, Michigan engaged a consultant to examine the delivery of public safety services in Holland. The city asked the consultants to perform a number of tasks including: • An evaluation of the management structure of the police and fire departments to determine potential consolidation of public safety management services. • A comprehensive look at both police and fire schedules to determine alternative schedules that may be more cost effective and productive. • An evaluation of developing a fully comprehensive public safety department including top management and day‐to‐day operations. • An evaluation of emergency medical services as currently provided by the fire department and alternatives to providing these services. • Evaluate support services within the police and fire departments to determine operational efficiencies and potential service provided by civilian vs. sworn police and fire officers. • Evaluate possible cooperative public safety services delivery opportunities with adjacent governmental units. • Outline procedure for implementation. • Outline cost evaluations and savings of various alternatives. This report represents the results of our inquiry. It is based on a number of sources of information including: • Extensive interviews with management and staff of the police and fire departments • Review of performance data from the police and fire departments, and from AMR the community’s EMS provider • A focus group of community leaders and key public safety stakeholders • A community forum open to the general public • Interviews with officials from neighboring jurisdictions • Site visits to the Kalamazoo Department of Public Safety. In addition, we were aided in our work by an outstanding advisory committee composed of two members of the Holland City Council, the city’s human resource and finance directors, the interim police and fire chief, two captains from the police department, three captains from the fire department, and two representatives of the police union and the fire union. Details: Evanston, ILL: Alexander Weiss Consulting, 2010. 57p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 30, 2013 at: http://www.alexanderweissconsulting.com/pdf/AWC_CityofHollandFinalReport.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.alexanderweissconsulting.com/pdf/AWC_CityofHollandFinalReport.pdf Shelf Number: 128166 Keywords: Consolidation Cost-Benefit Analysis Costs of Criminal Justice Police Departments Policing Public Safety Services (Holland, Michigan, U.S.)

Author: Koeppel, Maria Title: The Burden of Victimization Summary: A staggering 9 million property crimes and nearly 1.25 million violent crimes occurred nationwide during 2010.1 These crimes led to an estimated 18.7 million people becoming victims of violent or property crime.2 As the second largest state, a sizable proportion of these crimes occurred in Texas, which recorded nearly 1 million property index crimes and over 113,000 violent index crimes in 2010.3 While violent and property crime and subsequent victimization rates have been declining during the past decade, the need for and importance of victim services should not be underestimated. Criminal victimization is a heavy burden to bear, beginning with the immediate cost of crime and extending to consequences relating to health, education, employment, and overall quality of life. Additionally, the consequences of victimization are often intertwined. Victims rarely experience one adverse effect, like physical injury, without also developing issues in other areas, such as missed employment due to the injury or anxiety resulting from the experience. Details: Huntsville, TX: Sam Houston State University, Criminal Justice Center, Crime Victims Institute, 2012. 4p. Source: Internet Resource: Legislative Brief: Accessed April 5, 2013 at: http://dev.cjcenter.org/_files/cvi/Burden%20of%20Vic.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://dev.cjcenter.org/_files/cvi/Burden%20of%20Vic.pdf Shelf Number: 128282 Keywords: Costs of Crime Costs of Criminal Justice Victimization (Texas) Victims of Crime

Author: Ouss, Aurelie Title: When Punishment Doesn't Pay: "Cold Glow" and Decisions to Punish Summary: Economic theories of punishment focus on determining the levels of punishment that will provide maximal social material payoffs. In calculating these levels, several parameters are important: total social costs, total social benefits and the probability that defectors are apprehended. However, often times social levels of punishment are determined by aggregates of individual decisions. Research in behavioral economics, psychology and neuroscience shows that individuals appear to treat punishment as a private good ("cold glow") and so individual decisions may be inappropriately responsive to the above parameters. This means that, depending on environment, aggregate punishment levels can be predictably above or below optimally deterring benchmarks and final social outcomes (e.g.. levels of cooperation and total social costs incurred) can be highly inefficient. We confirm these predictions in a series of experiments. Our research highlights the importance of understanding the psychology of punishment for understanding economically important outcomes and for designing social mechanisms. Details: Cambridge, MA: Harvard University - Program for Evolutionary Dynamics and Department of Economics, 2013. 63p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 1, 2013 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2247446 Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2247446 Shelf Number: 128508 Keywords: Behavioral Economics Costs of Criminal Justice Economics of Crime Punishment (U.S.)

Author: Rushford, Michael Title: Rationalizing Realignment; A perspective on California's return to alternative sentencing Summary: The combined impact of the national recession (which has caused a major reduction in tax revenue) and unsustainable spending policies during the earlier boom have placed unprecedented weight on state governments to significantly reduce spending. Corrections departments have become a major focus of these spending reductions for several reasons. Policies enacted over the past three decades that required longer prison sentences for violent and habitual criminals have increased prison populations in many larger states. Prominent social scientists, criminologists, and academics have criticized these “tough on crime” sentencing policies as a naive abandonment of their growing expertise at identifying low risk offenders who were unsuitable for incarceration and prescribing treatment programs to rehabilitate high risk offenders.1 The favorable publicity enjoyed by these critics and the volumes of research they have produced to support their conclusions have provided a plausible argument in the defense of states which have chosen alternative sentencing rather than to increase prison capacity to accommodate the increased inmate population. California, perhaps more than any other state, is at the center of the conflict between the “tough on crime” sentencing, which has had broad popular support, and the alternative sentencing policies advanced by social scientists and encouraged by the mainstream media. Details: Sacramento, CA: Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, 2012. 16p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 4, 2013 at: http://www.cjlf.org/publications/RationalizingRealignment2012.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.cjlf.org/publications/RationalizingRealignment2012.pdf Shelf Number: 128651 Keywords: Costs of Criminal Justice Criminal Justice Expenditures Criminal Justice Reform Criminal Justice Systems (California, U.S.) Sentencing

Author: James, Juliene Title: Justice Reinvestment in Action: The Delaware Model Summary: Justice reinvestment is a data-driven approach to corrections policy that seeks to cut spending and reinvest savings in practices that have been empirically shown to improve safety and hold offenders accountable. The Vera Institute of Justice is working with Delaware to advance its efforts under the Justice Reinvestment Initiative—a project sponsored by the U.S. Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Assistance. Delaware’s work in justice reinvestment began in the summer of 2011, when Governor Jack Markell established the Delaware Justice Reinvestment Task Force through executive order to conduct a comprehensive examination of the factors contributing to the size of the corrections population, both pretrial and sentenced individuals. Vera assisted the task force in analyzing these factors and assessed the capacity and quality of institutional and community-based programs. The task force found that people awaiting trial made up a large proportion of the prison population, that supervision practices resulted in a large number of probationers spending time in prison, and that Delaware prisoners served long sentences with limited opportunity to earn reductions in their sentences—even when they had made significant steps toward rehabilitation. Based on these findings, Vera helped the task force develop a policy framework to address these drivers of the corrections population and ensure that scarce justice resources are used to reduce recidivism and enhance public safety. Legislators translated these policy recommendations into Delaware Senate Bill 226. Among other changes, the legislation requires implementation of an objective risk assessment instrument to help magistrates make informed decisions about pretrial release, makes available objective risk and needs assessment for judges’ use in sentencing, supports improved community supervision practices, and creates incentives for those who are incarcerated and under supervision to complete evidence-based programs designed to reduce recidivism. Strong bipartisan efforts led to the near-unanimous passage of the legislation, which Governor Markell signed in August 2012. As other jurisdictions consider how best to invest limited public safety dollars, Delaware’s experience offers a helpful example of what can be accomplished through a close consideration of data and social science. Because it is a unified system—one of only a handful in which the state’s Department of Correction has custody of both pretrial and sentenced populations—Delaware’s recent work is relevant not only to other states, but also to local jurisdictions, which typically are responsible for jail populations. This brief reflects on Delaware’s efforts. Details: New York: Vera Institute of Justice, Center on Sentencing and Corrections, 2013. 8p. Source: Internet Resource: Policy Brief: Accessed May 8, 2013 at: http://www.vera.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/justice-reinvestment-in-action-delaware.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.vera.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/justice-reinvestment-in-action-delaware.pdf Shelf Number: 128682 Keywords: Corrections (Delaware, U.S.) Costs of Criminal Justice Criminal Justice Reform Justice Reinvestment Prisoners

Author: Wilks, Kim Title: Effective Approaches for Reducing Prostitution in Texas: Proactive and Cost-Efficient Strategies to Help People Leave the Streets Summary: The diversion of individuals with low-level, nonviolent offenses from the criminal justice system has not only been shown to improve public safety; it has also resulted in significant cost savings for state prison systems. Diversion programs have proven especially successful in re-directing individuals with mental illness and addictilon issues away from incarceration and toward much needed treatment services. Individuals who engage in sex work are far more likely to suffer from mental illness, drug and alcohol addiction, and past trauma than both the general population and many other individuals entering the criminal justice system. The proven effectiveness of diversion programs when applied to similar popular ons compels us to believe that an increase in the number of prostituion diversion programs in Texas will positively impact public health and public safety while simultaneously saving taxpayer dollars. Texas incarcerates sex workers at a higher rate than most other states, and it is the only state in the nation to charge individuals engaging in prostitution with a felony. This punitive approach has not significantly deterred individuals from prostitution or decreased the number of prostituion arrests. Instead, Texas’ policies have resulted in high costs associated with policing, prosecuting, and incarcerating these individuals, and they have created collateral consequences for the arrested individuals themselves and the communities where prostitution occurs. Indeed, individuals face lifelong barriers associated with conviction, including limited access to housing and employment, while communities struggle to address populations that are under-employed or homeless, and draining local budgets. Prostitution diversion programs throughout the country, including one in Dallas, have a proven track record of success in offering individuals a safe exit from prostitution. Based on an examination and consideration of these successful models, the Texas Criminal Justice Coalition urges legislators to consider expanding such programs throughout the state. Details: Austin, TX: Texas Criminal Justice Coalition, 2013. 20p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 9, 2013 at: http://www.texascjc.org/sites/default/files/uploads/TCJC%20Effective%20Approaches%20Reducing%20Prostitution%20(2013).pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.texascjc.org/sites/default/files/uploads/TCJC%20Effective%20Approaches%20Reducing%20Prostitution%20(2013).pdf Shelf Number: 128695 Keywords: Costs of Criminal Justice Diversion Programs Prostitutes Prostitution (Texas, U.S.) Sex Workers

Author: Chiu, Tina Title: Building Cost-Benefit Analysis Capacity in Criminal Justice: Notes from a Roundtable Discussion Summary: Interest in using cost-benefit analysis (CBA) to help in criminal justice policymaking and planning has grown in recent years as state and local budgets have become increasingly strained. Most jurisdictions, however, have not been able to create a sustained capacity to produce and use CBA in decision making and budgeting. The Vera Institute of Justice organized a roundtable discussion to examine what factors might help jurisdictions build lasting capacity to use and perform CBA. (See “Roundtable Participants” on page 2 for a list of attendees and their affiliations.) The discussion highlighted the need for expertise in conducting cost-benefit studies. It also highlighted the need for trusted, credible organizations that can house this expertise. And participants talked about structures and processes that would help bring cost-benefit information to policymakers and integrate CBA as part of decision making. This document covers three areas to consider when building CBA capacity: organizations, staff, and processes. Details: New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2013. 16p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 28, 2013 at: http://www.vera.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/building-cost-benefit-analysis-capacity.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.vera.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/building-cost-benefit-analysis-capacity.pdf Shelf Number: 128841 Keywords: Cost-Benefit Analysis Costs of Criminal Justice Criminal Justice Policy

Author: Lockyer, Kevin Title: Future Prisons: A radical plan to reform the prison estate Summary: Future Prisons calls for the government to shut more than 30 run-down and poorly-located prisons and replace them with 12 state of the art ‘Hub Prisons’, containing up to 3,000 inmates. The new prisons would lead to huge costs savings, a reduction in reoffending rates and a better quality of life for prisoners and prison staff. The report says that the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) could meet its entire 2015/16 spending commitment by ‘swapping old for new’ and financing the construction of new, large prisons to replace expensive, hard-to-maintain and poorly-located older prisons. In operational costs alone, this plan would save more than £600 million a year on completion – fully 20% of the prison budget. This is equivalent to around 9% of the MoJ’s entire departmental budget. Taking construction into account, which could be financed through public sector borrowing, private finance or development finance, the savings would amount to around £10 billion over a 25 year repayment period. The report, written by Kevin Lockyer, a former prison governor and deputy director in the MoJ, argues that trying to simply cut prison numbers and closing down prisons is not the right way to reduce the prison population or protect the public. Instead the focus must be on how to reduce the cost per prisoner. Costs vary widely across the country from £108,000 per place at HMP Kennet to £26,000 at Wayland. Brand new analysis comparing establishments with the same functions, shows for the first time that age is the key determinant of a prison’s effectiveness, rather than size: newer prisons had lower reoffending levels, a greater respect between staff and prisoners and a better quality of life and safety measures than older prisons. It argues that the Conservatives and penal lobby were correct to dismiss Labour’s 2007 plans to build new Titan ‘super’ prisons, proposed to facilitate a large expansion of the prison estate without evidence of effectiveness. However, the new proposal greatly differs from the Titan scheme in that Policy Exchange is not suggesting an expansion of the prison estate but merely the replacement of old for new establishments. The report shows that a quarter of prisons are Victorian or older while a further quarter were built in the 1960s and 1970s, often to poor standards and designs with poor materials. Hub Prisons would also be materially different to Titans. To date, a campus-style approach centred around a shared-service hub has been considered expensive in terms of the staff required for it to run securely and safely. But the Policy Exchange proposal, with its use of innovative technology, makes this kind of approach affordable. Hub Prisons would contain relatively small, self-contained, housing units and plenty of open spaces. They would include a range of accommodation types, with more traditional radial-style houseblocks for remand prisoners and assessment and induction purposes, and with smaller living units for longer sentenced prisoners The report recommends: •Closing more than 30 run down and dilapidated prisons and constructing 10-12 state of the art Hub Prisons. •Locating the prisons on brownfield sites near to main transport routes and to hold more prisoners as close to home as possible. •Constructing the prisons using cutting-edge architecture, with technologies such as biometric security systems. Halfway houses would be located inside the prison estate and the sites would include courts to cut the cost of transferring prisoners for trial. •Allowing private providers to compete on a level playing field with the public sector to manage and run the new establishments. Details: London: Policy Exchange, 2013. 50p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 18, 2013 at: http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/images/publications/future%20prisons.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/images/publications/future%20prisons.pdf Shelf Number: 129034 Keywords: Costs of Corrections Costs of Criminal Justice Prison Reform Prisons (U.K.)

Author: Ritter, Alison Title: Government Drug Policy Expenditure in Australia – 2009/10. Summary: In responding to illicit drugs, Australian governments expend resources in providing proactive responses, such as drug treatment or policing of drug-crimes. Governments also expend considerable resources on the indirect consequences of drug use, such as emergency department admissions for overdose, or crimes that are committed to obtain income to purchase drugs. This second category of indirect or reactive spending is generally known as the social cost approach. International experts have emphasised that drug budgets should concentrate on the direct, proactive spending by governments, and this approach is taken here. This study provides a new estimate of Australian governments’ direct or proactive spending on illicit drug policy for 2009/10. Four drug policy domains were examined: prevention, treatment, harm reduction and law enforcement. Federal and state/territory expenditure estimates were derived for each of the four domains. A top-down approach was adopted wherever possible and consistency in method across the four domains was of central concern. The results reveal that Australian governments spent approximately $1.7 billion in 2009/10 on illicit drugs. This included programs to prevent or delay the commencement of drug use in young people, drug treatment services including counselling and pharmacotherapy maintenance, harm reduction programs such as the needle syringe program, police detection and arrest in relation to drug crimes and policing the borders of Australia for illegal importation of drugs and their precursors. Details: Sydney: National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre., 2013. 58p. Source: Internet Resource: DPMP Monograph Series: Monograph No. 24: Accessed June 25, 2013 at: http://ndarc.med.unsw.edu.au/sites/default/files/newsevents/events/Drug%20Budgets%20Mono%2024%20FINAL.pdf Year: 2013 Country: Australia URL: http://ndarc.med.unsw.edu.au/sites/default/files/newsevents/events/Drug%20Budgets%20Mono%2024%20FINAL.pdf Shelf Number: 129153 Keywords: Costs of Criminal Justice Criminal Justice Expenditures Drug Abuse and Addiction (Australia) Drug Abuse Policy

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: Disley, Emma Title: Lessons learned from the planning and early implementation of the Social Impact Bond at HMP Peterborough Summary: At a time when government finances are stretched there is growing interest in finding new ways to fund public services which improve social outcomes. One new funding model currently being tested is a Social Impact Bond (SIB). A SIB is a form of payment by results (PBR) in which funding is obtained from private investors to pay for interventions to improve social outcomes. If these interventions succeed in improving outcomes, this should result in savings to government and wider benefits to society. As part of a SIB, the government agrees to pay a proportion of these savings back to the investors. If outcomes do not improve, investors do not receive a return on their investment. In September 2010 the first ever SIB was launched in the UK. Approximately £5 million of investment funding from private individuals and charities is being used to pay for interventions for offenders serving short prison sentences (less than 12 months) at HMP Peterborough, a prison in eastern England. RAND Europe has been commissioned to evaluate the development, implementation and operation of this first ever SIB. This report is the first output from the evaluation. It identifies early lessons from the development and implementation of SIB at HMP Peterborough. Such lessons may inform future SIBs or wider payment-by-results (PBR) pilots under consideration by the Ministry of Justice and other government departments. Details: Cambridge, UK: RAND Europe, 2011. 91p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 10, 2013 at: http://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/TR1166.html Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/TR1166.html Shelf Number: 129617 Keywords: Costs of Criminal Justice Incarceration Interventions Offender Rehabilitation Prisons Sentencing Social Impact Bonds (U.K.)

Author: Oregon. Audits Division Title: Department of Corrections: Treatment of the Highest-risk Offenders Can Avoid Costs Summary: The effects of substance abuse on Oregon’s economy and communities are substantial. According to a report by the consulting firm ECONorthwest, the direct economic costs from substance abuse in Oregon totaled approximately $5.9 billion in 2006. Alcohol and drug enforcement costs alone were about $656 million. As of December 2012, 70% of incarcerated offenders had some level of substance abuse problem. Research indicates that addressing the treatment needs of offenders is critical to reducing overall crime and other societal issues related to substance abuse. Studies also show the importance of treating those offenders with the highest-risk of committing new crimes. Previous evaluations have determined that Department of Corrections (DOC) and county community corrections agencies’ practices are effective and align with best practices. Offenders are systematically assessed for factors known to influence future criminal behavior and these assessments are used in determining offender programming and treatment. Our analysis of offenders released during 2008-2011, found that most were assessed in the community and in prison, and most treatment resources were directed at the highest risk offenders. However, about half of all the highest-risk offenders did not receive treatment. Highest-risk offenders are those who have been assessed by DOC and community corrections agencies as having a medium-to-high risk to reoffend and a moderate-to-high substance abuse challenge. While these offenders are costly to supervise and treat in the community, about $16 a day, the cost is substantially less than the approximate $84 a day cost in prison. We found 4,525 of the offenders assessed as highest-risk who were released from 2008-2011 did not receive treatment. We estimate Oregon taxpayers and victims could have avoided about $21.6 million in costs if substance abuse treatment had been provided to all of the highest-risk offenders. We found variations in funding and treatment efforts among counties. These variations are often due to funding shortfalls and differences in available community corrections services. The expansion of Medicaid eligibility under the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), which becomes effective in January 2014, offers an opportunity for the State and local community corrections agencies to provide substance abuse treatment to untreated highest-risk offenders, despite current funding limitations. Once the expansion becomes effective, additional released offenders may qualify for coverage. Under the ACA, the federal government will cover almost the entire cost of the expansion population, starting at 100 % funding from 2014-2016 and gradually decreasing to a minimum of 90 % in 2020. This expansion of health care coverage has the potential to relieve financially-stressed counties of nearly all costs of providing substance abuse treatment to offenders in the community and to make treatment seamless following their release. We recommend that DOC management work with county community corrections agencies and the Legislature to coordinate funding and track resources to provide substance abuse treatment for the highest-risk offenders wherever possible. We also recommend that DOC management explore utilizing expanded Medicaid funding for substance abuse treatment for released offenders and consider integrating Medicaid eligibility review into release planning. Details: Salem, OR: Audits Division, 2013. 20p. Source: Internet Resource: Report Number 2013-20: Accessed August 19, 2013 at: http://www.sos.state.or.us/audits/pages/state_audits/full/2013/2013-20.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.sos.state.or.us/audits/pages/state_audits/full/2013/2013-20.pdf Shelf Number: 129644 Keywords: Cost-Benefit Analysis Costs of Crime Costs of Criminal Justice Drug Abuse and Crime Drug Abuse Treatment Risk Assessment Substance Abuse (Oregon, U.S.)

Author: Chettiar, Inimai M. Title: Reforming Funding to Reduce Mass Incarceration Summary: The criminal justice system in the United States is vast. It touches every state and locality, creating a web of law enforcement and legal agencies. As with all complex enterprises, this system is honeycombed with incentives that steer or deter behavior, for good or ill. Changes to criminal law can only do so much in a justice system that relies heavily on the discretion of individual actors. One key factor affects individual behavior and agency policies: money. Funding structures of criminal justice agencies - direct budgets and grant awards - can create powerful incentives. This is true at all levels - federal, state, and local. Federal spending is one focal point. Washington spends billions of dollars each year to subsidize state and local criminal justice systems. Specifically, the Justice Department administers dozens of criminal justice grants. In 2012, just some of the largest programs, including the Community Oriented Policing Services and Violence Against Women Act grants, received more than $1.47 billion. The Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) program is the largest nationwide criminal justice grant program. Although JAG represents a small percentage of nationwide dollars spent on criminal justice, it retains an outsize influence on activities and policy. Because it funds a wide array of areas, rather than funding one kind of activity, JAG extends its reach across the entire system. Its dollars flow to local police departments, prosecutor and public defender offices, courts, and others. State and local actors rely on JAG funds year in and year out. JAG, in its original form, was created almost 30 years ago. Not surprisingly, it provides funding driven by criteria developed at a time of rising and seemingly out-of-control crime. JAG has not faced substantial overhaul since then. Today, the country faces very different criminal justice challenges. On the one hand, crime and violence have fallen sharply across the country. Fears for safety, and crises such as the crack epidemic, have receded into history. The murder rate is almost at its lowest rate in a century. At the same time, however, a far more disturbing trend has emerged: the growth of mass incarceration in the United States. With less than 5 percent of the world's population, we have almost 25 percent of its prisoners. More than 68 million Americans - a quarter of the nation's population - have criminal records. Over half the people in prison are there for drug or nonviolent crimes. One in three new prison admissions are for parole violations. The cost to taxpayers has soared: Today, the nation spends more than $80 billion annually to sustain mass incarceration. True social costs, such as the harms to families, communities, and the economy, are far higher. Fortunately, in recent years policymakers and the public have begun to advance a new approach to criminal justice, one that fights crime and violence but turns away from thoughtless criminalization and over-incarceration. A wave of innovative reforms, pioneered in cities and states, is starting to reshape criminal justice policy. These new approaches, grounded in data, seek to align public policies to target major public safety goals while reducing unintended consequences. They focus on major, violent crime without mindlessly punishing people. Significantly, these changes are uniting activists and leaders of all political ideologies. Details: New York: Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law, 2013. 72p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 26, 2013 at: http://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/publications/REFORM_FUND_MASS_INCARC_web_0.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/publications/REFORM_FUND_MASS_INCARC_web_0.pdf Shelf Number: 131705 Keywords: Costs of Criminal Justice Criminal Justice Policy Imprisonment Incarceration (U.S.)

Author: Lin, Jeffrey Title: Follow the Money: How California Counties Are Spending Their Public Safety Realignment Funds Summary: The California correctional system is undergoing a dramatic transformation under Assembly Bill 109 ("Realignment"), a law that shifted responsibility from the state to the counties for tens of thousands of offenders. To help manage this change, the state will distribute $4.4 billion to the counties by 2016-2017. While the legislation directs counties to use these funds for community-based programs, counties retain a substantial amount of spending discretion. Some are expanding offender treatment capacities, while others are shoring up enforcement and control apparatuses. In this report we examine counties' AB 109 spending reports and budgets to determine which counties emphasize enforcement and which emphasize treatment. We also identify counties that continue to emphasize prior orientations toward punishment and counties that have shifted their priorities in response to Realignment. We then apply quantitative and comparative methods to county budget data to identify political, economic, and criminal justice-related factors that may explain higher AB 109 spending on enforcement or higher spending on treatment, relative to other counties. In short, our analysis shows that counties that elect to allocate more AB 109 funds to enforcement and control generally appear to be responding to local criminal justice needs, including high crime rates, a shortage of law enforcement personnel, and a historic preference for using prison to punish drug offenders. Counties that favor a greater investment in offender treatment and services, meanwhile, are typified by strong electoral support for the Sheriff and relatively under-funded district attorneys and probation departments. Details: Stanford, CA: Stanford law School, Criminal Justice Center, 2013. 89p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 26, 2013 at: https://www.law.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/publication/443760/doc/slspublic/Money-Oct%202013.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: https://www.law.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/publication/443760/doc/slspublic/Money-Oct%202013.pdf Shelf Number: 131710 Keywords: California Realignment Community-Based Corrections Correctional Institutions (California) Costs of Criminal Justice Criminal Justice Policy Criminal Justice Reform Prisons

Author: Aos, S. Title: Prison, Police, and Programs: Evidence-Based Options that Reduce Crime and Save Money Summary: Since the 1990s, the Washington State legislature has directed the Washington State Institute for Public Policy to identify policies with an "evidence-based" track record of improving certain public policy outcomes. Outcomes of interest have included, among others, education, child welfare, crime, and mental health. This report updates and extends WSIPP's list of well-researched policies that reduce crime. We display our current tabulation of evidence-based prevention, juvenile justice, and adult corrections programs, and we include our initial reviews of prison sentencing and policing. As with our previous lists, we find that a number of public policies can reduce crime and are likely to have benefits that exceed costs. We also find credible evidence that some policies do not reduce crime and are likely to have costs that exceed benefits. The legislature has previously used this type of information to craft policy and budget bills. This updated list is designed to help with subsequent budgets and policy legislation. Details: Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy, 2013. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: (Doc. No. 13-11-1901): Accessed March 12, 2014 at: http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/ReportFile/1396/Wsipp_Prison-Police-and-Programs-Evidence-Based-Options-that-Reduce-Crime-and-Save-Money_Full-Report.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/ReportFile/1396/Wsipp_Prison-Police-and-Programs-Evidence-Based-Options-that-Reduce-Crime-and-Save-Money_Full-Report.pdf Shelf Number: 131886 Keywords: Costs of Criminal Justice Evidence-Based Practices Policing Prisons Sentencing

Author: Tennessee Economic Council on Women Title: The Economic Impact of Violence Against Women in Tennessee Summary: Violence is a thief. In much the same way that a robust education can open minds to new opportunities and unprecedented achievement, violence closes doors and cripples the human ability to grow and innovate. At the hands of a stranger, and even more often a loved one, women in Tennessee are being coerced, intimidated, battered and assaulted in alarming numbers. In recent years, our state has regularly ranked among the worst in the country when counting the number of women murdered by men, and estimates indicate that one in three women will experience domestic or sexual violence in their lifetime. The immediate implications of these crimes are daunting. This report reveals that, across the state, communities spend or lose at least $886 million each year as a result of recent violence committed against women. By focusing on the immediate impact on the public, however, this figure only hints at the most significant cost: Crimes like domestic violence, human sex trafficking and sexual assault have a lasting impact on a victim's ability to earn for herself, to provide for her family, to live a healthy, pain-free life, and to reach her full potential in her community. The reality of this hardship is personal and immeasurable, but the way in which violence can derail a woman's ability to excel, or to more fully contribute to her community, has ramifications that extend deeply into each of our lives. The chief goal of this effort is to explore the costs that we incur under the current low-budget, response-oriented approach to these crimes, and to highlight the potential return on investment that a robust push for prevention could bring by weakening the generational cycle of violence that feeds this suffering. If there is a secondary goal for this document; it is to expose certain truths about these heinous crimes with the aim of promoting a more productive public response. Foremost among these are that : (1) Domestic violence is not a family matter, with limited impact on the wellbeing of others. It is, in fact, one of the most debilitating and prevalent crimes in our society and it perpetually extracts costs, both immediate and long-term, from every single one of us. (2) Prostitution is not a profession willingly chosen; it is a suffering of last resort that desperate women and children are forced into, or fall back upon to survive. It is an abominable form of modern slavery perpetrated by predatory traffickers and the reckless purchasers of forced sex, which challenges the humanity of the individual and the dignity of their community. (3) It is in the best interest of all Tennesseans to recognize that a child should not be born into a unique likelihood of rape, abuse, or violation because of her gender. Crimes that victimize women in such tremendous volume and specificity have compounding effects on our society and economy, and by derailing the lives of so very many, they serve to impede an entire gender's collective ability to achieve its full socio-economic potential. Details: Nashville: Tennessee Economic Council on Women, 2013. 102p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 31, 2014 at: http://www.tennesseewomen.org/2013vawreport.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.tennesseewomen.org/2013vawreport.pdf Shelf Number: 132028 Keywords: Costs of Criminal Justice Domestic Violence Prostitution Violence Against Women

Author: LaVigne, Nancy Title: Justice Reinvestment Initiative State Assessment Report Summary: Seventeen Justice Reinvestment Initiative states are projected to save as much as $4.6 billion through reforms that increase the efficiency of their criminal justice systems. Eight states that had JRI policies in effect for at least one year - Arkansas, Hawaii, Louisiana, Kentucky, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, and South Carolina - reduced their prison populations. Through the Initiative, states receive federal dollars to assess and improve their criminal justice systems while enhancing public safety. This report chronicles 17 states as they enacted comprehensive criminal justice reforms relying on bipartisan and inter-branch collaboration. The study notes common factors that drove prison growth and costs and documents how each state responded with targeted policies. Details: Washington, DC: The Urban Institute, 2014. 145p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 22, 2014 at: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412994-Justice-Reinvestment-Initiative-State-Assessment-Report.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412994-Justice-Reinvestment-Initiative-State-Assessment-Report.pdf Shelf Number: 132123 Keywords: Community Justice Corrections Reform Costs of Criminal Justice Criminal Justice Reform Justice Reinvestment

Author: Kahui, Sherilee Title: Productivity Gains from Workplace Protection of Victims of Domestic Violence Summary: Domestic violence is a workplace issue. It is estimated to cost employers in New Zealand at least $368 million for the June year 2014. If nothing is done, projections indicate that the total costs will be at least $3.7 billion dollars when combined over the next ten years. Employment is a key pathway out of domestic violence. The body of research about domestic violence over the past 30 years finds conclusively that staying in employment is critical to reducing the effects of violence. Security of employment enables those affected by domestic violence to maintain domestic and economic stability, in this way assisting them to find a pathway out of violence and to successfully re-build their lives. Employers have the potential of productivity gains from implementing workplace protections that support victims of domestic violence. There is a growing body of evidence that suggests that as well as the potential for breaking the cycle of domestic violence, the introduction of workplace protections for people affected by domestic violence both saves employers costs (recruitment, retention, re-training, health and safety) and increases productivity. The PSA commissioned this project to examine the impact of workplace protections on domestic violence victims, other staff and colleagues, the employer and overall productivity. Experience in New Zealand to date indicates that there are barriers to the implementation of workplace protections. These barriers are due in part to current attitudes towards workplace Health and Safety training which can overstate the costs and understate the benefits from lower costs of recruitment, retention and retraining. A framework has been developed for this project that specifies the determinants of these costs and then proceeds to calculate them. These include the costs to find a replacement worker and the average annual cost of training when a victim's employment is terminated by her employer. In 2014, $153 million is estimated to be lost across the New Zealand workforce due to these two factors. This is an under estimation of the total cost of victims leaving their employment as the effect of women resigning their current job has not been taken into account. For every woman whose experience of violence is prevented as result of the workplace protections in a particular year, an average of $3,371 in production-related costs can be avoided. This number is conservative as outlined in the body of the report. Details: Wellington, NA: MoreMedia Enterprises, 2014. 65p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 6, 2014 at: http://psa.org.nz/Libraries/Documents_2014/Workplace_Productivity_Improvements_for_DV_21_May_2014.sflb.ashx Year: 2014 Country: New Zealand URL: http://psa.org.nz/Libraries/Documents_2014/Workplace_Productivity_Improvements_for_DV_21_May_2014.sflb.ashx Shelf Number: 132252 Keywords: Costs of Criminal Justice Domestic Violence (New Zealand) Family Violence Victims of Family Violence Violence Against Women Workplace

Author: Council of State Governments. Justice Center Title: Justice Reinvestment in Idaho: Analyses and Policy Framework Summary: Idaho's crime rate is among the lowest in the nation. Recidivism in the state, however, is increasing, and adults sentenced to prison for nonviolent crimes do twice as much time as adults sentenced to prison for nonviolent crimes in other states. In 2012, Idaho's incarceration rate was the eighth highest in the country. Since 2008, the state's prison population has increased by 10 percent and is projected to increase another 16 percent over the next five years, from 8,076 people in FY2014 to 9,408 people by FY2019. Increasing the capacity of the prison system to absorb the growth over that time period will cost Idaho an estimated $288 million in operating and construction costs. Frustrated by rising corrections spending and a high rate of recidivism, policymakers came together to identify a more effective path forward. In June 2013, Idaho Governor C.L. "Butch" Otter, Chief Justice Roger Burdick, legislative leaders from both parties, and other state policymakers requested technical assistance from the Council of State Governments Justice Center (CSG Justice Center) to employ a data-driven "justice reinvestment" approach to develop a statewide policy framework that would decrease spending on corrections and reinvest savings in strategies to reduce recidivism and increase public safety. Assistance provided by the CSG Justice Center was made possible in partnership with The Pew Charitable Trusts and the U.S. Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Assistance. Senate Concurrent Resolution 128, enacted in March 2013, established a bipartisan Interim Legislative Committee to study Idaho's criminal justice system using the justice reinvestment approach. State leaders also established the interbranch Justice Reinvestment Working Group, which is made up of state lawmakers, corrections and court officials, and other stakeholders in the criminal justice system. Both groups were co-chaired by Senator Patti Anne Lodge (R-District 11) and Representative Richard Wills (R-District 23). The groups reviewed analyses that the CSG Justice Center conducted and discussed policy options to increase public safety and avert growth in the prison population. In preparing its analyses, the CSG Justice Center reviewed vast amounts of data, drawing on information systems maintained by the Idaho Department of Corrections (IDOC), Idaho Commission of Pardons and Parole (Parole Commission), Idaho Supreme Court, Idaho State Police, and others. In total, the CSG Justice Center analyzed over 570,000 individual records across these information systems. In addition to these quantitative analyses, the CSG Justice Center convened focus groups and meetings with prosecutors, sheriffs, victim advocates, district judges, police chiefs, and others. Between June 2013 and January 2014, the CSG Justice Center conducted more than 100 in-person meetings with nearly 250 individuals. Ultimately, the CSG Justice Center helped state leaders identify three challenges contributing to Idaho's prison growth. Details: New York: Council of State Governments Justice Center, 2014. 27p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 7, 2014 at: https://www.bja.gov/Publications/CSG-IdahoJusticeReinvestment.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: https://www.bja.gov/Publications/CSG-IdahoJusticeReinvestment.pdf Shelf Number: 132268 Keywords: Corrections Reform Costs of Criminal Justice Criminal Justice Reform Justice Reinvestment (Idaho)

Author: Leuprecht, Christian Title: The Blue Line or the Bottom Line of Police Services in Canada? Arresting runaway growth in costs Summary: Despite rapidly rising costs, Canadians are not getting all the police they pay for. Canada's police are pricing themselves out of business; police budgets have increased at a rate double that of GDP over the last decade, while calls from the public for service have remained stable. Police associations have been happy to stoke public fears about safety, but the correlation between numbers of officers, crime rates, and response times has long been shown to be spurious. In fact, a great deal of work now done by highly trained, well-paid, and experienced uniformed officers is only tangentially related to law enforcement and could be done as well or better and more cheaply by someone else, freeing police to do their core job. Consider the fact that almost 40 percent of the Toronto Police Service's workforce made Ontario's 2012 "Sunshine List" of employees making more than $100,000, including six parking enforcement officers and a cadet in training. Consider also that much of uniformed officers' time is spent waiting to give testimony in court, transcribing interviews, teaching CPR, transporting prisoners, or a hundred other duties that take them off the street. In some jurisdictions outside Canada, civilian investigators even handle burglaries, leaving full officers to take on more demanding cases. We can learn from such examples. Canada needs a new debate about how we provide police services. That debate would focus on three main areas. First is the changing nature of policing, public expectations of police, and myriad inefficiencies related to the role of police in Canada's justice system. These powerful cost drivers go well beyond the salaries and benefits police enjoy but do not get the same attention. Second is the economies of scale to be harnessed from overhead. This report points out many areas where savings can be generated beyond what agencies themselves have already identified. They include: having forces share or contract dispatch, tactical teams, forensics, and investigations; common provincial standards and processes for hiring, communication, and procurement; and using technology, including record management systems to gather evidence and share it with the court and defence, and using lapel cameras, licence plate readers, and more, to make the job easier. Third, even if we reduce overhead and find economies of scale the benefits are limited, since almost 90 percent of police budgets go to pay salaries. Police work is complex, difficult, and demanding and should be well compensated. The real question is why police who are making upwards of $100,000 a year are performing so many tasks that are not really core policing duties and that other jurisdictions are delivering as or more effectively, efficiently, and productively through alternative service delivery in the form of both civilianization and outsourcing. Examples include: administrative functions, such as finance and human resources; burglary investigations, lifting fingerprints, and collecting DNA evidence; prisoner transport and court security; transcription of interviews; professional development and training; and background checks. Finally, general recommendations in this study to curtail the overall growth of police service costs include: re-directing calls and call volume to allow police to spend more time on problem-focused and community-oriented policing; rewarding achievement rather than seniority; cross-training police, fire, and Emergency Medical Services; reforming the leadership and institutional culture (or brace for a crisis); spending less time reactively "fighting crime" and more time on proactive intervention, mitigation, and prevention; having police colleges spend more time on developing critical thinking and analytical skills so as to counter a paramilitary institutional culture; and shifting from command-and-control principles to more participative and dispersed leadership and management. In the end, the responsibility lies with legislators to provide legislative frameworks that constrain cost escalation on the one hand, and provide greater latitude in service delivery on the other. The balance struck by reform and legislative renewal in Quebec is instructive in this regard. Details: Ottawa: Macdonald-Laurier Institute, 2014. 40http://www.macdonaldlaurier.ca/files/pdf/MLI_CostofPolicing_Final.pdf. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 8, 2014 at: http://www.macdonaldlaurier.ca/files/pdf/MLI_CostofPolicing_Final.pdf Year: 2014 Country: Canada URL: http://www.macdonaldlaurier.ca/files/pdf/MLI_CostofPolicing_Final.pdf Shelf Number: 132301 Keywords: Costs of Criminal Justice Criminal Justice Expenditures Police Reform Policing (Canada)

Author: Kearney, Melissa S. Title: Ten Economic Facts about Crime and Incarceration in the United States Summary: Crime and high rates of incarceration impose tremendous costs on society, with lasting negative effects on individuals, families, and communities. Rates of crime in the United States have been falling steadily, but still constitute a serious economic and social challenge. At the same time, the incarceration rate in the United States is so high-more than 700 out of every 100,000 people are incarcerated-that both crime scholars and policymakers alike question whether, for nonviolent criminals in particular, the social costs of incarceration exceed the social benefits. While there is significant focus on America's incarceration policies, it is important to consider that crime continues to be a concern for policymakers, particularly at the state and local levels. Public spending on fighting crime-including the costs of incarceration, policing, and judicial and legal services-as well as private spending by households and businesses is substantial. There are also tremendous costs to the victims of crime, such as medical costs, lost earnings, and an overall loss in quality of life. Crime also stymies economic growth. For example, exposure to violence can inhibit effective schooling and other developmental outcomes (Burdick-Will 2013; Sharkey et al. 2012). Crime can induce citizens to migrate; economists estimate that each nonfatal violent crime reduces a city's population by approximately one person, and each homicide reduces a city's population by seventy persons (Cullen and Levitt 1999; Ludwig and Cook 2000). To the extent that migration diminishes a locality's tax and consumer base, departures threaten a city's ability to effectively educate children, provide social services, and maintain a vibrant economy. The good news is that crime rates in the United States have been falling steadily since the 1990s, reversing an upward trend from the 1960s through the 1980s. There does not appear to be a consensus among scholars about how to account for the overall sharp decline, but contributing factors may include increased policing, rising incarceration rates, and the waning of the crack epidemic that was prevalent in the 1980s and early 1990s. Despite the ongoing decline in crime, the incarceration rate in the United States remains at a historically unprecedented level. This high incarceration rate can have profound effects on society; research has shown that incarceration may impede employment and marriage prospects among former inmates, increase poverty depth and behavioral problems among their children, and amplify the spread of communicable diseases among disproportionately impacted communities (Raphael 2007). These effects are especially prevalent within disadvantaged communities and among those demographic groups that are more likely to face incarceration, namely young minority males. In addition, this high rate of incarceration is expensive for both federal and state governments. On average, in 2012, it cost more than $29,000 to house an inmate in federal prison (Congressional Research Service 2013). In total, the United States spent over $80 billion on corrections expenditures in 2010, with more than 90 percent of these expenditures occurring at the state and local levels (Kyckelhahn and Martin 2013). A founding principle of The Hamilton Project's economic strategy is that long-term prosperity is best achieved by fostering economic growth and broad participation in that growth. Elevated rates of crime and incarceration directly work against these principles, marginalizing individuals, devastating affected communities, and perpetuating inequality. In this spirit, we offer "Ten Economic Facts about Crime and Incarceration in the United States" to bring attention to recent trends in crime and incarceration, the characteristics of those who commit crimes and those who are incarcerated, and the social and economic costs of current policy. Chapter 1 describes recent crime trends in the United States and the characteristics of criminal offenders and victims. Chapter 2 focuses on the growth of mass incarceration in America. Chapter 3 presents evidence on the economic and social costs of current crime and incarceration policy. Details: Washington, DC: The Hamilton Project, Brookings, Institute, 2014. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: Policy Memo: Accessed May 10, 2014 at: http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2014/05/01%20crime%20facts/v8_thp_10crimefacts.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2014/05/01%20crime%20facts/v8_thp_10crimefacts.pdf Shelf Number: 132316 Keywords: Costs of Crime Costs of Criminal Justice Crime Rates Criminal Justice Expenditures Economics of Crime Incarceration Prisoners

Author: Hedden, S. Title: Jail Based Substance Abuse Treatment Program: Cost Analysis Study Summary: The cost analysis study of the Iowa Jail-Based Substance Abuse Treatment Program provides an economic perspective on the cost of treatment provision compared to the cost of a prison sentence. The sample for this project includes the 408 clients admitted to the Jail-Based Substance Abuse Treatment Program between July 1, 2004 and June 30, 2005 at the 3 treatment agencies in Iowa involved in this program: United Community Services, Inc., Center for Alcohol and Drug Services, Inc., and Jackson Recovery Centers. The Jail Treatment Program is less than half of the cost of prison. The average daily cost for a client in the Jail-Based Substance Abuse Treatment Program was $30.19 compared to $64.02, which is the daily rate to house an inmate in a state prison facility in Iowa. The majority of the jail based treatment clients who were interviewed tend to maintain abstinence, do not get arrested, and obtain full-time employment. Client abstinence increased by 82.4 percentage points from admission and maintained a 75.5% rate at the 12 month follow-up. A large percentage of clients were arrest free at Interview 1 lowering somewhat at Interview 2, but remained high at 80.2%. More clients were employed full-time at the 12 month interview. Details: Iowa City, IA: Iowa Consortium for Substance Abuse Research and Evaluation, 2006. 13p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 14, 2014 at: http://iconsortium.subst-abuse.uiowa.edu/downloads/IDPH/jail_based_cost_analysis.pdf Year: 2006 Country: United States URL: http://iconsortium.subst-abuse.uiowa.edu/downloads/IDPH/jail_based_cost_analysis.pdf Shelf Number: 102598 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Cost Analysis Costs of Criminal Justice Drug Offenders Recidivism Substance Abuse Treatment (Iowa)

Author: Burwick, Andrew Title: Costs of Early Childhood Home Visiting: An Analysis of Programs Implemented in the Supporting Evidence-Based Home Visiting to Prevention Child Maltreatment Initiative Summary: Home visiting programs offer a promising method for delivering support services to at-risk families and children and preventing child maltreatment. As interest grows in scaling up home visiting programs as a strategy to promote parent and child well-being and prevent child maltreatment, program implementers and policymakers are seeking more information about the costs of implementing these programs. The Cost Study of Evidence-Based Home Visiting Programs applied a uniform approach and common time frame to analyze costs among agencies implementing five different home visiting program models. The study assessed (1) the total cost of providing home visiting programs during a year of steady-state operation, (2) the allocation of annual costs among cost categories and program activities or components, (3) the cost to serve a participating family, and (4) variation in average costs across program models and other agency characteristics. Mathematica Policy Research and Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago conducted the study with support from the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation and in collaboration with Casey Family Programs. It included agencies that participated in the Supporting Evidence-Based Home Visiting to Prevent Child Maltreatment (EBHV) initiative, a five-year grant program launched in 2008 by the Children's Bureau of the Administration for Children and Families at HHS. In 2011, the EBHV grant program was formally incorporated into the Maternal, Infant and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program (MIECHV) State Formula Grant Program administered by the Health Resources and Services Administration of HHS. The cost study sample includes 25 implementing agencies (IA) that delivered home visiting services in 13 states.3 The IAs offered one of five home visiting program models: (1) Healthy Families America (HFA, 7 IAs), (2) the Nurse-Family Partnership (NFP, 10 IAs), (3) Parents as Teachers (PAT, 3 IAs), (4) SafeCare (SC, 4 IAs), and (5) the Positive Parenting Program (Triple P, one IA). Most of the IAs (15 agencies) were private nonprofit organizations. Seven were state or county government agencies, and 3 were hospitals or medical centers. IAs located in urban areas (16 agencies) were more common than those located in suburban or rural areas (5 and 4 agencies, respectively). We analyzed program costs from the implementing agency's perspective. Costs include all resources used by an agency to deliver a program during a one-year period of "steady-state" operation (July 1, 2011, through June 30, 2012), and cost estimates provide an indication of the resources that an agency would need in order to replicate a program at a similar scale in a similar context. To conduct the study, we collected three types of data from IAs: (1) data on resources used for program operations, to estimate total costs; (2) data on staff time use, to allocate costs among program components; and (3) data on the number of families served and their receipt of home visiting services, to estimate costs per family. The cost analysis was conducted using the "ingredient" or resource cost method, which involved itemizing the types of resources (or ingredients) needed to provide services, gathering information on the types and value of resources used by each agency during the study period, and aggregating costs to estimate total program costs (Levin and McEwan 2001). To represent more accurately the total resources required to implement a program, we incorporated costs not typically captured by budgets or accounting records, including donated resources such as volunteer time and in-kind contributions of services or materials, as well as the value of staff time spent on the program beyond normal working hours (and not reflected in salaries or fringe benefits). Details: Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, 2014. 108p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 17, 2014 at: http://www.chapinhall.org/sites/default/files/documents/Costs%20of%20EC%20Home%20Visiting.Final%20Report.January%2030%202014.2.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.chapinhall.org/sites/default/files/documents/Costs%20of%20EC%20Home%20Visiting.Final%20Report.January%2030%202014.2.pdf Shelf Number: 132494 Keywords: Child Abuse and Neglect Child Maltreatment Cost-Benefit Analysis Costs of Criminal Justice Crime Prevention Programs Evidence-Based Practices Home Visiting Programs

Author: Weemhoff, Michelle Title: Youth Behind Bars: Examining the impact of prosecuting and incarcerating kids in Michigan's criminal justice system Summary: In the mid-1990s, Michigan became part of a national trend to get tough on youth crime. Although crime rates were steadily declining, the state passed a series of harsh laws that funneled thousands of youth into the adult criminal justice system. In addition to automatically considering all 17-year-olds as adults, Michigan broadened juvenile prosecutors' discretion to automatically file in criminal court, expanded the number of juvenile offenses requiring an adult sentence, and allowed children of any age to be criminally convicted and sent to prison. Most youth in the adult system are there for non-violent offenses. From 2003 to 2013, over 20,000 Michigan youth were placed on adult probation, detained in jail, or imprisoned for a crime committed when they were younger than 18 years old. The majority of these cases included non-violent offenses. Some were as young as 10 years old and a disproportionate number were youth of color. Processing youth in the adult system is harmful to them and bad for public safety. The trend to criminalize children was quickly met with the reality that processing youth in the adult system is detrimental to public safety and youth well-being. Youth in prison face exreme risk of violence, sexual assault, and self-harm. Without access to rehabilitative services, young people exiting adult prison are more likely to reoffend and reoffend more violently compared to their counterparts in the juvenile justice system. Michigan's adult probation and prison systems are not equipped to address the unique needs of youth. The majority of the youth sent to adult court in the past decade never received an education higher than the 11th grade or completed a GED. Over half entered the system with known drug or alcohol abuse issues and mental health concerns, and approximately 1,500 young people had at least one dependent. A small number of youth tried as adults are girls, who often enter the system with histories of violence and sexual victimization. Because so few girls are on probation or in prison, there are essentially no services for this vulnerable population. Young people leave the adult system without adequate support to keep them from returning. Once youth leave the corrections system, the lifelong consequences of an adult conviction are devastating. Nearly all youth in prison will eventually return to the community but will find significant barriers to employment, education, housing, and public benefits - the key elements to a successful future. Without effective reentry and support services, young people may find themselves in a revolving door to prison. Contrary to sentiments of the mid-1990s, public opinion in Michigan and across the country has shifted toward becoming "smart on crime." In an effort to protect public safety, improve child outcomes, and save money, leaders nationwide are re-evaluating previous policy decisions and making significant changes to youth transfer laws. It is time for Michigan to join them. Details: Lansing, MI: Michigan Council on Crime and Delinquency, 2014. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 30, 2014 at: http://www.miccd.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/MCCD-Youth-Behind-Bars-Final.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.miccd.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/MCCD-Youth-Behind-Bars-Final.pdf Shelf Number: 132565 Keywords: Costs of Criminal Justice Juvenile Detention Juvenile Justice Systems Juvenile Offenders

Author: Bradford, Spike Title: Virginia's Justice System: Expensive, Ineffective and Unfair Summary: With the 8th highest jail incarceration rate in the U.S., 1 of every 214 adult Virginians is behind bars in county jails across the state; African-American youth over-represented in the juvenile justice system; and the Commonwealth's overreliance on incarceration largely as a result of arresting Virginians for drug offenses - Virginia has an over-burdened correctional system unable to consistently provide services or safety. Virginia's Justice System: Expensive, Ineffective and Unfair points to reforms that, if implemented, would result in relief for Virginians directly impacted by the justice system and taxpayers alike. The policy brief -- the first in a series of publications being released by JPI as a group of justice advocates and concerned stakeholders have been meeting in the Commonwealth to discuss pushing for reforms -- is an overview of the Commonwealth's adult and youth justice system, which identifies areas of progress - like the recent effort to re-enfranchise formerly incarcerated residents with voting rights and other civil rights - and also identifies solutions to revise ineffective policies and practices of the past that remain in place. Details: Washington, DC: Justice Policy Institute, 2013. 20p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 16, 2014 at: http://www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/justicepolicy/documents/va_justice_system_expensive_ineffective_and_unfair_final.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/justicepolicy/documents/va_justice_system_expensive_ineffective_and_unfair_final.pdf Shelf Number: 132686 Keywords: Costs of Criminal Justice Criminal Justice Reform Criminal Justice Systems Drug Law Policy Drug Offenders Juvenile Justice Minority Groups Prisoners Racial Disparities

Author: Petros, Melanie Title: The Costs of Human Smuggling and Trafficking Summary: It has become almost axiomatic to begin papers on human smuggling and trafficking by stating that they remain under-researched phenomena. Increasingly, however, this is not the case, and new empirical research has begun to plug some of the gaps. What is true, nevertheless, is that this research is largely scattered. Still relatively little information is available in academic publications, with the concentration of empirical evidence spread across policy papers, migration bulletins and the media. Probably as a result, it is also true that this information has rarely systematically been analysed. There is, for example, still no reliable global overview of the scale or dynamics of human smuggling and trafficking; certain geographical regions and routes are far better understood than others, and there are very few comparative studies. In contrast, this paper attempts to draw together some of this scattered information - it is based on analysis of over 500 secondary sources. It is concerned specifically with the costs of human smuggling and trafficking, and adopts a longitudinal and global perspective - asking how costs vary across the world, how they have changed over time and what factors other than origin and destination determine their level. Details: Geneva, SWIT: Global Commission on International Migration, 2005. 21p. Source: Internet Resource: Global Migration Perspectives, No. 31: Accessed July 18, 2014 at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/42ce53934.html Year: 2005 Country: International URL: http://www.refworld.org/docid/42ce53934.html Shelf Number: 114680 Keywords: Costs of Criminal Justice Human Smuggling Human Trafficking

Author: Pew Center on the States Title: Arkansas's 2011 Public Safety Reform: Legislation to Reduce Recidivism and Curtail Prison Growth Summary: In 2011, Arkansas's prison population had more than doubled over the course of two decades, driving corrections costs up more than 800 percent. At the same time, recidivism and crime rates remained stubbornly high. Without action, the prison population would have grown by as much as 43 percent and cost Arkansas taxpayers an additional $1.1 billion over the next decade. State leaders established a bipartisan, inter-branch working group to examine the drivers of Arkansas's prison population growth. With technical assistance from the Pew Center on the States and its partners, The Arkansas Working Group on Sentencing and Corrections conducted an extensive review of state data and issued recommendations to reduce recidivism and contain corrections costs. In March of 2011, the Public Safety Improvement Act passed the Arkansas General Assembly with overwhelming bipartisan majorities and was signed into law by Governor Mike Beebe. The new law will cut Arkansas's prison population growth in half, avert $875 million in new prison costs and improve public safety by investing in evidence-based community supervision practices. Details: Washington, DC: Pew Center on the States, 2011. 16p. Source: Internet Resource: Issue Brief: Accessed July 18, 2014 at: http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/PewArkansasbriefpdf.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/PewArkansasbriefpdf.pdf Shelf Number: 114679 Keywords: Alternative to Incarceration Community-Based Corrections Costs of Corrections Costs of Criminal Justice Prisons (Arkansas) Recidivism

Author: Di Matteo, Livio Title: Police and Crime Rates in Canada: A Comparison of Resources and Outcomes Summary: There is growing public concern over the rising cost and sustainability of police services given that crime rates continue to decline. Indeed, between 2001 and 2012, the number of police officers per 100,000 population in Canada rose 8.7% while the crime rate declined by 26.3%. This study reviews the literature on the relationship between police resources and crime rates and then examines trends in crime rates and police resources in Canada. It also estimates the "efficiency" of police staffing across Canadian cities using a determinants approach that first estimates the relationship between the number of police officers per 100,000 in population and the crime rate, controlling for other factors. It then uses that relationship to estimate the predicted number of officers relative to the actual figure. The purpose is to assess whether the efficiency of municipal policing can be improved. The study finds substantial variation in the number of police officers per 100,000 of population and overall spending in cities across the country. The estimates of "efficiency" find cities of different sizes and different parts of the country ranking among the most and least efficient. Using this methodology, Kelowna, BC, Moncton, NB, and Ottawa-Gatineau, ON/QC, were found to have the most efficient staffing levels. Saint John, NB, Winnipeg, MB, and Windsor, ON, were found to have the least efficient staffing levels. There is substantial scope for police forces across Canada's census metropolitan areas (CMAs) to discover what the best practices are for creating a more efficient operation. Details: Burnaby, BC: Fraser Institute, 2014. 64p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 25, 2014 at: http://www.fraserinstitute.org/uploadedFiles/fraser-ca/Content/research-news/research/publications/police-and-crime-rates-in-canada.pdf Year: 2014 Country: Canada URL: http://www.fraserinstitute.org/uploadedFiles/fraser-ca/Content/research-news/research/publications/police-and-crime-rates-in-canada.pdf Shelf Number: 133425 Keywords: Costs of Criminal Justice Crime Rates (Canada) Police Effectiveness Policing

Author: Canada. Public Safety Canada Title: Public Safety Canada 2012-2013 Evaluation of the Crime Prevention Program: Final Report Summary: Evaluation supports accountability to Parliament and Canadians by helping the Government of Canada to credibly report on the results achieved with resources invested in programs. Evaluation supports deputy heads in managing for results by informing them about whether their programs are producing the outcomes that they were designed to achieve, at an affordable cost; and, supports policy and program improvements by helping to identify lessons learned and best practices. What we examined Public Safety Canada's Crime Prevention Program (CPP) includes all activities managed by the National Crime Prevention Centre (NCPC). The Centre provides national leadership on effective and cost-effective ways to prevent and reduce crime by intervening on the risk factors before crime happens with two core activities: providing contribution funding to support evidence-based targeted interventions; and developing and disseminating knowledge products, tools and resources related to effective crime prevention. The scope of the evaluation includes, starting April 1, 2008, the knowledge transfer activities of NCPC related to crime prevention and the administration of the following contribution funds: - Crime Prevention Action Fund (CPAF) - Northern and Aboriginal Crime Prevention Fund (NACPF) - Youth Gang Prevention Fund (YGPF) - Communities at Risk: Security Infrastructure Program (SIP)2 Details: Ottawa: Public Safety Canada, 2013. 52p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 29, 2014 at: http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/2013-vltn-crm-prvntn-prgrm/2013-vltn-crm-prvntn-prgrm-eng.pdf Year: 2013 Country: Canada URL: http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/2013-vltn-crm-prvntn-prgrm/2013-vltn-crm-prvntn-prgrm-eng.pdf Shelf Number: 133468 Keywords: Costs of Criminal Justice Crime Prevention (Canada) Delinquency Prevention Evidence-Based Practices

Author: Council of State Governments Justice Center Title: Justice Reinvestment in Hawaii: Analyses & Policy Options to Reduce Spending on Corrections & Reinvest in Strategies to Increase Public Safety Summary: In June 2011, Governor Neil Abercrombie and House and Senate leaders in Hawaii requested technical assistance from the Council of State Governments Justice Center (CSG Justice Center) to employ a data-driven justice reinvestment approach to develop a statewide policy framework that would reduce spending on corrections and reinvest savings in strategies that increase public safety. This report outlines the analyses conducted by the CSG Justice Center and policy options proposed to the Hawaii State Legislature as a result of the justice reinvestment process. Details: New York: Council of State Governments Justice Center, 2014). 12p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 9, 2014 at: http://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/JR-in-HI-Analyses-and-Policy-Options.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/JR-in-HI-Analyses-and-Policy-Options.pdf Shelf Number: 134219 Keywords: Community Justice (Hawaii) Corrections Reform Costs of Criminal Justice Criminal Justice Reform Justice Reinvestment

Author: Council of State Governments Justice Center Title: Justice Reinvestment in Kansas: Analyses & Policy Options to Reduce Spending on Corrections & Reinvest in Strategies to Increase Public Safety Summary: In June 2012, Governor Sam Brownback, Chief Justice Lawton Nuss, Attorney General Derek Schmidt, Department of Corrections (DOC) Secretary Ray Roberts, and House and Senate leaders requested technical assistance from the Council of State Governments Justice Center (CSG Justice Center). They sought to employ a data-driven "justice reinvestment" approach to develop a statewide policy frame work that would reduce spending on corrections and reinvest resulting savings in strategies that increase public safety. Assistance provided by the CSG Justice Center was made possible through a partnership with and funding from the Pew Center on the States Public Safety Performance Project and the Bureau of Justice Assistance, a component of the U.S. Department of Justice. Details: New York: Council of State Governments Justice Center, 2013. 20p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 9. 2014 at: http://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Kansas-JR-Final-Report.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Kansas-JR-Final-Report.pdf Shelf Number: 134218 Keywords: Community Justice (Kansas) Corrections Reform Costs of Criminal Justice Criminal Justice Reform Justice Reinvestment

Author: U.S. Government Accountability Office Title: Bureau of Prisons: Information on Efforts and Potential Options to Save Costs Summary: BOP is responsible for the custody and care of 216,000 federal inmates-an almost 9-fold increase since 1980. At the same time, BOP appropriations increased more than 20-fold. DOJ states that the costs of the growing population are BOP's greatest challenge. BOP's population size is driven by several factors, such as law enforcement policies and sentencing laws. GAO was asked to review BOP's opportunities to save costs. This report (1) describes BOP's major costs and actions to achieve savings, (2) assesses the extent to which BOP has mechanisms to identify additional efficiencies, and (3) describes potential changes within and outside of BOP's authority that might reduce costs. GAO analyzed BOP financial data for fiscal years 2009 through 2013, reviewed but did not test its internal control system and processes for achieving efficiencies, and interviewed BOP officials. On the basis of sentencing reform options identified by experts and actions by the Attorney General, GAO developed a list of policy options that could reduce BOP's population. GAO gathered views on their potential effects from entities and 4 states selected for their criminal justice expertise. The views are not generalizable, but provide insights. What GAO Recommends GAO recommends that BOP establish a mechanism to consistently monitor if bureau-wide corrective actions address repeated deficiencies and findings. DOJ concurred. Details: Washington, DC: GAO, 2014. 139p. Source: Internet Resource: GAO-14-821: Accessed October 9, 2014 at: http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/666254.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/666254.pdf Shelf Number: 133618 Keywords: Correctional Administration Costs of Corrections Costs of Criminal Justice Federal Prisons (U.S.) Inmates Prisoners

Author: Easton, Stephen Title: The Cost of Crime in Canada Summary: While in 1998 Canada spent over $42.4 billion on crime- $15.5 billion on what we think of as the direct cost of crime and the remainder on the less easily measured consequences for the victims - today's estimates reveal that Canadians spend over $85 billion being victimized by, catching, and punishing crime. Victims' losses through criminal acts committed against them amount to over $47 billion, more than half of the total. The current cost of crime is over 5% of our national product and this is an underestimate. The crime rate has been falling since the early 1990s and there is a paradox here since in many dimensions the cost of crime has risen, not fallen. At the same time as crime is declining, the cost of dealing with crime by the police, the courts, and the prisons has become greater. At least part of the reason for this increase has been the requirements of the justice system itself. To safeguard the rights of Canadians, the Supreme Court of Canada has imposed a set of evolving requirements on the police and prosecution that make it manifestly more expensive to capture and prosecute. This is not to argue that the courts should not impose these requirements. It is, however, important to understand their consequences and, of course, there are other contributors to the increasing costs. Over the decade from 2002 to 2012 the crime rate has fallen by roughly 27%: from 7,700 to 5,600 crimes per 100,000 of the population. Nonetheless, the cost of dealing with crime by the justice system has risen by 35%. The greatest increases have been in policing (44%) followed by corrections at (33%). One of the puzzles has been that the incarceration rate has changed little since 1978 while the crime rate fluctuated from a 1991 peak of over 10,000 per 100,000 to 5,600 today. Our measure of the cost of crime has many gaps. Canadian data do not permit an annual assessment of the cost of crime at this time. We have provided or developed annual measures for different components of crime, including the cost of the justice system and the cost of pain and suffering associated with the crimes that we measure. However, there are still no annual assessments of the costs of private security, business losses, medical costs, foregone productivity costs, and a number of other contributors to the overall cost of crime. Details: Vancouver, BC: Fraser Institute, 2014. 122p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 16, 2014 at: http://www.fraserinstitute.org/uploadedFiles/fraser-ca/Content/research-news/research/publications/cost-of-crime-in-canada-2014.pdf Year: 2014 Country: Canada URL: http://www.fraserinstitute.org/uploadedFiles/fraser-ca/Content/research-news/research/publications/cost-of-crime-in-canada-2014.pdf Shelf Number: 133729 Keywords: Costs of Crime (Canada) Costs of Criminal Justice Criminal Justice Expenditures

Author: Mitchell, Michael Title: Changing Priorities: State Criminal Justice Reforms and Investments in Education Summary: Most states' prison populations are at historic highs after decades of extraordinary growth; in 36 states, the prison population has more than tripled as a share of the state population since 1978. This rapid growth, which continued even after crime rates fell substantially in the 1990s, has been costly. Corrections spending is now the third-largest category of spending in most states, behind education and health care. If states were still spending on corrections what they spent in the mid-1980s, adjusted for inflation, they would have about $28 billion more each year that they could choose to spend on more productive investments or a mix of investments and tax reductions. Even as states spend more on corrections, they are underinvesting in educating children and young adults, especially those in high-poverty neighborhoods. At least 30 states are providing less general funding per student this year for K-12 schools than before the recession, after adjusting for inflation; in 14 states the reduction exceeds 10 percent. Higher education cuts have been even deeper: the average state has cut higher education funding per student by 23 percent since the recession hit, after adjusting for inflation. Eleven states spent more of their general funds on corrections than on higher education in 2013. And some of the states with the biggest education cuts in recent years also have among the nation's highest incarceration rates. This is not sound policy. State economies would be much stronger over time if states invested more in education and other areas that can boost long-term economic growth and less in maintaining extremely high prison populations. The economic health of many low-income neighborhoods, which face disproportionately high incarceration rates, could particularly improve if states reordered their spending in such a way. States could use the freed-up funds in a number of ways, such as expanding access to high-quality preschool, reducing class sizes in high-poverty schools, and revising state funding formulas to invest more in high-poverty neighborhoods. Details: Washington, DC: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 2014. 21p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 13, 2014 at: http://www.cbpp.org/files/10-28-14sfp.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.cbpp.org/files/10-28-14sfp.pdf Shelf Number: 134083 Keywords: Costs of Criminal Justice Criminal Justice Policy Criminal Justice Reform (U.S.) Delinquency Prevention Education Poverty

Author: Council of State Governments Justice Center Title: Justice Reinvestment in Alabama: Overview Summary: In early 2014, Alabama Governor Robert Bentley, Chief Justice Roy Moore, Senate President Pro Tempore Del Marsh, House Speaker Michael Hubbard, and Department of Corrections Commissioner Kim Thomas requested support from The Pew Charitable Trusts and the U.S. Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Assistance to explore a 'justice reinvestment' approach to improve public safety, manage corrections spending, and reinvest savings in strategies that can decrease crime and reduce recidivism. The Council of State Governments Justice Center (CSG Justice Center) was asked to provide intensive technical assistance to help collect and analyze data and develop appropriate policy options for the state. The Alabama legislature passed a joint resolution (SJR 20) in February 2014 that created the bipartisan, inter-branch Prison Reform Task Force (Task Force)-which includes designees from all three branches of government and state and local criminal justice system stakeholders-to study the state's criminal justice system using the justice reinvestment approach.1 Senator Cam Ward (R-Alabaster) will chair the Task Force, which will submit a report on the study's findings and policy recommendations to the legislature prior to the 2015 session. CSG Justice Center staff, under the direction of the Task Force, will conduct a comprehensive analysis of data collected from various relevant state agencies and branches of government. To build a broad picture of statewide criminal justice trends, data on jail and community corrections will be sought from local governments and analyzed where possible. CSG Justice Center staff also will convene focus groups and lead interviews with people working on the front lines of Alabama's criminal justice system. Based on these exhaustive quantitative and qualitative analyses, the Task Force will use its findings to develop options for the legislature's consideration that are designed to both increase public safety and contain the cost of corrections. This overview highlights recent criminal justice trends in Alabama that the Task Force will be exploring in the coming months. Details: New York: Council of State Governments Justice Center, 2014. 6p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 18, 2014 at: http://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/JR-in-Alabama-Overview.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/JR-in-Alabama-Overview.pdf Shelf Number: 134124 Keywords: Corrections Reform Costs of Criminal Justice Criminal Justice Review Criminal Justice Systems (Alabama) Justice Reinvestment

Author: Downey, P. Mitchell Title: Cost-Benefit Analysis: A Guide for Drug Courts and other Criminal Justice Programs Summary: Policymakers and practitioners face difficult decisions when they allocate resources. As resource constraints have tightened, the role of researchers in informing evidence-based and cost-effective decisions about the use of funds, labor, materials and equipment - and even the skills of workers - has increased. We believe research that can inform decisions about resource allocation will be a central focus of criminal justice research in the years to come, with cost-benefit analysis (CBA) among the key tools. This report about the use of CBA is aimed at not only researchers but also practitioners and policymakers who use research to make choices about how to use limited resources. Although we include NIJ's Multi-site Adult Drug Court Evaluation (MADCE) as an example of CBA in practice, this report is not just about using CBA in drug courts. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice, 2014. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: National Institute of Justice Research in Brief: Accessed November 25, 2014 at: https://ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/246769.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: https://ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/246769.pdf Shelf Number: 134243 Keywords: Cost-Benefit Analysis (U.S.) Costs of Criminal Justice Criminal Justice Policy Drug Courts Evidence-Based Practices Problem-Solving Courts

Author: Henrichson, Christian Title: Cost-Benefit Analysis and Justice Policy Toolkit Summary: Throughout the justice field, demand is growing for cost-benefit analysis (CBA), an economic tool that compares the costs of programs or policies with the benefits they produce. Although there is no one-size-fits-all template for conducting a CBA, analysts and researchers must follow a common methodology, or series of steps. This toolkit guides users through these steps and provides examples of Vera's recent work advising six justice agencies that were either starting or enhancing their CBA efforts. Details: New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2014. 40p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 21, 2015 at: http://www.vera.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/cba-justice-policy-toolkit.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.vera.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/cba-justice-policy-toolkit.pdf Shelf Number: 134429 Keywords: Cost-Benefit Analysis Costs of Criminal Justice Criminal Justice Policy

Author: Collins, Peter A. Title: An Analysis of the Economic Costs of Seeking the Death Penalty in Washington State Summary: The purpose of this study was to estimate the costs associated with pursuit of the death penalty, as compared to cases where the death penalty was not sought, for aggravated first-degree murder cases in Washington State. The study was limited to economic cost estimation only and does not draw any normative conclusions regarding the death penalty. The study was designed to provide accurate estimates to inform debate and decision-making by policy makers and the public. Prior studies in Washington have been limited in both rigor and comprehensiveness. The current study adds significantly to research on the death penalty in Washington and beyond, as we utilize quasi-experimental methods to estimate cost differences using a wide variety of data sources. Cases of aggravated first-degree murder were identified from a database of trial reports obtained through open records requests. In addition to the information within the trial reports, major data sources included Extraordinary Criminal Justice Act (ECJA) petitions, and data provided by the Washington Office of Public Defense, the Department of Corrections, and the State Attorney General's office. Additional data sources are detailed within the full report. This study examined 147 aggravated first-degree murder cases since 1997. A case was identified as Death Penalty Sought (DPS; synonymous with "capital case" used interchangeably throughout this report) if a death notice was filed by the prosecutor; otherwise it was identified as Death Penalty Not Sought (DPNS). It should be noted that some DPS cases ended without trial (with pleas to life without possibility of parole or otherwise), and in some DPNS cases the decision not to seek death was not made until several months or longer after arraignment. Two methods were used to estimate costs: an all-inclusive method that used all of the eligible cases, and a more conservative approach that used a smaller sample of comparable cases selected using a technique known as Propensity Score Matching. Details: Seattle, WA: Seattle University, 2015. 110p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 28, 2015 at: http://www.law.seattleu.edu/Documents/korematsu/deathpenalty/The_Economic_Costs_of_Seeking_the_Death_Penalty_in_WA_FINAL.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.law.seattleu.edu/Documents/korematsu/deathpenalty/The_Economic_Costs_of_Seeking_the_Death_Penalty_in_WA_FINAL.pdf Shelf Number: 134486 Keywords: Capital Punishment Costs of Criminal Justice Death Penalty (Washington State) Economic Analysis

Author: Council of State Governments. Justice Center Title: Justice Reinvestment in North Carolina: Three Years Later Summary: Three years after North Carolina enacted justice reinvestment legislation, this report reviews the policies the state enacted and their impact on North Carolina's correctional and criminal justice system. Through transforming the state's probation system, reinventing how treatment is delivered, and expanding supervision, the state has seen declines in its prison population, the number of probation revocations, and releases from prison without supervision. Details: New York: Council of State Governments Justice Center, 2014. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 20, 2015 at: http://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/JRinNCThreeYearsLater.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/JRinNCThreeYearsLater.pdf Shelf Number: 134994 Keywords: Corrections Costs of Criminal Justice Justice Reinvestment (North Carolina) Probation

Author: Justice Policy Institute Title: The Right Investment? Corrections Spending in Baltimore City Summary: Maryland taxpayers are spending $5 million or more to incarcerate people from each of about half of Baltimore's communities (25 of 55), with total spending of $288 million a year on incarcerating people from Baltimore in Maryland's prisons. Based on data recently made available by a new Maryland law, The Right Investment?: Corrections Spending in Baltimore City shows for the first time where people who are incarcerated are from, and how much Maryland taxpayers spend on their incarceration. The report includes detailed tables that show where people incarcerated in Maryland are from, including the 23 counties and Baltimore City, select 157 cities and towns, and Maryland Senate and House of Delegate Districts, as well as information that can better inform investment decisions in these communities to help solve long-standing challenges and improve public safety. Details: Washington, DC: Justice Policy Institute and Prison Policy Initiative, 2015. 55p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 26, 2015 at: http://www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/justicepolicy/documents/rightinvestment_design_2.23.15_final.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/justicepolicy/documents/rightinvestment_design_2.23.15_final.pdf Shelf Number: 135074 Keywords: Costs of Corrections Costs of Criminal Justice Criminal Justice Expenditures

Author: Galik, Lauren Title: Smart on Sentencing, Smart on Crime: An Argument for Reforming Louisiana's Determinate Sentencing Laws Summary: Over the past several decades, Louisiana legislators have passed a number of determinate sentencing laws aimed at reducing crime and incapacitating certain types of offenders. Because these laws have been disproportionately applied to nonviolent crimes, nonviolent offenders now account for the majority of inmates and admissions to prison in the state. This has produced a number of unfortunate consequences, such as an increase in the state's prison population from 21,007 in 1992 to 39,709 in 2011 and a $315 million increase in correction expenditures during the same time period, from $442.3 million (in 2011 dollars) in 1992 to $757.4 million in 2011. Meanwhile, there is little evidence that the laws have done anything to reduce Louisiana's violent crime rate, which remains considerably above both the national average and the rates in its neighboring states. Today, Louisiana has the highest incarceration rate in the country, with 868 of every 100,000 of its citizens in prison. Louisiana's citizens could benefit considerably from changes to the way in which convicted criminals are sentenced. As things stand, nonviolent offenders who pose little or no threat to society are routinely sentenced to long terms in prison with no opportunity for parole, probation or suspension of sentence. In most cases, this is a direct result of the state's determinate sentencing laws. These prisoners consume disproportionate amounts of Louisiana's scarce correctional resources, which could be better utilized to ensure that violent criminals are more effectively kept behind bars. Among the more serious problems with Louisiana's determinate sentencing laws are: - A large number of crimes that carry mandatory minimum prison sentences in Louisiana are drug-related and nonviolent in nature. Indeed, numerous violent crimes, such as negligent homicide, manslaughter, aggravated assault with a firearm, aggravated battery, simple rape and simple kidnapping carry no mandatory minimum sentences at all. - Mandatory minimum sentences eliminate judicial discretion over sentencing by prohibiting judges from taking into account factors specific to the crime or offender when determining the sentence. - Mandatory minimum sentences create arbitrary outcomes by drawing essentially trivial lines between degrees of criminal activity that can result in dramatic differences in punishment. This happens most commonly with sentences for drug crimes, where different weights or quantities of drugs carry varying degrees of punishment. For example, possession of 199.9 grams of cocaine carries a mandatory minimum sentence of five years of hard labor in prison and a $50,000 fine. However, possession of 200 grams of cocaine carries a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years of hard labor in prison and a $100,000 fine-double the punishment for a negligible 0.1 gram more of cocaine. Other states have gone further. In Maine, legislators passed safety valve provisions that allow judges to depart below mandatory minimum sentences in certain instances. In Rhode Island, legislators repealed mandatory minimum sentences for nonviolent drug offenses. These reforms have allowed Maine and Rhode Island to save prison space and resources for criminals who pose a real threat to society, while reducing corrections costs. Louisiana could benefit from similar changes to sentencing policy. Details: Los Angeles: Reason Foundation, 2013. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Policy Study 425: Accessed April 8, 2015 at: http://reason.org/files/louisiana_sentencing_reform.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://reason.org/files/louisiana_sentencing_reform.pdf Shelf Number: 135182 Keywords: Costs of Criminal Justice Determinate Sentencing Imprisonment, Economic Aspects of Punishment Sentencing (Louisiana) Sentencing Reform

Author: Police Reform Taskforce Title: Policing for the People: Interim report of the Police Reform Taskforce Summary: The central premise of this report is that, in spite of record spending on law and order, crime remains far too high. A more effective criminal justice system and social action will be important components of a new approach to fighting crime. But the police are a vital link in the chain of justice, consuming two-thirds of law and order spending. Their performance over the next decade will be essential in improving the quality of life of millions of citizens. The Government's approach to the police has been a familiar one: higher public spending combined with an ever tighter central grip. Like other public services, the police are bedeviled with national targets, interference and the bureaucracy created by central intervention. The result has been that even as resources for the police have reached record levels, officers feel unable to deliver the service they and the public want - and the gulf between the police and public is growing. The hundreds of meetings we have had with police officers over the past months have reinforced our belief that the service is full of officers with a real commitment to delivering effective policing for the public. Nevertheless, neither politicians nor the police can afford to ignore an undercurrent of public dissatisfaction about the level of policing which they are receiving. Focus groups which we conducted for the Taskforce indicated sympathy for the difficulty of the task which the police face. A general feeling, expressed by one participant, was that "their hands are totally tied - by red tape and political correctness". But there were also harsh words, reflecting an alienation from the service: "Your local bobby used to be known by everyone. He was an authority on the area and a friend. They are now obsolete". A familiar grievance was that the police appeared to pursue motorists with particular zeal: "You get pulled over for a driving offence and get treated like a complete criminal". This qualitative research is supported by quantitative evidence that trust in the police has declined and attitudes towards them are negatively related to personal experiences of the service. The most recent survey, conducted by ICM for the TaxPayers' Alliance, found that while the overwhelming majority of the public respects the police, less than a quarter think that policing in their area has improved, and less than half think that increases in council tax to pay for improvements to local policing in the last ten years have been good value for money. Large majorities of the public agree that the police spend too much time in police stations and not enough time on the beat; their hands are tied by red tape and political correctness, and they prefer to focus on easy targets like speeding motorists rather than deal with antisocial behaviour and local crime. The closure of police stations is emblematic of the withdrawal of the police from the public. On paper, police officer numbers have increased - the police workforce has grown by almost 25 per cent in the last five years. In practice, the public simply do not see it. ICM's survey found that most people think that there are fewer police on the beat than there used to be, and that nearly three quarters of the public know none of the police officers in their neighbourhood. As we demonstrate, vast amounts of police time are spent tied up in stations; the police spend more time on paperwork than on patrol, and less than a tenth of England and Wales' police officers are dedicated to neighbourhood policing. If the amount of time a police officer spends on the beat could be increased from one fifth to two fifths, this would effectively double the police presence on the streets of England and Wales without recruiting a single additional officer. For decades, an expert wisdom prevailed that high crime was inevitable and that policing could do little to prevent it. There was no point in putting police officers on the streets, the argument ran, because it would do little to reduce crime. Today such fatalism, which was never accepted by the public, has been debunked. When more police were put on the streets of central London after 7/7, crime fell. The success of New York City's reductions in crime in the 1990s - recently described by one leading academic as "by far the biggest crime prevention achievement in the recorded history of metropolitan policing" - demonstrates that good policing, which accounted for half of the 75 per cent reduction in crime in a decade, can make our streets safer. The lessons of New York are important ones. Better police performance was achieved by a combination of factors: a significant increase in police numbers on the streets, robust community policing, and powerful reforms which enhanced the accountability of managers. The changes were driven by an elected Mayor who was accountable to the people, and an inspirational police chief who innovated and led his force. Today the British police face the twin challenges of rebuilding community policing to tackle low level crime and antisocial behaviour, while at the same time strengthening the fight against serious crime and terrorism. To meet these challenges it will be vital to ensure that the police are properly resourced in the future. But they have never had so much money, so many officers or such access to technology. Furthermore, the growth of spending on public services is now slowing; indeed the Home Office budget is to be frozen from next year. The police face a new imperative to deliver value for money. Details: London: Policy Review, 2007. 241p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 20, 2015 at: http://conservativehome.blogs.com/torydiary/files/policing_for_the_people.pdf Year: 2007 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://conservativehome.blogs.com/torydiary/files/policing_for_the_people.pdf Shelf Number: 135321 Keywords: Community Policing Costs of Criminal Justice Police Accountability Police Administration Police Effectiveness Police Legitimacy Police Reform Policing (U.K.)

Author: Kantorowicz, Elena Title: Any-Where Any-Time: Ambiguity and the Perceived Probability of Apprehension Summary: Enforcement is a costly endeavour. Thus, governments ought to be innovative in designing less costly policies, yet, effective in preventing crime. To this end, this paper suggests using insights from behavioural law and economics. Empirical evidence demonstrates that police have an important effect in deterring crime. However, increasing the number of policemen is a costly policy. Therefore, this paper explores policy changes which exploit offender's ambiguity aversion in order to reduce crime without increasing the police force. Namely, empirical evidence suggests that criminals are better deterred by ambiguous detection. Thus, this paper analyses the ways to randomize the apprehension strategies to meet this end. Furthermore, it provides new evidence, based on a survey, that potential violators are largely not aware of policy changes. Inasmuch as the information regarding the intensified uncertainty is essential to its success, this paper discusses the possibility to increase criminals' awareness through the 'availability heuristic'. Details: Rotterdam: Erasmus University, Rotterdam Institute of Law and Economics, 2014. 33p. Source: Internet Resource: Rotterdam Institute of Law and Economics (RILE) Working Paper Series, No. 2014/11: Accessed April 23, 2015 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2202329 Year: 2014 Country: International URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2202329 Shelf Number: 135371 Keywords: Costs of Criminal Justice Crime Prevention Criminal Apprehension Criminal Deterrence Law Enforcement

Author: Guidry, Sarah R. Title: A Blueprint for Criminal Justice Policy Solutions in Harris County Summary: On any given day, Texas county jails house approximately 65,000 people. More than half of these individuals are typically awaiting trial, not yet having been convicted. Many others are misdemeanants or serving terms for nonviolent offenses. And sadly, some individuals have repeatedly returned to jail, trapped in a continuous cycle of recidivism, unprepared for a life outside of the criminal justice system without access to post-release treatment and programming. As more and more individuals are incarcerated or otherwise involved in the criminal justice system, the fiscal and human costs increase: Individuals with criminal records have difficulty finding stable employment and housing, leading to re-offending; the expenses associated with managing bloated jail populations can be extensive; and public safety and health are likewise compromised when crowded jails fail to meet the needs of incoming and exiting individuals. Despite being home to the largest jail in Texas (and third largest in the United States), Harris County has nonetheless struggled with jail overcrowding for the past four decades. In 1974, a group of inmates filed a lawsuit against the Sheriff and County Commissioners that challenged the conditions of their confinement; it culminated in a federal court order condemning the overcrowded conditions in the Harris County jail, and it provided jurisdiction to the federal court to ensure steps were taken to bring the conditions of the jail within constitutionally protected standards. For nearly two decades, that court wielded its oversight power heavily, frequently intervening to prevent conditions at the Harris County jail from deteriorating further. And yet, following the termination of the court's oversight in the mid-1990's, the Harris County jail population once again swelled. By the late 2000's, Harris County's jail population was exceeding the design capacity of the jail facilities by almost 2,000 inmates and exceeding the target figure for safe operation of the jail by more than 2,400 inmates. The large number of inmates forced the County to outsource approximately 1,000 inmates each month to jail facilities in Louisiana; additionally, the County housed approximately 2,100 inmates in jail facilities in other Texas counties. Unsafe and unsanitary crowding conditions prompted new federal oversight in the form of a 2008 investigation by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ). Facing a county budget burdened by the fiscal costs associated with such a large number of jail inmates, the Harris County Commissioners Court contracted with the Justice Management Institute (JMI) to conduct a study on improving the County's criminal justice system and addressing the County's jail crowding problem. The release of the JMI report in 2009 and the ongoing DOJ investigation inspired the formation of the Harris County Criminal Justice Coordinating Council (HCCJCC), a panel of county officials and stakeholders, as the first step in a concerted effort to solve the County's jail population issues. Since then, various strategies have been implemented to address specialized populations, including those with substance abuse and mental health problems who too frequently end up behind bars. The County has implemented emergency response teams that provide assistance to those in mental health crisis, and District Attorney Devon Anderson has implemented a policy in regard to nonviolent individuals charged with a low-level drug offense who have a history of drug or alcohol dependency; rather than sentencing the person under 12.44(a), the defendant is offered intensive rehabilitation with community supervision to address the addiction issue. Additionally, in October 2014, District Attorney Anderson's office initiated the First Chance Intervention Program, a pilot diversion program offered to first-time offenders who would otherwise be charged with Class B possession of marijuana (2 ounces or less). Harris County Probation Director Teresa May has worked ardently with judges to drastically reduce technical violations among those being supervised, and Harris County Sheriff Adrian Garcia has expanded the use of legally permitted "good time" credit for eligible jail inmates who exhibit positive behavior. We are now seeing a reduction in Harris County's jail population, which has been below its operating capacity since October 2011. Sustaining that initial success would prove difficult, however, and an influx of inmates in the fall of 2013 nearly drove the jail population over its operating capacity. Similar influxes have, at times, necessitated Harris County to make requests to the Texas Commission on Jail Standards for additional jail beds through temporary variances (See Appendix 1). Absent further jail population reduction strategies, more variances may become necessary in the future, and further county resources may be expended on confinement. Those costs are not insubstantial. In fiscal year 2013, following a rise in the County's jail population, taxpayers spent nearly a half-million dollars per day operating the jail. Harris County stakeholders - including law enforcement, judges, prosecutors, jailers, County Commissioners, county budget staff, and treatment providers - must collaborate to deliver cost-savings to county taxpayers through jail population management strategies and through a more public health response to drug use and mental illness. Ultimately, where possible, low-risk, nonviolent individuals should be diverted and handled outside of already overburdened court and jail systems, rather than forcing taxpayers to foot the bill for their pretrial detention and later confinement; meanwhile, those who are exiting jail should have access to post-release assistance to stay on the right path. Smart-on-crime strategies can ensure that funds needed for social services and programs are not unnecessarily diverted to criminal justice oversight. Details: Austin, TX: Texas Criminal Justice Coalition, 2015. 60p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 14, 2015 at: http://www.texascjc.org/sites/default/files/publications/Blueprint%20for%20Criminal%20Justice%20Policy%20Solutions%202015.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.texascjc.org/sites/default/files/publications/Blueprint%20for%20Criminal%20Justice%20Policy%20Solutions%202015.pdf Shelf Number: 135637 Keywords: Costs of Corrections Costs of Criminal Justice Criminal Justice Systems Drug Abuse Treatment Drug Offenders Good Time Credits Inmates Jail Overcrowding Jails Pretrial Detention

Author: Nevada. Legislative Auditor Title: Fiscal Costs of the Death Penalty Summary: The death penalty in the United States is applied almost exclusively for the crime of murder. As of August 2014, 32 states have laws allowing death as a sentencing option although governors in Washington and Oregon have issued moratoriums on executions. Two U.S. Supreme Court cases significantly impacted states' laws regarding the death penalty. Furman v. Georgia in 1972 invalidated death penalty laws because the legal system, as it was then structured, allowed for the death penalty to be imposed in an arbitrary manner. The 1976 case of Gregg v. Georgia upheld newly crafted statutes that ensured death penalty sentences were rationally imposed and objectively reviewable. Senate Bill 220 of the 1977 Legislative Session brought Nevada's death penalty laws into compliance with U.S. Supreme Court guidelines. Since the death penalty was reinstated in Nevada in 1977, 153 people have been sentenced to death. Twelve inmates have been executed since that time with 11 effectively "volunteering" by giving up their right to continue appealing their conviction. Eighty-two inmates are currently sentenced to the death penalty as of September 2014. Of the remaining 59 inmates, 16 died while in prison and 43 had their sentence and/or conviction reduced. Nevada law requires executions to be performed by lethal injection. This method of execution has become an issue nationally as historically used drugs have become difficult to obtain. This audit was required by Chapter 469, Statutes of Nevada, 2013 (A.B. 444). The purpose of the audit was to determine (1) the fiscal costs of prosecuting death penalty cases versus nondeath penalty cases and (2) the potential savings attributable to the death penalty through plea bargaining and strategic litigation choices. Our audit focused on murder cases in Washoe and Clark counties between 2000 and 2012. We used December 31, 2013, as the cut-off date for cost accumulation. The audit was subject to certain limitations as many agencies with significant roles could not provide actual staff time and were hesitant to provide estimates. Furthermore, much of the information was based on unverifiable estimates provided by various entities Details: Carson City, NV: Legislative Auditor, 2014. 114p. Source: Internet Resource: Performance Audit LA 14025: Accessed May 16, 2015 at: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/NevadaCosts.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/NevadaCosts.pdf Shelf Number: 135680 Keywords: Capital Punishment Costs of Criminal Justice Death Penalty

Author: Ruddell, Rick Title: The Economics of Canadian Policing Five Years Into the Great Recession Summary: Since the start of the Great Recession in 2008 there has been a growing interest in applying business models and cost-benefit analyses to policing, especially in terms of holding police services more accountable for their performance as publically funded agencies. A review of the policing literature reveals an increased number of references to value for money (Barton & Barton, 2011) and return on investment from dollars spent on policing (Boyd, Geoghegan & Gibbs, 2011; Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary [HMIC], 2013). Police and political leaders, as well as academics have used the economic crisis as an opportunity to advance the issues of reimagining or re-envisioning policing. While Canada has weathered the worst of the economic crisis that started in 2008 with fewer negative effects than our counterparts in the United Kingdom, the euro zone, and the United States, there has been a growing concern about the increasing costs of policing, which has been called unsustainable by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (2013). Every Canadian municipality is grappling with increasing demands for civic services, including policing, and few local politicians want to increase taxes. With respect to the Ontario Provincial Police, for instance, changes in the manner in which their costs are recovered from municipalities have led to a growing concern from rural community leaders: Brennan (2014, n.p.) noted that "prior to 1998 rural municipalities did not pay for policing." These debates are not isolated to Ontario, and city counselors throughout the nation are trying to balance public safety and their ability to pay for policing. Containing policing costs while ensuring that core policing services (e.g., those related to emergency response, criminal investigations and enforcing laws) are of key importance to policymakers and members of the Canadian policing industry. This is evidenced by an increased focus on the "economics of policing" in the research literature (see Griffiths & Stamatakis, 2012; Leuprecht, 2014; Ruddell & Jones, 2013), and several conferences and summits held throughout 2013-2014 (Charlottetown in January and September, 2013 and Vancouver in March 2014). Topics related to the economics of policing have been addressed at the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police 2013 annual meeting and were a key subject addressed by the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security throughout 2013. In many respects, funding for Canadian policing is more stable than in other English-speaking common-law nations. Police services throughout the United States have been experiencing funding cutbacks and some jurisdictions disbanded their police services in favour of contract policing (U.S. Department of Justice, 2012), while other municipalities have replaced publically operated police with private police agencies. In the United Kingdom, policing budgets are projected to be cut by as much as one-third. Given these funding shortfalls, police leaders in these nations are being forced to rethink the manner in which services are delivered, who will deliver them, and how to best manage cuts to police budgets without threatening core policing services. Canadian police services have the luxury of time to scan the environment for threats as well as opportunities for change, and learn what the police in other nations are doing in response to budget cutbacks. It is possible that the lessons learned from our counterparts will enable Canadian police services to better leverage their resources. Former Public Safety Minister Vic Toews, speaking at the Economics of Policing Summit in January 2013, observed that, "Police services face two options - they can do nothing and eventually be forced to cut drastically, as we have seen in some countries; or they can be proactive, get ahead of the curve, and have greater flexibility in designing and implementing both incremental and meaningful structural reforms." As part of a proactive strategy that examines the economics of policing in the Canadian context, a key goal of this study is to review the economics, management, and policing literatures to identify current trends in respect to the relationships between economics and policing, including how police services in other nations have managed austerity. The main findings from this review are that: - There were 11 recessions between 1948 and 2011 and each one had a different set of causes, economic consequences, as well as recovery times and these three factors influence crime rates in an inconsistent manner. - The global economic recovery has been slow and another downturn could have a significant impact upon the Canadian economy, and in turn, police funding. - Police services in the United Kingdom and the United States have responded to the latest recession by streamlining operations and attempting to reduce demand. - While police services in other nations have been successful in preserving core functions after budget cuts there is some question as to whether these strategies are sustainable over the long-term. - Long-term austerity policing may negatively influence citizen perceptions of the police and has been shown to reduce the morale of police service staff in the United Kingdom. - Cost-benefit analyses consistently reveal that investing in policing is a cost-effective public policy. - Recent research demonstrates that officer effectiveness can be enhanced through directed patrol or "hot spots" policing. - The RAND cost of crime calculator shows that adding police officers in jurisdictions with high crime rates is a good investment in public safety. - Applying the RAND calculator to Saskatchewan policing shows a return of $1.70 for every additional dollar spent on police officers. - Deploying officers in traffic enforcement roles demonstrates a greater cost saving benefit to society than in general duty policing. - Crime reduction strategies must be developed at the local level, as an approach that is effective in one jurisdiction may be unsuccessful when exported to another community. - The current recession has led to many scholars calling for a 'reengineering' or 'remaking' of police operations although there is little consensus on what those changes should entail or who should decide what changes should occur. - Most policing studies focus upon big city policing and there is almost no published research on best practices, cost effectiveness or measuring the performance of rural police services. Details: Ottawa: Public Safety Canada, 2014. 100p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 18, 2015 at: http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/lbrr/archives/cnmcs-plcng/cn80407908-eng.pdf Year: 2014 Country: Canada URL: http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/lbrr/archives/cnmcs-plcng/cn80407908-eng.pdf Shelf Number: 135694 Keywords: Cost-Benefit Analysis Costs of Criminal Justice Economics and Crime Economics of Policing Police Administration Policing

Author: Henrichson, Christian Title: The Price of Jails: Measuring the Taxpayer Cost of Local Incarceration Summary: Jails-locally run facilities used primarily to detain persons arrested but not yet convicted of any crime-now hold more than 730,000 people on any given day, more than triple their population in 1983. These are the places where most arrested men and women land and where many remain as their cases wind through the criminal justice system. Bigger jail populations mean increased costs for staff and other expenses. The U.S. Department of Justice estimated that local communities spent $22.2 billion on jails in 2011. But as high as $22.2 billion sounds, it underestimates the actual price of jails, because other government agencies often bear a large share of jail costs not reflected in jail budgets. For example, in addition to the $1.1 billion spent by the City of New York Department of Correction in 2014, other city agencies spent an additional $1.3 billion for jail employee benefits, health care and education programs for incarcerated people, and administration, bringing the total cost to $2.4 billion. Because reported jail costs are too often incomplete, policymakers and the public are seldom aware of the full extent of their community's financial commitment to the jail. As policymakers focus on justice reform at the local level, they need to understand how much the community is actually spending. To this end, researchers at the Vera Institute of Justice developed a survey to help counties tally the actual price of their jails. The only way to safely reduce the cost of jail is to limit the number of people in the jail, because the cost largely comprises expenses for staff and the number of staff is dictated by the population of incarcerated people. In fact, the inmate population is such a key cost driver that it is possible for "expensive" jails (meaning those with a high average per-inmate cost) to be the least costly to taxpayers. Consider the example of two counties of similar size: Johnson County, Kansas, and Bernalillo, New Mexico. By comparing the average cost per inmate, the jail in Johnson County appears to be more than twice as expensive as the jail in Bernalillo County ($191.95 per day versus $85.63 per day in 2014). But taxpayers in Johnson County actually spend less on the jail than taxpayers in Bernalillo County do, because the incarceration rate in 2014 was more than three times lower (121 per 100,000 versus 369 per 100,000). As a result, the annual cost of jail in Johnson County is $49 million ($82 per county resident), versus $78 million ($113 per county resident) in Bernalillo County. Recognizing the urgent need to reduce the jail population, Bernalillo County formed the Criminal Justice Review Commission in 2013 to reduce jail overcrowding. Many of their initiatives have been implemented and, as a result, the jail population has already declined 39 percent since 2014. This decline, in turn, is yielding saving for taxpayers: The county spends less for out-of-county jail beds. And the jail has closed one housing unit and plans to close another later in the year-a striking turn of events in only a couple years made possible through the collaborative efforts of justice system stakeholders throughout the county. Details: New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2015. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 23, 2015 at: http://www.vera.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/price-of-jails.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.vera.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/price-of-jails.pdf Shelf Number: 135778 Keywords: Costs of Corrections Costs of Criminal Justice Jails

Author: New Mexico Corrections Department Title: Reducing Recidivism, Cutting Costs and Improving Public Safety in the Incarceration and Supervision of Adult Offenders Summary: New Mexico is facing a growing prison population projected to exceed current capacity within the next decade. In FY11, New Mexico spent almost $300 million to house an average of 6,700 offenders and supervise another 18 thousand offenders each day. The New Mexico Corrections Department (NMCD) released 3,440 offenders from prison into the community that same year and if current trends continue, over half of these inmates will return to prison within five years. Although NMCD takes up a lesser amount of general fund compared with public education, the average cost per inmate in New Mexico was $34 thousand in FY10, whereas the average cost per public school student the same year was $7,300. Costs of offenders who recidivate are substantial and result in general expenses to taxpayers and specific expenses to victims. The average offender will have three trips to a NMCD facility. Therefore the citizens of New Mexico pay costs of arresting, prosecuting, housing, rehabilitating and supervising offenders many times over. Investments in programs for reducing recidivism and promoting rehabilitation and treatment, in addition to security, are vital in improving public safety and reducing costs. The state continues to make significant investments in such programs. The NMCD provides more than 40 programs within facilities and more than 30 providers conduct programs outside of NMCD facilities designed to facilitate reentry and reduce recidivism. According to the Pew Center on the States' Public Safety Performance Project, states that strategically improve release preparation and community supervision will see falling recidivism rates. Instead of falling, New Mexico's recidivism is on the rise. The NMCD has potential to reduce costs and improve public safety. However, the NMCD currently suffers from gaps in program oversight, ineffective use of resources, and patterns of inefficient spending. Programming is inadequately targeted or tracked, resulting in expansion of unproven programs and reductions in evidence-based programming. Programs available in the community for offenders on supervision lack adequate accountability, have limited resources for high-risk offenders, and are not measured for performance by the NMCD, the Behavioral Health Collaborative (BHC), or OptumHealth. As a result, contract funds are left unspent at OptumHealth for years at a time. Reduced programming, in turn, is partially responsible for the fact that 278 inmates are serving parole inside prison. Significant opportunities exist to improve the incarceration and supervision of offenders in New Mexico. The NMCD has recognized many of these and have started working on improving reentry and use of evidence based programs before this report was issued. As a part of this evaluation, the LFC has partnered with Results First, a project of the Pew Center on the States and the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, to implement a cost-benefit model that has the potential to be a key tool in strategic budget development. This report includes initial results from that model along with recommendations to improve assessment, management, and allocation of NMCD resources with a focus on development and expansion of evidence-based programs. If implemented, these recommendations will provide the tools needed to properly assess programs, result in cost-savings for the NMCD, and result in improved public safety outcomes. Details: Albuquerque, NM: New Mexico Corrections Department, 2012. 57p. Source: Internet Resource: Report #12-07: Accessed May 27, 2015 at: http://www.nmlegis.gov/lcs/handouts/BHS%20101812%20NM%20Corrections%20Department%20LFC%20Program%20Evaluation.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.nmlegis.gov/lcs/handouts/BHS%20101812%20NM%20Corrections%20Department%20LFC%20Program%20Evaluation.pdf Shelf Number: 128720 Keywords: Correctional Institutions Correctional Programs Costs of Corrections Costs of Criminal Justice Inmates Prisoners Prisons Recidivism

Author: Northern Ireland Criminal Justice Inspection Title: An announced inspection of Woodlands Juvenile Justice Centre Summary: Woodlands Juvenile Justice Centre has been praised by Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland (CJI) for its role in improving the child custody system in Northern Ireland. "Woodlands Juvenile Justice Centre (the JJC) accommodates some of the most difficult and disturbed children in our society, and in doing so, prevents them from causing mayhem in their communities and in the residential care system," said Brendan McGuigan, Chief Inspector of Criminal Justice in Northern Ireland. "Since autumn 2012 all children under 18 who are sent to custody are held at the JJC. This means that no child is held in adult custody in this jurisdiction. "This is a significant achievement but the impact of older children being held within the JJC is testing the resilience of staff. It is also inappropriately used as a short term care facility for children who breach children's home rules, when parents/guardians refuse to accept them back home or on foot of Police and Criminal Evidence (PACE) proceedings," said Mr McGuigan. In order to successfully address these challenges, Inspectors have recommended the existing regime at the JJC should be redesigned to take account of the needs of older children including 17-year-olds, while maintaining its existing child-centred ethos. And they have called for the Youth Justice Agency which operates the JJC to work with its statutory partners to reduce inappropriate use of the 9.3m a year facility. "Inspectors accept that the JJC has and can provide stability in times of crisis, but committing a child to custody should be an action of last resort. Placements should not be based on expediency or - as in the case of PACE - more on proximity to the JJC rather than any other criterion," said Mr McGuigan. The Chief Inspector said Inspectors had also recommended steps should be taken to improve current arrangements for children who do not have suitable bail addresses and those who refuse to perfect their personal bail by opting to remain in custody until accommodation of their choice becomes available. Details: Belfast: Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland, 2015. 55p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 3, 2015 at: http://www.cjini.org/CJNI/files/fb/fb2b3c05-0ec8-47cc-9d63-35443b8e1d97.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.cjini.org/CJNI/files/fb/fb2b3c05-0ec8-47cc-9d63-35443b8e1d97.pdf Shelf Number: 135868 Keywords: Costs of Criminal Justice Juvenile Detention Juvenile Justice (Northern Ireland) Re-Offending

Author: Council of State Governments. Justice Center Title: Justice Reinvestment in Washington: Analysis and Policy Framework Summary: Washington has the highest reported property crime rate in the nation. People convicted of property offenses have a high likelihood of committing a new crime, yet Washington is the only state in the country where supervision is not available as a sentence for most people convicted of property offenses, despite the significant impact supervision can have on reducing the likelihood of reoffending. In addition, the state's prison population is projected to grow by 6 percent over the next 10 years, from 17,502 in FY2014 to 18,542 by FY2024, in part, due to an increasing number of repeat property offenders being sentenced to prison for long lengths of stay. In 2014, the CSG Justice Center was asked to analyze Washington's criminal justice data, interview stakeholders from across the criminal justice system, and work with state leaders to develop data-driven policy options designed to reduce spending on corrections and increase public safety. Among other things, Washington's Justice Reinvestment Policy Framework would: - Adopt a new sentencing grid for felony property offenses that mandates a period of supervision and, if needed, treatment for people convicted of less serious property offenses; - Fund local law enforcement efforts to deter property crime; - Create a fund to provide financial assistance to victims of property crime; and - Incentivize counties to improve pretrial practices. The Justice Reinvestment Policy Framework would help the state avoid up to $291 million in prison construction and operating costs that would otherwise be needed to accommodate the growth that was forecast to occur by FY2024. To achieve these outcomes, the state would need to reinvest $90 million by FY2021 in law enforcement grants, supervision and treatment, support for counties, and financial assistance for victims of property crime. Through improvements to the criminal justice system, this policy framework establishes a goal of reducing the property crime rate by 15 percent by FY2021, deterring crime, and reducing recidivism. The Justice Reinvestment Policy Framework will be considered by the legislature during the 2015 session. Details: New York: Council of State Governments, 2015. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 5, 2015 at: http://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/JusticeReinvestmentinWashington.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/JusticeReinvestmentinWashington.pdf Shelf Number: 135914 Keywords: Costs of Corrections Costs of Criminal Justice Criminal Justice Reform Criminal Justice systems Justice Reinvestment Property Crimes Sentencing Reform

Author: U.S. Government Accountability Office Title: Federal Prison System: Justice Could Better Measure Progress Addressing Incarceration Challenges Summary: The federal inmate population has increased more than eight-fold since 1980, and DOJ has identified prison crowding as a critical issue since 2006. BOP's rising costs and offender recidivism present incarceration challenges to both DOJ and the nation. For example, BOP's operating costs (obligations) have increased over time, and in fiscal year 2014 amounted to more than $7 billion, or 19 percent of DOJ's total obligations. In recent years, DOJ has implemented targeted initiatives in response, and Senate Report 113-78 included a provision for GAO to review these efforts. This report discusses (1) DOJ's initiatives to address federal incarceration challenges, (2) the extent to which DOJ is measuring its efforts, and (3) the extent to which DOJ is coordinating across its components to implement the Smart on Crime Initiative. GAO reviewed DOJ documentation, interviewed DOJ officials, and compared DOJ efforts with performance measurement and coordination best practices GAO has previously identified. Details: Washington, DC: GAO, 2015. 62p. Source: Internet Resource: GAO-15-454: Accessed July 9, 2015 at: http://www.gao.gov/assets/680/670896.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.gao.gov/assets/680/670896.pdf Shelf Number: 135974 Keywords: Costs of Criminal Justice Costs of Incarceration Criminal Justice Policy Federal Prisons Imprisonment, Economic Aspects of Prisons Smart on Crime

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: Wong, Kevin Title: Local Justice Reinvestment Pilot: Final process evaluation report Summary: The Local Justice Reinvestment (LJR) Pilot was part of the Ministry of Justice (MOJ) commitment to test new approaches to criminal justice through Payment by Results (PbR) commissioning and has informed the government's Transforming Rehabilitation (TR) reforms. Justice Reinvestment assumes that there are significant reductions in crime and offending to be made by partners working more effectively together at the local level. Cost savings, realised through lower demand on the Criminal Justice System (CJS), can then be reinvested back into the system. Six pilot sites were established - in Greater Manchester and the London boroughs of Croydon, Hackney, Lambeth, Lewisham and Southwark - covering both the adult and youth CJS in all sites except Hackney, which covered the adult CJS only. In these sites, local partners were free to target their resources on offenders in line with their local priorities and crime and/or reoffending patterns. They received a reward payment from MOJ if the cost of demand reduced by more than 5 per cent for adults and 10 per cent for youths, up to a maximum of 20 per cent, in either of the two test years (July 2011 to June 2012, July 2012 to June 2013) measured against the baseline period (July 2010 to June 2011). The value of the reward increased in line with greater reductions in the cost of demand, up to a maximum of 20 per cent. The cost of demand was based on prices set for CJS metrics which included numbers of: custodial convictions of a specified duration; custody months for those convictions; community orders and suspended sentence orders; 'other convictions'; and probation requirements. Four sites in year 1 and five sites in year 2 achieved the targets and received reward payments based on savings which were shared between the sites and MO. A process evaluation was commissioned to identify: what actions were taken by the sites; their effect on the CJS metrics indicated above, including how this affected the overall cost of demand on the CJS; perceived strengths and weaknesses in implementation; any unintended consequences on the CJS; and implications for policy and practice. This final report draws together the findings from all the phases of the evaluation. An interim report focusing on the development and implementation of the pilot in year one, including details of interventions was published in 2013. Details: London: Ministry of Justice, 2015. 66p. Source: Internet Resource: Ministry of Justice Analytical Series: Accessed July 30, 2015 at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/449630/local-justice-reinvestment-pilot-process-evaluation-report.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/449630/local-justice-reinvestment-pilot-process-evaluation-report.pdf Shelf Number: 136272 Keywords: Costs of Criminal Justice Criminal Justice Reform Justice Reinvestment Rehabilitation

Author: Oregon. Criminal Justice Commission Title: Justice Reinvestment Implementation in Oregon: August 2013 to April 2015 Summary: In July 2013 the Oregon Legislature passed House Bill 3194, known as the Justice Reinvestment Act1. This report summarizes the implementation of several key areas in the bill, including sentencing reforms and the Justice Reinvestment Grant Program. As stakeholders in Oregon prepare for the 2015-2017 biennium, the Justice Reinvestment Grant Program will substantially change. Counties must apply for the grant funds and meet performance outcomes to show the programs implemented have been successful. Many of the sentencing reforms in the bill have reached the point where the majority of the prison bed savings have already been achieved. In order to continue to see success in terms of the goals of the Justice Reinvestment Grant Program, counties will need to reduce recidivism rates by implementing successful programs. The sentencing reforms will no longer be enough to control Oregon's prison population. The final section in this report displays how prison use by county will be tracked in the 2015-2017 biennium, and proposes a "stop light" display for county level prison use. Details: Salem, OR: Oregon Criminal Justice Commission, 2015. 35p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 14, 2015 at: http://www.oregon.gov/cjc/justicereinvestment/Documents/Justice%20Reinvestment%20Implementation%20in%20Oregon.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.oregon.gov/cjc/justicereinvestment/Documents/Justice%20Reinvestment%20Implementation%20in%20Oregon.pdf Shelf Number: 136416 Keywords: Costs of Corrections Costs of Criminal Justice Criminal Justice Reform Justice Reinvestment Sentencing

Author: Sarver, Christian M. Title: Utah Cost of Crime. Intensive Supervision (Adults): Technical Report (includes Electronic Monitoring) Summary: Intensive supervision is an intermediate sanction intended to reduce the costs of incarceration, by decreasing the time that offenders spend in jail or prison, while protecting public safety through increased monitoring (Gendreau, Goggin, Cullen, Andrews, 2000; MacKenzie, 2006). Offenders who receive intensive supervision are sentenced to community-based sanctions with increased supervision rather than incarceration. Traditionally, the defining feature of intensive supervision is the increased allocation of resources to surveillance, which can include a range of strategies for monitoring and controlling offenders in the community: increased contact with probation/parole officers, reduced caseload for probation/parole officers, home confinement, Day Reporting Centers, electronic monitoring, and random drug testing (Tonry, 1990). Surveillance-oriented intensive supervision programs (ISP) are designed to reduce recidivism via increased monitoring of offenders' location and activities, which is intended to have a deterrent effect on criminal behavior. In contrast, treatment-oriented ISPs intended to reduce recidivism via the use of monitoring to enforce compliance with treatment and supervision goals, which is believed to result in long-term behavioral change (Brown, 2007). Prior Research Research on intensive supervision suggests that surveillance alone is not an effective strategy for deterring criminal behavior. Results from an extensive study that used random assignment to evaluate the effects of ISP at 14 sites in nine states demonstrated that increased surveillance had no impact on rearrest rates when compared to regular supervision or incarceration (Petersilia & Turner, 1993). Similarly, MacKenzie (2006) combined 31 effect sizes, from 13 studies, and found a non-significant increase in recidivism for offenders who participated in ISP when compared to other forms of supervision (probation/parole or incarceration). In fact, in some cases, ISPs have been associated with higher rates of incarceration due to increased detection of technical violations (GAO, 1993; Gendreau et al., 2000). This latter finding suggests that surveillance-oriented ISPs are ineffective-from both a cost and public safety perspective-because they do not reduce the incidence of new crimes but do increase the likelihood that offenders will be returned to jail or prison on technical violations. A separate analysis of intermediate sanction programs that included a treatment component found that those programs were associated with a 10% reduction in recidivism (Gendreau et al., 2000). Increasingly, research indicates that ISPs are more effective when structured in accordance with the principles of effective rehabilitation, combining treatment and rehabilitation programming with intensive monitoring (Andrews, Bonta, & Hodge, 1990; Bonta, 2001). In a series of cost-benefit analyses, the Washington State Institute for Public Policy (WSIPP) consistently found significant reductions in recidivism for treatment-oriented ISPs when compared to regular supervision (Aos, Phipps, Barnoski, & Lieb, 2001; Aos et al., 2011; Drake, 2009). Surveillance-oriented ISPs were not associated with any statistically significant difference in reoffending when compared to regular supervision. The WSIPP analyses found no difference in recidivism when comparing ISP to incarceration; however, given cost differences between community-based supervision and a secure placement, the authors concluded that ISP was cost effective when compared to prison (Aos et al., 2001). In a meta-analysis of 58 ISPs, Lowenkamp, Flores, Holsinger, Makarios, and Latessa (2010) found a relationship between the impact of ISPs and program philosophy: treatment-oriented ISPs were associated with statistically significant reductions in recidivism while deterrence-oriented programs were not. Further emphasizing the importance of treatment as a component of ISPs, the authors found that even programs that included well-implemented treatment did not significantly reduce recidivism when it was provided in the context of a surveillanc--oriented ISP. Electronic monitoring. Electronic monitoring (EM) is also an intermediate sanction, often implemented within the context of home confinement or a curfew order. Offenders are monitored by probation/parole staff via a range of devices, which include wrist and ankle bracelets, global positioning systems, and voice verification systems (U. S. Department of Justice (USDOJ), 2009). While many EM programs are administered as part of an ISP, the WSIPP studies evaluated electronic monitoring (EM) separately and found no difference in recidivism rates for offenders sentenced to EM when compared to incarceration (Drake, 2009) or regular probation (Aos et al., 2001). These findings are confirmed in MacKenzie's (2006) analysis of eight EM studies and in Renzema and May-Wilson's (2007) systematic review. Renzema and May-Wilson only identified three studies that met inclusion criteria in terms of methodological rigor. Their meta-analysis of those studies showed no effect on reoffending as a result of EM; combining the results of this analysis with the systematic review, the authors concluded that no empirical proof exists to show that EM reduces recidivism. The U.S. Department of Justice (2009), however, argues that the lack of difference in recidivism rates for EM-supervised offenders when compared to incarcerated offenders is justification for the use of EM, because EM is less expensive than prison. Renzema's (2007) analysis supports this assessment, to some degree, as the authors conclude that EM can be appropriate when used "to accomplish realistic goals" rather than as a "knee-jerk reaction to crime, overcrowding, and high costs of running correctional systems" (p. 232). Details: Salt Lake City: Utah Criminal Justice Center, University of Utah, 2012. 19p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 26, 2015 at: http://ucjc.utah.edu/wp-content/uploads/ISP_Adult_Tech_updateformat.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://ucjc.utah.edu/wp-content/uploads/ISP_Adult_Tech_updateformat.pdf Shelf Number: 136590 Keywords: Costs of crime Costs of Criminal Justice Electronic Monitoring Intensive Supervision Offender Supervision Probation Probationers

Author: Great Britain. Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary Title: Reshaping policing for the public. A discussion paper from the advisory group on the national debate on policing in austerity Summary: 1.1. The police service and law enforcement agencies in England and Wales are committed to further change so that policing best meets the needs of the public within a climate of continuing budget pressures. 1.2. Further change should be in line with a set of principles which reflect the police's mission to prevent crime and protect the public. The following principles were developed during the course of the national debate: - We will seek to protect the public and keep people safe from harm, especially the most vulnerable members of our communities. This will mean focusing as much on early action to prevent and reduce crime as reacting to crime once it has happened. - We will provide a service that is valued and supported by the public, tailoring the service to individual needs and focusing on the victim. - We will seek to protect ease of access to frontline services by a range of means, including online access and a visible local policing presence that works directly with communities. - We will enhance capabilities and achieve value for money by scaling up specialist capabilities5 and standardising functions where appropriate. This will help to maintain capability and resilience across policing but without losing agility when fighting crime. - We will work in close co-operation with all other organisations involved in public protection to keep communities safe and work with communities so they play their part alongside the police in securing their neighbourhoods. This points towards greater integration between public services, for example through the development of shared public safety plans with single leadership and shared budgets. 1.3. This suggests a possible new framework for policing where: - Local, frontline services accessible to communities provide a 24/7 response; neighbourhood policing focused on problem solving that protects people and prevents bad things from happening and getting communities involved; and local crime investigations. - Frontline services (including the safeguarding6 of vulnerable people and the management of offenders) are provided collaboratively with other local public services involved in community safety, working to a common set of outcomes as part of partnership arrangements. These arrangements should include the ability to share and prioritise time, money and people to achieve effective local outcomes. - Specialist capabilities (such as those within the Strategic Policing Requirement) and areas of operational and criminal justice support are consolidated into cross-force functions7, strategically located and operating to national standards. The most highly specialised capabilities (such as counter-terrorism) should be provided nationally. This would minimise the number of locations required to support an effective police service; allow capabilities common to different policing activities to be deployed flexibly; and preserve access to capabilities for all forces without losing the ability to deploy rapidly on the basis of threat, risk and harm. - Different arrangements for cross-force working will be appropriate depending on the nature of the participating forces. For example, in some areas a larger force might provide the location for these capabilities on behalf of the participating forces, whereas in others, shared capabilities might be added to existing arrangements such as regional organised crime units (ROCUs). This will require further work based on local circumstances and should be an iterative process, focusing first on those areas of specialist capability which should only be provided on a cross-force basis.-Business support functions are provided through greater economies of scale that reflect local circumstances, recognising the opportunities to build scale through local partners, other forces and/or with the private sector. Details: London: HMIC, 2015. 62p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 5, 2015 at: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmic/wp-content/uploads/reshaping-policing-for-the-public.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmic/wp-content/uploads/reshaping-policing-for-the-public.pdf Shelf Number: 136694 Keywords: Collaboration Costs of Criminal Justice Police Reform

Author: Pew Charitable Trusts Title: Federal Drug Sentencing Laws Bring High Cost, Low Return. Penalty increases enacted in 1980s and 1990s have not reduced drug use or recidivism Summary: More than 95,000 federal prisoners are serving time for drug-related offenses - up from fewer than 5,000 in 1980. Changes in drug crime patterns and law enforcement practices played a role in this growth, but federal sentencing laws enacted during the 1980s and 1990s also have required more drug offenders to go to prison- and stay there much longer - than three decades ago. These policies have contributed to ballooning costs: The federal prison system now consumes more than $6.7 billion a year, or roughly 1 in 4 dollars spent by the U.S. Justice Department. Despite substantial expenditures on longer prison terms for drug offenders, taxpayers have not realized a strong public safety return. The self-reported use of illegal drugs has increased over the long term as drug prices have fallen and purity has risen. Federal sentencing laws that were designed with serious traffickers in mind have resulted in lengthy imprisonment of offenders who played relatively minor roles. These laws also have failed to reduce recidivism. Nearly a third of the drug offenders who leave federal prison and are placed on community supervision commit new crimes or violate the conditions of their release - a rate that has not changed substantially in decades. Details: Philadelphia: Pew Charitable Trusts, 2015. 12p. Source: Internet Resource: Issue Brief: Accessed September 14, 2015 at: http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/Assets/2015/08/PSPP_FedDrug_brief.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/Assets/2015/08/PSPP_FedDrug_brief.pdf Shelf Number: 136745 Keywords: Costs of Corrections Costs of Criminal Justice Drug Offenders Drug Trafficking Recidivism Sentencing

Author: deVuono-powell, Saneta Title: Who Pays? The True Cost of Incarceration on Families. Summary: Each year, the United States spends $80 billion to lock away more than 2.4 million people in its jails and prisons - budgetary allocations that far outpace spending on housing, transportation, and higher education. But costs run deeper than budget line items and extend far beyond the sentences served. These costs are rarely quantified and measured and primarily impact incarcerated populations and the families and communities from whom they are separated, the same people who are already stigmatized, penalized, and punished. Families pay both the apparent and hidden costs while their loved ones serve out sentences in our jails and prisons. Because families are formed in diverse ways and take many forms, the definition used in this report encompasses families built across generations and borders and within and beyond blood relations. The families in this report and those who support loved ones bear the burden to help those individuals re-acclimate to society after serving time. Four decades of unjust criminal justice policies have created a legacy of collateral impacts that last for generations and are felt most deeply by women, low-income families, and communities of color. In March 2014, the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, Forward Together, and Research Action Design launched a collaborative participatory research project with 20 community-based organizations across the country to address this unjust legacy. Trained community researchers reached directly into communities in 14 states, probing into the financial costs faced when a family member goes to jail or prison, the resulting effects on physical and mental health, and the challenges and barriers encountered by all when an individual returns home. The research included surveys with 712 formerly incarcerated people, 368 family members of the formerly incarcerated, 27 employers, and 34 focus groups with family members and individuals impacted by incarceration. The project revealed that many of the costs and penalties associated with incarceration continue long after incarceration ends and reach far beyond the individual being punished, with negative impacts for families and communities. The findings show that the long-term costs extend beyond the significant sums already paid by individuals and their families for immediate and myriad legal expenses, including cost of attorney, court fees and fines, and phone and visitation charges. In fact, these costs often amount to one year's total household income for a family and can force a family into debt. Latent costs include, but are not limited to, mental health support, care for untreated physical ailments, the loss of children sent to foster care or extended family, permanent declines in income, and loss of opportunities like education and employment for both the individuals incarcerated and their family members, opportunities that could lead to a brighter future. Details: Oakland, CA: Ella Baker Center, Forward Together, Research Action Design, 2015. 66p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 16, 2015 at: http://ellabakercenter.org/sites/default/files/downloads/who-pays.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://ellabakercenter.org/sites/default/files/downloads/who-pays.pdf Shelf Number: 136781 Keywords: Costs of Crime Costs of Criminal Justice Costs of Incarceration Families of Inmates

Author: Great Britain. Comptroller and Auditor General Title: Financial sustainability of police forces in England and Wales Summary: 1 There are 43 territorial police forces in England and Wales. Since 2010, the previous government reduced funding for forces as part of its plan to reduce the fiscal deficit. The government also changed how forces are governed by introducing elected police and crime commissioners ('commissioners') in 41 of the 43 forces. Our Police accountability: Landscape review examined these arrangements. 2 Commissioners, in consultation with their chief constables: - set out in an annual police and crime plan the objectives that their police force must achieve; - allocate the funds needed to achieve them; and - hold police forces to account on behalf of the local electorate. This system encourages local variation and reduces intervention from central government. 3 The Home Office (the Department) has overall responsibility in central government for police forces. Its main responsibilities are to: - allocate grants to police and crime commissioners (who decide how much goes to police forces and how much to other crime reduction initiatives); - establish an accountability framework to assure Parliament on the regularity, propriety and value for money of police spending, and that there are appropriate checks and balances; and - intervene if chief constables or commissioners fail to carry out their functions effectively. 4 Within the accountability framework, the Department relies on HM Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) to assess the efficiency and effectiveness of police forces in England and Wales. The Department also relies on the College of Policing (the College) to set standards and to identify and share good practice, which help to improve value for money locally. 5 Our report examines whether the Department, with other policing stakeholders, has effectively managed the risks of reduced police funding. It is not a contradiction to the government's policy of localism to assess whether a Department has enough information to make good decisions about the level of central funding provided. 6 The report has three parts: - Part One describes the reductions in police force funding. - Part Two examines the impact of funding reductions and the changing nature of policing. - Part Three assesses the current oversight and accountability regime. Details: London: National Audit Office, 2015. 54p. Source: Internet Resource: Internet Resource: Accessed September 16, 2015 at: http://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Financial-sustainability-of-police-forces.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Financial-sustainability-of-police-forces.pdf Shelf Number: 136782 Keywords: Costs of Criminal Justice Police Accountability Police Resource Allocation

Author: Eisen, Lauren-Brooke Title: The Reverse Mass Incarceration Act Summary: Leaders across the political spectrum agree: The United States must end mass incarceration. But how? What bold solutions will achieve this change? Our prison crisis has many causes. One major contributor: a web of perverse financial incentives across the country that spurred more arrests, prosecutions, and prison sentences. A prime example is the 1994 Crime Bill, which authorized $12.5 billion ($19 billion in today's dollars) to states to increase incarceration. And 20 states did just that, yielding a dramatic rise in prison populations. To reverse course, the federal government can apply a similar approach. It can be termed a "Reverse Crime Bill," or the "Reverse Mass Incarceration Act." It would provide funds to states to reduce imprisonment and crime together. The United States has 5 percent of the world's population, yet has 25 percent of the world's prisoners. If the prison population were a state, it would be the 36th largest - bigger than Delaware, Vermont, and Wyoming combined. Worse, our penal policies do not work. Mass incarceration is not only unnecessary to keep down crime but is also ineffective at it. Increasing incarceration offers rapidly diminishing returns. The criminal justice system costs taxpayers $260 billion a year. Best estimates suggest that incarceration contributes to as much as 20 percent of the American poverty rate. During the crime wave of the 1970s and 1980s, lawmakers enacted stringent laws to instill law and order in devastated communities. But many of these laws went too far. The federal government played an outsize role by financially subsidizing states to incarcerate more people. Today, the federal government sends $3.8 billion to states and localities each year for criminal justice. These dollars are largely focused on increasing the size of our justice system. But times have changed. We now know that mass incarceration is not necessary to keep us safe. We now know that we can reduce both crime and incarceration. States like Texas, New York, Mississippi, and California have changed their laws to do just that. For the first time in 40 years, both crime and incarceration have fallen together, since 2008. How can this momentum be harnessed into action? Just as Washington encouraged states to incarcerate, it can now encourage them to reduce incarceration while keeping down crime. It can encourage state reform efforts to roll back prison populations. As the country debates who will be the next president, any serious candidate must have a strong plan to reform the justice system. The next president should urge Congress to pass the Reverse Mass Incarceration Act. It would encourage a 20 percent reduction in imprisonment nationwide. Such an Act would have four components: -A new federal grant program of $20 billion over 10 years in incentive funds to states. -A requirement that states that reduce their prison population by 7 percent over a three-year period without an increase in crime will receive funds. -A clear methodology based on population size and other factors to determine how much money states receive. -A requirement that states invest these funds in evidence-based programs proven to reduce crime and incarceration. Such an Act would have more reach than any of the other federal proposals. It could be implemented through budgeting procedures. It could be implemented as a stand-alone Act. Or, it could be introduced as an amendment to a pending bill. Details: New York: Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law, 2015. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 15, 2015 at: http://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/publications/The_Reverse_Mass_Incarceration_Act%20.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/publications/The_Reverse_Mass_Incarceration_Act%20.pdf Shelf Number: 136980 Keywords: Costs of Corrections Costs of Criminal Justice Criminal Justice Reform Mass Incarceration Prison Population Prisoners

Author: Morgan, Anthony Title: Estimating the costs associated with community justice Summary: In recent years, governments at all levels have been faced with increasingly tight budgets and limited resources, placing greater pressure on service providers - including those involved in crime prevention and criminal justice - to demonstrate value for money. This has resulted in a growing interest in economic analysis as a tool to assess the cost-efficiency and cost-effectiveness of programs and help inform decision-making. This is reflected in the evaluation guides that have been produced by treasury departments to encourage the robust economic analysis of government funded programs (eg Department of Treasury and Finance 2013). Established in 2007 to address high rates of crime and disadvantage, the Neighbourhood Justice Centre (NJC) provides a range of local justice and social services to the City of Yarra community in Victoria. A major challenge for the NJC is dealing with questions regarding value for money and responding to the criticism that they are an expensive alternative to traditional responses to crime and offending. The development and implementation of new and innovative programs often involves a significant financial investment by government and, in the case of the NJC, the concentration of these resources in one location. Recent examples, such as the abolition of several specialist court models in Queensland, have shown that, even where there is evidence of positive outcomes, an inability to demonstrate cost-efficiency and effectiveness in financial terms can weaken the argument in favour of ongoing funding and support - even where this is not the principal reason for the decision. The purpose of this paper is to address one dimension of the value for money debate and compare the operating costs of NJC court and client services with similar mainstream programs operating within the Magistrates' Court of Victoria. Following a brief overview of the NJC and evidence from previous economic studies of community justice models, the methodology used to estimate the costs associated with NJC court and client services is described, along with the results of a cost comparison of the NJC and the Magistrates' Court of Victoria. Directions for further economic analysis for the NJC and other similar programs are proposed. Details: Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology, 2015. 12p. Source: Internet Resource: Trends & issues in crime and criminal justice, No. 507: Accessed November 24, 2015 at: http://www.aic.gov.au/media_library/publications/tandi_pdf/tandi507.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Australia URL: http://www.aic.gov.au/media_library/publications/tandi_pdf/tandi507.pdf Shelf Number: 137325 Keywords: Citizen Participation Community Justice Centers Costs of Criminal Justice Neighborhood Justice Centers

Author: American Civil Liberties Union of California Title: Changing Gears: California's Shift to Smart Justice Summary: One year ago, 60% of California voters passed Proposition 47, which changed six petty drug and theft offenses from felonies to misdemeanors and mandated that savings from reduced incarceration be invested in communities. In passing Prop 47, voters sent a strong message that it's time for California to shift gears from the expensive, one-size-fits-all approach of incarceration toward smarter approaches to crime prevention, specifically including treatment for underlying issues like addiction and mental illness. The ACLU's Changing Gears: California's Shift to Smart Justice presents findings on the first year of Prop 47 implementation and recommendations for year two. It includes local data on the 40 counties, where most Californians live. Prop 47 is the law, but it is not yet the new normal. Although much has already been accomplished, one year is not a lot of time to adjust local criminal justice systems. In Prop 47's second year, counties must increase connections to services demonstrated to reduce future offending, including substance use disorders and mental health needs. There are resources. Prop 47 savings will become available in 2016. Already this year, though, counties received $1.19 billion in Community Corrections, up 18% over the last fiscal year. These resources are available to implement both the law and the voter intent behind Prop 47. Our report also lays out several other funding streams that counties can leverage. Details: San Francisco: ACLU of California, 2015. 63p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 28, 2015 at: https://www.acluca.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Prop47_report_final1.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: https://www.acluca.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Prop47_report_final1.pdf Shelf Number: 137344 Keywords: Costs of Corrections Costs of Criminal Justice Criminal Justice Reform Proposition 47

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: Mizell, Jill Title: An Overview of Public Opinion and Discourse on Criminal Justice Issues Summary: This series of reports from The Opportunity Agenda describes the American public discourse on crime, the criminal justice system, and criminal justice reform. It examines years of public opinion research, mainstream media coverage, and social media content. And it incorporates the input of leaders working in the field of criminal justice reform. Taken together, this body of work is intended to help reform leaders, organizations, and allies to build public support for effective solutions. It also provides useful insights for journalists, news outlets, and commentators who cover-or could cover-this important subject. Involvement in the criminal justice system can be an opportunity-ending event in people's lives. The "tough on crime" policies of the past generation-the "war on drugs," mandatory minimum sentences, "three-strikes laws" and the like-have negatively affected millions of people. In addition to the individuals who are arrested, prosecuted, and incarcerated for long periods under harsh sentencing laws, families and whole communities face racial profiling, mass incarceration, and barriers to re-entry after release from prison. These impediments to opportunity are not spread evenly across the U.S. population. Racial and class bias infects the criminal justice system at every point, from arrest, through prosecution, sentencing, incarceration, and release. Today, the nation's experiment with mass incarceration is being scrutinized and critiqued as never before, and criminal justice reform is on the public policy agenda. Our scan of legislative activity across the country indicates that reforms are taking place in red and blue states alike. As one reform leader put it: The fiscal crisis that so many states find themselves in has created a space for dialogue about reducing the use of incarceration to solve social issues...This is a very conservative city in a conservative state, and I'm seeing opportunity after opportunity to work across the political spectrum to get criminal justice reform done. States are rethinking "zero tolerance" school discipline policies, which often are responsible for racially discriminatory suspensions and "the school to prison pipeline." Municipalities are adopting "ban the box" policies to remove barriers to the hiring and licensing of people with criminal records. States are adopting "Justice Reinvestment" strategies to reduce corrections costs and reinvest the savings in programs that improve public safety, such as education, public health and job training. At the federal level, the Justice Department has launched its "Smart on Crime" review to bring more fairness to the federal criminal justice system. And the trend towards treating drug use as a public health, rather than a criminal matter is accelerating throughout the country. Whether based on fiscal concerns about the vast public resources devoted to arresting, prosecuting, and locking up so many people or on concerns about fairness and racial equity, more and more members of the public and their political representatives are questioning whether the harsh penalties adopted at both the state and federal levels over the past 40 years are accomplishing what they were intended to accomplish: protecting the public. A growing number of Americans is realizing that the vast majority of people in prison will be released back into the community with few, if any, opportunities to change their lives for the better and that this does not bode well for the nation as a whole. In spite of these advances, however, the United States has a long way to go before its criminal justice system lives up to constitutional and human rights norms, and creating the political will to bring about real reform is a heavy lift. Elected leaders still fear being labeled "soft on crime," and the organized opposition, led by district attorney associations and the private corrections industry, is working hard to block sentencing and other reforms, arguing that public safety is at risk. Most Americans hear about crime through their local television stations, where "if it bleeds, it leads" is still the rule. Increased fear of crime can derail any progress made by the criminal justice reform movement unless the public is "inoculated" with a deeper understanding of the causes of and solutions to crime. Details: New York: The Opportunity Agenda, 2014. 124p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 24, 2016 at: http://opportunityagenda.org/files/field_file/2014.08.23-CriminalJusticeReport-FINAL_0.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://opportunityagenda.org/files/field_file/2014.08.23-CriminalJusticeReport-FINAL_0.pdf Shelf Number: 137956 Keywords: Costs of criminal Justice Criminal Justice Policy Criminal Justice Reform Justice Reinvestment Media Public Attitudes Public Opinion

Author: Silbert, Rebecca Title: Criminal Injustice: A Cost Analysis of Wrongful Convictions, Errors, and Failed Prosecutions in California's Criminal Justice System Summary: This report documents mistakes, incompetence, and malfeasance in our criminal justice system. Not only are these systemic errors expensive-costing taxpayers an estimated $282 million adjusted for inflation-they also have serious and lifelong consequences on the people subject to these flawed prosecutions. The individuals in the study endured hundreds of trials, mistrials, appeals, and habeas petitions and served more than two thousand years in prison and jail, all for charges that could not be sustained. The report analyzes a dataset of 692 adult felony criminal cases in California, the majority from 2000-2012, wherein the defendant was convicted of felony or felonies, the convictions were reversed, and the charges were either dismissed or the defendant subsequently found not guilty on retrial. It examines the types of cases susceptible to error, the types of error that exist, and the direct costs of incarceration, representation, and compensation attributable to these cases and their ultimate resolution. Details: Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, 2016. 114p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 10, 2016 at: http://static1.squarespace.com/static/55f70367e4b0974cf2b82009/t/56a95c112399a3a5c87c1a7b/1453939730318/WI_Criminal_InJustice_booklet_FINAL2.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://static1.squarespace.com/static/55f70367e4b0974cf2b82009/t/56a95c112399a3a5c87c1a7b/1453939730318/WI_Criminal_InJustice_booklet_FINAL2.pdf Shelf Number: 138165 Keywords: Costs of Criminal Justice Felony Offenders Wrongful Convictions

Author: Brenig, Mattheus Title: Putting a Price Tag on Security: Subjective Well-Being and Willingness-to-Pay for Crime Reduction in Europe Summary: Using information on life satisfaction and crime from the European Social Survey, we apply the life satisfaction approach (LSA) to determine the relationship between subjective well-being (SWB), income, victimization experience, fear of crime and various regional crime rates across European regions, while controlling for potentially confounding socio-economic variables. We show that fear of crime, criminal victimization and the average regionally perceived fear of crime significantly reduce life satisfaction across Europe. Building upon these results, we quantify the monetary value of improvements in public safety and its valuation in terms of individual well-being. The loss in satisfaction for victimized individuals corresponds to 21,790L. Increasing an average individual's perception within his neighborhood from unsafe to safe yields a benefit equivalent to 12,700L. Our results regarding crime and SWB in Europe largely resemble previous results for different countries and other criminal contexts, whereby using the LSA as a valuation method for public good provision yields similar results as stated preference methods and considerably higher estimates than revealed preference methods Details: Gottingen, Germany: University of Goettingen (Gottingen), 2016. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: Discussion Papers, no. 278: Accessed March 16, 2016 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2736933 Year: 2016 Country: Europe URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2736933 Shelf Number: 138253 Keywords: Costs of Crime Costs of Criminal Justice Crime Prevention Crime Rates Fear of Crime Security

Author: Marin County Civil Grand Jury Title: Marin County Juvenile Hall: A Time for a Change Summary: Marin County has experienced a significant decline in juvenile detention in recent years. Despite this decline, the cost of operating Marin County's 40-bed Juvenile Hall (JH) has not decreased and continues to be approximately $4,000,000 annually. Because the number of offenders has dwindled, the County's net cost per detainee per day has risen astronomically. To illustrate, the Average Daily Cost (ADC) to house and care for each detained JH youth rose during the past three years (2011-2014) from $464 to $901.64 because the Average Daily Population (ADP) declined from 18.9 to 9.2 detained youths. As a result, the Marin County Grand Jury recommends that Marin County and the Marin County Probation Department (MCPD) negotiate a contract for juvenile detention services with a neighboring county at a reduced cost and reallocate the savings towards expansion of Alternatives to Detention (ATDs), which are in the best interests of Marin youth. The Grand Jury also recommends that Marin County and MCPD consider other uses for this facility. The Grand Jury learned that Marin's decline in juvenile detention is consistent with a major nationwide paradigm shift away from incarceration. Research indicates that detention does not serve youth well, and community-based ATDs, particularly non-residential programming options, deliver equal or better results for a fraction of the cost. Further, the use of risk assessment tools has eliminated the need to confine the majority of Marin's juvenile offenders. Decriminalization of marijuana possession has also significantly reduced arrests and detention. Detentions of juvenile offenders in Marin County's JH decreased from 1,674 in 1995 to 253 in 2014, and its Average Daily Population (ADP) declined 69% in the past decade, from 30 in 2005 to 9.2 in 2014. The median length of stay for youth in the JH is brief, just 8.4 days in 2014. With California's Title 15 mandated staffing requirements to assure safety, security, education, rehabilitation and healthcare in juvenile facilities, most JH operating costs are fixed. MCPD informed the Grand Jury that JH is required to maintain a staff approximating 21 full-time, part-time and on-call personnel irrespective of a variable average daily census. Thus, as detentions decline, costs per detainee increase, while overall costs remain the same. Although California requires every county to have a juvenile hall, it permits two or more counties to operate a joint juvenile hall. According to the California Board of State and Community Corrections, Marin County can satisfy its juvenile detention obligation by contracting with another county for placement of its detainees. The Grand Jury learned from numerous counties that such contracts currently range from $85 to $190 per youth per day. This contracted daily rate may or may not include inter-county transportation costs and certain health care costs, as applicable. Details: San Rafael, CA:Marin County Civil Grand Jury, 2015. 15p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 18, 2016 at: http://www.marincounty.org/~/media/files/departments/gj/reports-responses/2014/juvenile-hall.pdf?la=en Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.marincounty.org/~/media/files/departments/gj/reports-responses/2014/juvenile-hall.pdf?la=en Shelf Number: 138330 Keywords: Costs of Criminal Justice Detention Centers Juvenile Detention Juvenile Inmates Juvenile Offenders

Author: Council of State Governments Justice Center Title: Justice Reinvestment in Montana: Overview Summary: June 2015, Montana Governor Steve Bullock, Chief Justice Mike McGrath, Attorney General Tim Fox, Senate President Debby Barrett, Speaker of the House Austin Knudsen, House Minority Leader and Legislative Council President Chuck Hunter, Senate Minority Leader Jon Sesso, and Montana Department of Corrections (DOC) Director Mike Batista requested support from The Pew Charitable Trusts (Pew) and the U.S. Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) to explore a 'justice reinvestment' approach to reduce corrections spending and reinvest savings in strategies that can reduce recidivism and improve public safety. Despite declining crime in recent years, court cases involving felony offenses in Montana have increased significantly, and Montana's prison population is on the rise. The prison population currently exceeds capacity and is projected to continue to grow to 119 percent of capacity by FY2025. In partnership with Pew and BJA, The Council of State Governments (CSG) Justice Center will provide intensive technical assistance to help collect and analyze data and develop appropriate policy options for the state. The Montana legislature had enacted Senate Bill 224 in April 2015 to establish the state's bipartisan, inter-branch Commission on Sentencing, which calls upon designees from all three branches of government, as well as state and local criminal justice system stakeholders, to study the state's criminal justice system, including the impact of existing sentencing policies and practices on the state's system. Senator Cynthia Wolken (D) chairs the commission, and Senator Kristen Hansen (R) serves as vice-chair of the commission. Under the direction of the 15-member commission, CSG Justice Center staff will conduct a comprehensive analysis of extensive data collected from various state agencies. To help build a broad picture of statewide criminal justice trends, additional data from local governments on county jails and county probation will be collected and analyzed where possible. CSG Justice Center staff also will convene focus groups and lead interviews with people working on the front lines of Montana's criminal justice system. Based on these exhaustive quantitative and qualitative analyses, the commission will develop policy options for the 2017 legislature's consideration. This overview highlights some recent criminal justice trends in Montana that the commission and CSG Justice Center staff will explore in the coming months. Details: New York: Council of State Governments Justice Center, 2016. 4p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 28, 2016 at: https://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Justice_Reinvestment_in_Montana_Overview.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: https://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Justice_Reinvestment_in_Montana_Overview.pdf Shelf Number: 138436 Keywords: Costs of Corrections Costs of Criminal Justice Criminal Justice Reform Criminal Justice Systems Justice Reinvestment

Author: Johnson, Sarah Title: An Analysis of the Sex Offender Special Sentence in Iowa Summary: An obligation of the Sex Offender Research Council outlined in Iowa Code �216A.139 (4)(B) instructs the board to examine the "the cost and effectiveness of special sentences pursuant to chapter 903B." The special sentence places offenders convicted of offenses in Iowa Code �709 (sex offenses), �726.2 (incest), and �728.12, (1), (2), or (3)(sexual exploitation) on either 10-year or life-time community supervision based solely upon the offense class of conviction. Offenders convicted of A, B, and C felony sex offenses receive life-time community supervision and D felony and misdemeanor offenders receive 10-year supervision sentences (�903B, Code of Iowa). To study the effects of the special sentence, two groups of sex offenders were analyzed: those serving a special sentence and a pre-special sentence cohort of offenders. Recidivism rates were compared between the two groups over a three-year period. For the special sentence group, the recidivism tracking period began at the beginning of an offender's special sentence supervision start date. For the comparison group, the recidivism tracking period was observed following an offender's sentence expiration, meaning that they were not under any type of correctional supervision when examined. Due to the high rate of special sentence revocations, recidivism rates by time-at-risk were also observed. Findings indicate there were no significant differences in new sex offense convictions between the special sentence and comparison group. However, the special sentence group had lower rates of new convictions than the comparison group. The high rate of revocation among the special sentence group, in particular those revocations for inappropriate behaviors specific to sex offenders, may have prevented reoffending and reconviction in some cases; however, it is impossible to estimate the extent to which this occurred. Revocations for technical offenses were higher than revocations for new convictions. While it is difficult to determine if crime is avoided through application of the special sentence, it is noteworthy that baseline sexual reoffending is exceptionally low with or without supervision; however the cost to implement the special sentence supervision is very high. The special sentence currently costs community corrections approximately $5.6 million annually. Additional costs are incurred when offenders are revoked from the special sentence and re-incarcerated. Removal of some offenders from the special sentence has the potential for cost containment, although this figure is difficult to determine given the unknown estimates of potential offenders removed from the special sentence. Details: Des Moines, IA: Iowa Department of Human Rights, Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning, Statistical Analysis Center, 2015. 34p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 29, 2016 at: https://humanrights.iowa.gov/sites/default/files/media/CJJP_2015%20SORC%20Annual%20Report%20-%20An%20Analysis%20of%20the%20Sex%20Offender%20Special%20Sentence%20in%20Iowa.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: https://humanrights.iowa.gov/sites/default/files/media/CJJP_2015%20SORC%20Annual%20Report%20-%20An%20Analysis%20of%20the%20Sex%20Offender%20Special%20Sentence%20in%20Iowa.pdf Shelf Number: 138457 Keywords: Costs of Criminal Justice Sentencing Sex Offenders

Author: Mejia, Daniel Title: The Economics of the Drug War: Unaccounted Costs, Lost Lives, Missed Opportunities Summary: Fiscally minded policymakers should invest in drug policy reform. Many national drug control policies are centered on aggressive policing and military efforts to reduce drug supplies and punish drug consumers. But these policies come with a very high price tag, rarely resulting in sustained control of drug supply or demand. The economic wastefulness of the drug war is one of the most important motivations for reform. A new report from the Open Society Foundations, The Economics of the Drug War: Unaccounted Costs, Lost Lives, Missed Opportunities, documents both the wastefulness of ill-conceived investment in ineffective policies and the missed opportunity of failing to invest in effective policies and programs that embody good public health practice and human rights norms. The case of Colombia, for example, illustrates the futility-and the harms to individuals and society-of extremely expensive coca eradication efforts. For all the money spent, the efforts merely resulted in a geographical shift of coca production to new and sometimes more environmentally fragile locations. The environmental and health damage caused by aerial spraying of coca crops also negatively impacted the productivity of rural families. Many countries fail to invest in and scale up programs that yield significant economic returns in reduced crime, reduced death from overdose, reduced illness and injury from unsafe injection, and improved productivity of patients who are able to get on with their lives. Programs that provide clean injection equipment are among the most cost-effective interventions in all of public health because they prevent HIV, but too many governments still believe erroneously that they encourage drug use. And overincarceration for nonviolent drug offenses is a drain on public resources that fails to make a dent in drug markets. Health-centered drug policy conceived with human rights norms in mind is effective and cost-effective compared to many status quo approaches. This report explains why less punitive drug policy is good fiscal decision making. Details: New York: Open Society Foundations, 2016. 20p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 31, 2016 at: https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/sites/default/files/economics-drug-war-unaccounted-costs-lost-lives-missed-opportunities-20160229.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/sites/default/files/economics-drug-war-unaccounted-costs-lost-lives-missed-opportunities-20160229.pdf Shelf Number: 138512 Keywords: Costs of Criminal Justice Drug Control Drug Enforcement Drug Policy War on Drugs

Author: Rolles, Steve Title: The Alternative World Drug Report. 2nd edition Summary: In April, the world will come together at the UN to discuss the future of international drug policy. It will be the first time that far-reaching drug policy reforms are meaningfully discussed at such a high level. The current enforcement-based, UN-led drug control system is coming under unparalleled scrutiny over its failure to deliver a promised "drug-free world", and for what the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) describes as its negative "unintended consequences". It is unacceptable that despite acknowledging these negative impacts, the UNODC does not include them in its annual World Drug Report, and neither the UN nor its member states have meaningfully assessed whether these unintended consequences outweigh the intended consequences. The second edition of the Alternative World Drug Report fills this gap by detailing the full range of negative impacts caused by the drug war. It demonstrates that the current approach is creating crime, harming health, and fatally undermining all "three pillars" of the UN's work - peace and security, development, and human rights. The stark failure of the current system has meant that alternative drug policy approaches are a growing reality. This report therefore explores a range of options for reform, including decriminalisation and legal regulation, that could deliver better outcomes,. The global prohibitionist consensus has broken, and cannot be fixed. This Alternative World Drug Report is intended to help policymakers shape what succeeds it Details: London: Transform Drug Policy Foundation, 2016. 192p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 6, 2016 at: http://www.countthecosts.org/sites/default/files/AWDR-2nd-edition.pdf Year: 2016 Country: International URL: http://www.countthecosts.org/sites/default/files/AWDR-2nd-edition.pdf Shelf Number: 138575 Keywords: Costs of Crime Costs of Criminal Justice Drug Abuse and Addiction Drug Enforcement Drug Policy Illegal Drugs Organized Crime

Author: Sarver, Christian M. Title: Utah Cost of Crime. Intensive Supervision (Juveniles): Technical Report Summary: While originally designed as a cost-saving mechanism for diverting adult offenders from institutional placements, intensive supervision programs (ISP) have also been implemented with juveniles. With juvenile offenders, ISPs explicitly attend to both the rehabilitative- and surveillance-oriented goals of the juvenile justice system (Armstrong, 1991). These programs typically provide treatment and services for both offenders and their families, target offenders' interactions in peer- and school-environments, and provide structure to monitor the goals of the court (Altschuler & Armstrong, 1991; Wiebush, Wagner, McNulty, Wang, & Le, 2005). In the 1990s, the United States Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) created an intensive aftercare research and demonstration program to provide best practice guidelines for reintegrating high-risk, juvenile parolees into the community. Known as intensive aftercare programs (IAP), this model used increased supervision as one component of a structured, multi-dimensional intervention that included assessment, transition planning, case management, and graduated sanctions (Wiebush et al., 2005). Prior Research Research on juvenile offenders provides inconclusive results on the effectiveness of intensive supervision as a strategy for deterring criminal and delinquent behavior (Drake, Aos, & Miller, 2009; Henggeler & Schoenwald, 2011; Lipsey, 2009; MacKenzie, 2006). In an analysis of intensive supervision for juveniles, MacKenzie (2006) combined nine (9) effect sizes and found no difference in recidivism rates for juveniles placed in ISPs when compared to regular supervision or secure placement. Drake, Aos, and Miller (2009) also found no difference in recidivism rates between juveniles in ISPs when compared to regular supervision (three (3) studies) or secure placements (five (5) studies). In contrast, an earlier study by the Washington State Institute for Public Policy (WSIPP) found that juvenile offenders on intensive supervision had significantly lower rates of recidivism than offenders on regular supervision (Aos et al., 2001). The WSIPP analyses found no difference in recidivism when comparing ISP to incarceration; however, given cost differences between community-based supervision and a secure placement, the authors concluded that intensive supervision was cost effective when compared to incarceration (Aos et al., 2001). Increasingly, research indicates that ISPs are effective despite, rather than because of, intensive surveillance strategies (Henngeler & Schoenwald, 2011). In a meta-analysis of more than 500 studies of interventions for juvenile offenders, Lipsey (2009) found that program effectiveness-in both community and secure settings-was primarily a function of program philosophy and treatment quality. Regardless of setting, programs that were grounded in therapeutic treatment philosophies were more effective than programs that were grounded in surveillance- and control-oriented philosophies. These findings suggest that disparities in the research on juvenile ISPs might be a function of differences in treatment and service delivery rather than the nature and intensity of supervision strategies (Lipsey, Howell, Kelly, Chapman, & Carver, 2010). Details: Salt Lake City: Utah Criminal Justice Center, University of Utah, 2012. 15p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 23, 2016 at: http://ucjc.utah.edu/wp-content/uploads/ISP_Juv_Tech_updateformat.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://ucjc.utah.edu/wp-content/uploads/ISP_Juv_Tech_updateformat.pdf Shelf Number: 138779 Keywords: Costs of crime Costs of Criminal Justice Electronic Monitoring Intensive Supervision Juvenile Aftercare Juvenile Offenders Juvenile Probation Offender Supervision

Author: Council of Economic Advisors Title: Economic Perspectives on Incarceration and the Criminal Justice System Summary: Calls for criminal justice reform have been mounting in recent years, in large part due to the extraordinarily high levels of incarceration in the United States. Today, the incarcerated population is 4.5 times larger than in 1980, with approximately 2.2 million people in the United States behind bars, including individuals in Federal and State prisons as well as local jails. The push for reform comes from many angles, from the high financial cost of maintaining current levels of incarceration to the humanitarian consequences of detaining more individuals than any other country. Economic analysis is a useful lens for understanding the costs, benefits, and consequences of incarceration and other criminal justice policies. In this report, we first examine historical growth in criminal justice enforcement and incarceration along with its causes. We then develop a general framework for evaluating criminal justice policy, weighing its crime-reducing benefits against its direct government costs and indirect costs for individuals, families, and communities. Finally, we describe the Administration's holistic approach to criminal justice reform through policies that impact the community, the cell block, and the courtroom. Details: Washington DC: U.S. Executive Office of the President, 2016. 80p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 26, 2016 at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/page/files/20160423_cea_incarceration_criminal_justice.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/page/files/20160423_cea_incarceration_criminal_justice.pdf Shelf Number: 138815 Keywords: Cost-Benefit Analysis Costs of Corrections Costs of Criminal Justice Criminal Justice Policy Criminal Justice Reform Economics of Crime Prisons

Author: Kiedrowski, John Title: Amalgamation of Police Services Summary: Police amalgamation (also referred to as regionalization, consolidation, or merger) has been a focus for administrators of police service delivery since the early 1950s when various provincial governments began to promote the amalgamation of services in adjacent municipal governments in the interests of cost-effectiveness and efficiency. The major justification for police amalgamation has been that significant cost savings would result through achieving economies of scale. While several studies show that economies of scale can be achieved in some contexts, other research suggests diseconomies of scale may also occur depending on the context and the size of police services being amalgamated. Police expenditure and crime rate data were collected for nine police services across Canada to help understand the impact of police amalgamation on the cost-effectiveness and efficiency of service delivery. Our review found no significant differences in cost-effectiveness and efficiency of service delivery among those police services that had undergone amalgamation and those continuing to operate independently. Several potential implications of police amalgamation for the FNPP are identified and discussed in the context of the legal framework for First Nations policing, Aboriginal governance and funding issues, and the rural and remote locations of many Aboriginal communities. Details: Ottawa: Public Safety Canada, 2016. 56p. Source: Internet Resource: RESEARCH REPORT: 2015-R027: Accessed May 4, 2016 at: http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/mlgmtn-plc-srvcs/report-en.pdf Year: 2016 Country: Canada URL: http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/mlgmtn-plc-srvcs/report-en.pdf Shelf Number: 138916 Keywords: Costs of Criminal Justice Police Consolidation Police Reform

Author: Sarver, Christian M. Title: Utah Cost of Crime. Sex Offender Treatment (Juveniles): Technical Report Summary: BLANK} In the United States (U.S.), more than 13,000 juvenile sex offenders participate in court-mandated treatment programs annually (McGrath, Cumming, Burchard, Zeoli, & Ellerby, 2009). Juvenile sex offenders are required to attend treatment for a range of offenses, including lewdness, exhibitionism, sexual assault, sexual abuse of a child, sodomy, and rape. Treatment for juvenile sex offenders commonly falls into four broad categories: psycho-social education; drug therapies, either for the purposes of castration or psychological treatment; cognitive-behavioral (CBT) and relapse prevention therapies; and individual and family counseling (Walker, McGovern, Poey, & Otis, 2004). The majority of programs rely on cognitive behavioral approaches grounded in social learning theories (Center for Sex Offender Management (CSOM), 2006) and last approximately 20 months (Daly, 2008). More than 90% of juvenile programs provide individual therapy; the majority of programs also provide group and family therapy. The most common treatment targets are victim empathy, accepting responsibility for the offense, social skills training, and development of family support networks (McGrath et al., 2009). Increasingly, criminal justice interventions are structured according to the principles of effective correctional services, which matches offenders to treatment based on their risk-level, criminogenic needs, and learning styles (Andrews & Bonta, 2006; Andrews et al., 2001; Bonta, 2001). Hanson's (2009) meta-analysis compared recidivism outcomes between sex offender programs that adhered to the principles of effective treatment (risk-needs-responsivity (RNR)) to those that did not and found that the former were associated with larger reductions in recidivism. This latter finding may shed light on the inconsistencies in sex offender treatment research. According to the RNR model, treatment targets should have an empirically-demonstrated relationship to recidivism; however, two of the three most common treatment targets in juvenile sex offender treatment programs (victim empathy and denial) are not associated with recidivism (CSOM, 2006). In 2009, McGrath et al. found that 13% of community-based juvenile sex offender programs and 20% of residential programs identified the RNR model as one of the "top three theories that best describes the[ir] program." This report details the results of a systematic review and meta-analysis for juvenile sex offenders. Details: Salt Lake City, UT: Utah Criminal Justice Center, University of Utah, 2012. 15p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 6, 2016 at: http://ucjc.utah.edu/wp-content/uploads/SO-Juvenile-Technical-Report_updateformat.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://ucjc.utah.edu/wp-content/uploads/SO-Juvenile-Technical-Report_updateformat.pdf Shelf Number: 138956 Keywords: Costs of Criminal Justice Juvenile Sex Offenders Sex Offender Treatment

Author: Singh, Raju Jan Title: Guns, Books, or Doctors? Conflict and Public Spending in Haiti: Lessons from Cross-Country Evidence Summary: Haiti's economic development has been held back by a history of civil conflict and violence. With donor assistance declining from its exceptional levels following the 2010 earthquake, and concessional financing growing scarce, Haiti must learn to live with tighter budget constraints. At the same time, the United Nations forces that have provided security in the past decade are scaling down. Against this backdrop, this paper explores the conditions under which public spending can minimize violent conflict, and draws possible lessons for Haiti. Drawing on an empirical analysis of 148 countries over the period 1960-2009, simulations for Haiti suggest that increases in military spending would be associated with a higher risk of conflict, an observation in line with Haiti's own history. Greater welfare expenditure (education, health, and social assistance), by contrast, would be associated with lower risk of conflict. Details: Washington, DC: World Bank Group, 2016. 31p. Source: Internet Resource: Policy Research working paper; no. WPS 7681. : Accessed June 1, 2016 at: http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2016/05/23/090224b084356212/1_0/Rendered/PDF/Guns00books00o0oss0country0evidence.pdf Year: 2016 Country: Haiti URL: http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2016/05/23/090224b084356212/1_0/Rendered/PDF/Guns00books00o0oss0country0evidence.pdf Shelf Number: 139260 Keywords: Costs of Crime Costs of Criminal Justice Economic Conditions and Crime Violence Violent Crime

Author: Ellingwood, Holly Title: A Better Estimation of Police Costs by Offence Types Summary: A BETTER ESTIMATION OF POLICE COSTS BY OFFENCE TYPES PUBLIC SAFETY CANADA 1 = Abst ract The economics of policing and cost of crime remain important issues in Canada, yet much of it is done at an aggregated, macro -level, disallowing more granular estimates. The aim of the current project is to provide a better estimate by examining police data at a micro -level to allow for a more accurate assessment on policing costs by offence type . This report assesse s policing costs through collaboration with two different Canadian police services (Waterlo o Regional Police Service and Ontario Provincial Police ).The tangible costs of policing by off ence type are calculated using hours and salaries per incident. These results are compared, when possible, to the costs of non- criminal police activities. Analysi s of Waterloo Regional Police Service data reveals the proportion for cost of crime is 52.49% and 54.5% of total cost for reactionary and preventative policing in 2012 and 2013 respectively . Primary costs for calls for service in Waterloo are attributable to reactive and preventative police activities. Ontario Provincial Police data shows little variation in crime expenditures. OPP c rime related costs were higher than non- criminal activity expenditures , showing a n average cost of crime per year of 75.95 % for 2009 to 2012. Factoring in patrol costs in 2013 reduced the average cost of crime related costs to 45 %. Comparisons between UCR categories and victimization categories for interpersonal and property crimes indicate estimate outcomes changes depending on the chosen metric . The findings suggest standardized definitions to ensure comparable metrics are used across studies and that more detailed, accurate analyses can provide more informative outcomes. Details: Ottawa: Public Safety Canada, 2016. 71p. Source: Internet Resource: Research Report: 2015-R018: Accessed July 12, 2016 at: http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/2015-r018/2015-r018-en.pdf Year: 2016 Country: Canada URL: http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/2015-r018/2015-r018-en.pdf Shelf Number: 139621 Keywords: Costs of Crime Costs of Criminal Justice

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: U.S. Department of Education, Policy and Program Studies Service Title: State and Local Expenditures on Corrections and Education Summary: Over the past three decades, state and local government expenditures on prisons and jails have increased about three times as fast as spending on elementary and secondary education. At the postsecondary level, the contrast is even starker: from 1989-90 to 2012-13, state and local spending on corrections rose by 89 percent while state and local appropriations for higher education remained flat. This increase in corrections spending has been driven by - among other factors - an increase in the number of people incarcerated in prisons and jails. The United States has only 5 percent of the world's population but more than 20 percent of the world's incarcerated population (Lee 2015). Linkages exist between educational attainment and incarceration. For example, two-thirds of state prison inmates have not completed high school (BJS 2009). Young black men between the ages of 20 and 24 who do not have a high school diploma (or an equivalent credential) have a greater chance of being incarcerated than of being employed (Neal and Rick 2014). Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, 2016. 31p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 25, 2016 at: http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/other/expenditures-corrections-education/brief.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/other/expenditures-corrections-education/brief.pdf Shelf Number: 139852 Keywords: Costs of Corrections Costs of Criminal Justice Criminal Justice Expenditures Education

Author: Cohen, Mark A. Title: The The 'Cost of Crime' and Benefit-Cost Analysis of Criminal Justice Policy: Understanding and Improving Upon the State-of-the-Art Summary: The use of benefit-cost analyses by criminal justice researchers has slowly been increasing over the past 30 years. While still in its infancy, benefit-cost analyses of criminal justice policies have recently moved from the academic arena to actual use by policy makers. The growing use of benefit-cost analysis in crime policy tends to be lauded by economists; however, criminologists and legal scholars are less than unanimous in their views. A recent issue of Criminology and Public Policy on the "Role of the Cost-of-Crime Literature," highlights this controversy. Two main themes can be distilled from critiques of the literature: first, the considerable uncertainty that exists in cost and benefit estimates; and second, the fact that important social costs are not being taken into account in current models. A related critique is that current methodologies to estimate the cost of crime are affected by income; bringing with it a concern that criminal justice policies based on a benefit-cost analysis will favor the rich. This research note addresses these broad questions about the role of benefit-cost analysis in the criminal justice policy arena and attempts to clear up some misunderstandings on the methodologies used to estimate the cost of crime. I also highlight some of the most important gaps in the literature for those interested in helping to improve the state-of-the-art in estimating the "cost of crime." Perhaps equally important, I hope to demystify benefit-cost analysis and unmask it for what it really is an important tool that can help policy makers systematically and transparently assess and compare options with the goal of making better policy decisions. Details: Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University, 2016. 42p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 13, 2016 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2832944 Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2832944 Shelf Number: 147935 Keywords: Cost-Benefit Analysis Costs of Crime Costs of Criminal Justice Criminal Justice Policy

Author: Big Brother Watch Title: Are They Still Watching: The cost of CCTV in an era of cuts Summary: CCTV has been a mainstay of our streets and public spaces for over 20 years. 10 years ago the enthusiasm for CCTV led to the UK being classified as the most watched nation on earth. As ever where we lead, others follow, countless countries around the world are now installing cameras and surveilling their citizens. But what now for the UK, where are we currently at with this technology? Are we still rampantly installing CCTV or have we reached saturation point , and if not what might the future of street surveillance bring? Public space CCTV is maintained by a number of different bodies; the police, local authorities, private businesses and increasingly by private individuals. Local authorities use CCTV for crime detection and prevention, including watching pubs, clubs and bars at night, as well as monitoring the flow of people and traffic. Local authorities have historically been enthusiastic at installing CCTV on our streets. Between 1999 and 2012 the number of cameras installed by local authorities across the country jumped from 21,000 to over 51,000. In response to this Big Brother Watch used Freedom of Information requests to determine how much money was being spent on these systems. The report Price of Privacy (2012) revealed that between 2007 and 2011 local authorities spent $515 million installing, maintaining and monitoring CCTV cameras. A staggering sum. Five years on we present Are They Still Watching? an update of the figures outlining the money spent by local authorities on the CCTV systems between 2012 to 2015. Our findings show that nationally there has been a decrease in the money spent on the installation, maintenance and monitoring of CCTV. Whilst some parts of the country have scrapped their CCTV schemes altogether, other areas, notably London have reported over a 71% increase in CCTV coverage. Whilst we are pleased to see a reduction in spending on CCTV, we have to understand that the rationale behind the figures is not ideological. Local authorities have not suddenly woken up to privacy and acknowledged the intrusion CCTV causes. It is vital that we consider the financial pressures on local authorities during this period. It has been noted that in the 2015/2016 financial year alone, local authorities have been instructed to find $2.6 billion of savings2 we suspect therefore that our findings highlight the budgetary constraints and cuts in council coffers since 2010. Details: London: Big Brother Watch, 2016. 69p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 14, 2016 at: https://www.bigbrotherwatch.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Are-They-Still-Watching.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.bigbrotherwatch.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Are-They-Still-Watching.pdf Shelf Number: 147876 Keywords: Closed Circuit Television Costs of Criminal Justice Privacy Surveillance Surveillance Cameras Video Technology

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: Illinois Sentencing Policy Advisory Council Title: Illinois Results First: The High Cost of Recidivism Summary: - In 2014, more than 40,000 people were convicted of felonies and 55,000 were convicted of misdemeanors in Illinois. Roughly 97% of those admitted to IDOC eventually return to the community. - Forty-eight percent of those released from prison each year recidivate within three years of release and 19% will recidivate within one year of release. - The average cost associated with one recidivism event is $118,746; approximately $57,418 is attributed to the tangible and intangible costs borne by victims. - Given current recidivism trends, over the next 5 years recidivism will cost Illinois over $16.7 billion. - Cost-benefit analysis can be used to calculate the benefits, measured by reduced recidivism rates, of diversion programs, alternatives to incarceration, and the incarceration of those for whom prison is the appropriate sentence. Details: Springfield, IL: SPAC, 2015. 8p., supplement. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 20, 2016 at: http://www.icjia.state.il.us/spac/pdf/Illinois_Results_First_1015.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.icjia.state.il.us/spac/pdf/Illinois_Results_First_1015.pdf Shelf Number: 140380 Keywords: Cost-Benefit Analysis Costs of Criminal Justice Recidivism

Author: Institute for Economics and Peace Title: The Economic Cost of Violence Containment: A Comprehensive Assessment of the Global Cost of Violence Summary: One of the major challenges in developing policies aimed at increasing peace is the difficulty of being able to accurately gauge the benefits that result from peace. Recognising this, the Institute for Economics and Peace (IEP) has developed a new and ground breaking methodology to estimate the cost of violence to the global economy, including calculations for 152 countries that detail the costs of thirteen different types of violence. This deeper insight into the breakdown of national costs of violence allows for better targeting of development assistance and also enables national governments to more accurately assess the costs associated with violence and the likely benefits that would flow from improvements in peace. In developing this methodology IEP uses the concept of 'violence containment' spending. IEP defines violence containment spending as economic activity that is related to the consequences or prevention of violence where the violence is directed against people or property. This approach uses ten indicators from the Global Peace Index (GPI) and three additional key areas of expenditure to place an economic value on 13 different dimensions. This process has been developed to enable relative comparisons between countries at different levels of economic development. GDP per capita has been used to scale the cost of violence containment for each country. In both the U.S. and the U.K. a number of robust analyses have been conducted on the cost of various types of violence and have been used as the basis for the scaling. This study is highly conservative as there are many items that have not been counted simply because accurate data could not be obtained. Future estimates will attempt to capture these items and therefore are expected to be higher. The economic impact of violence containment to the world economy in 2012 was estimated to be $9.46 trillion or 11 percent of Gross World Product (GWP).* This figure is comprised of $4.73 trillion of direct and indirect costs as well as an additional $4.73 trillion in additional economic activity that would flow from the reinvestment of these costs into more fruitful economic activities. Were the world to reduce its expenditure on violence by fifteen percent it would be enough to provide the necessary money for the European Stability Fund, repay Greece's debt and cover the increase in funding required to achieve the United Nation's Millennium Development Goals. One of the easier items to count is military expenditure, thus it is nearly fully included in the study. Military spending constitutes 51 percent of the total accounted expenditure on violence containment. However, the approach excludes many other forms of violence containment due to a lack of available data. If other forms of violence were included in the overall estimate, it is expected that military spending would drop considerably as a proportion of total violence containment expenditure. It is important to highlight that the world's direct expenditure on the military is more than 12 times the world's expenditure on foreign aid, as measured by Official Development Assistance (ODA). The economic impact of homicides represents the next most significant cost at $1.43 trillion dollars or 15 percent of the total impact. The third largest contributor is spending on internal security officers and police, accounting for around 14 percent of the total, or $1.3 trillion dollars of the economic impact. The longer-term research project for IEP aims to categorise and count many of these relevant areas of expenditure. Some examples of items that have been excluded are: The significant costs related to property crimes, motor vehicle theft, arson, household burglary and larceny/ theft, as well as rape/sexual assault Many of the preventative measures, such as insurance premiums or the costs to businesses of surveillance equipment and lost management time The direct costs of domestic violence in terms of lost wages, emotional costs and recovery costs. While expenditures on containing and dealing with the consequences of violence are important and a necessary public good, the less a nation spends on violence-related functions, the more resources can be allocated to other more productive areas of economic activity. Simply put, economic expenditure on containing violence is economically efficient when it effectively prevents violence for the least amount of outlay. However, money that is diverted to surplus violence containment, or money that is spent on inefficient programs, has the potential to constrain a nation's economic growth. Importantly, many societies that have lower levels of violence and crime also have lower violence containment spending. These societies reap a peace dividend. Details: Sydney: Institute for Economics and Peace, 2015. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 11, 2016 at: http://economicsandpeace.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/The-Economic-Cost-of-Violence-Containment.pdf Year: 2015 Country: International URL: http://economicsandpeace.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/The-Economic-Cost-of-Violence-Containment.pdf Shelf Number: 145412 Keywords: Costs of Crime Costs of Criminal Justice Economics of Crime Violence Violent Crime

Author: Canada. Department of Justice. Evaluation Division Title: Drug Treatment Court Funding Program Evaluation : final report Summary: 1. Introduction The Drug Treatment Court Funding Program (DTCFP) is a contributions funding program that provides financial support and administers funding agreements to six drug treatment court (DTC) sites: Toronto (established in 1998), Vancouver (2001), Edmonton (2005), Winnipeg (2006), Ottawa (2006), and Regina (2006). This report presents the evaluation findings and responds to the Treasury Board Secretariat's 2009 Policy on Evaluation, which requires that all direct expenditures of the federal government be evaluated every five years. The evaluation, which was conducted between June and September 2014, covers the work of the DTCFP between fiscal years (FYs) 2009-10 and 2013-14. 2. Methodology The evaluation comprised three main lines of evidence: - a document and data review, including relevant Justice Canada sub-studies and research studies, including a recidivism study and a study comparing the results of urine drug tests (UDTs) of graduates and non-completers during the program; - 48 interviews with participants in the program; and - an online survey of DTC stakeholders and staff. Details: Ottawa: Department of Justice Canada, 2015. 148p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 13, 2016 at: http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2015/jus/J2-413-2015-eng.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Canada URL: http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2015/jus/J2-413-2015-eng.pdf Shelf Number: 145085 Keywords: Costs of Criminal Justice Criminal Justice Expenditures Drug Courts Drug Treatment Programs Problem Solving Courts

Author: Enns, Peter K. Title: The Great Recession and State Criminal Justice Policy: Do Economic Hard Times Matter? Summary: Although the United States still imprisons a higher proportion of its population than any country in the world, in recent years, the decades-long trend of increasingly punitive criminal justice policies and a growing prison population has subsided. Changes unimaginable ten years ago, such as the decriminalization of certain low-level drug offenses, the closing of prisons, and a decline in the overall prison population have occurred. To what extent did the Great Recession influences these shifts? To answer these questions, we focus on state spending on corrections (i.e., spending on prisons, jails, and parole offices) and state incarceration rates. Because state correctional facilities house the overwhelming majority of those incarcerated in the United States, states offer a critical window into mass incarceration. States are also central to understanding the link between economic conditions and criminal justice outcomes. Most states have balanced budget requirements, which means that states cannot carry a deficit from year-to-year. If a bad economic climate leads to less state revenue, something must be cut—and large corrections budgets would be one candidate for reduction. Consistent with this expectation, we do find a relationship between state economic conditions and state expenditures on corrections. We do not, however, find evidence that the Great Recession spurred this relationship. In fact, our analysis suggests that changes in crime rates and the public's punitiveness have been the fundamental factors in recent state criminal justice outcomes. Details: New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2015. 4p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 11, 2016 at: http://www.russellsage.org/sites/default/files/Recession_Enns_Criminal.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.russellsage.org/sites/default/files/Recession_Enns_Criminal.pdf Shelf Number: 146685 Keywords: Costs of Corrections Costs of Criminal Justice Criminal Justice Policy Economic Conditions and Crime Economics and Crime Recession

Author: Bird, Mia Title: Funding Public Safety Realignment Summary: California's recent public safety realignment transferred substantial authority and funds from the state to the counties to manage lower-level felon populations. The success or failure of this experiment will have profound implications throughout the state, beyond just the realm of public safety. If counties are able to handle these new populations and improve upon the state's record of reducing recidivism, the results could include declining crime rates, lower-cost supervision of offenders, and the liberation of state resources to devote to other concerns. If the counties' efforts are insufficient or misdirected, crime rates could stagnate or grow worse, prompting more costly measures such as jail capacity expansion or more intensive supervision, while also shifting the prison overcrowding problem from the state to the county level with all of the attendant implications for county budget priorities. Each count'’s experience with realignment will depend, in part, on whether it has sufficient resources to carry out its plan. That is the subject of this report: the state's provision of realignment funds to the counties, the changing allocations of those funds among the counties, and our own proposal for a funding allocation model to use in the future. Our aim is to illuminate the development of the initial and current funding models, to carefully consider their key elements and their shortcomings, and to propose a new model that addresses these shortcomings. We begin with an examination of the state's mechanism for funding public safety realignment, including the overall funding level, state revenue sources, and the categories of state funding streams. We then turn to our main topic—the allocation of realignment funds across counties. We explain the initial model developed by the Realignment Allocation Committee to determine the share of total funding for realignment that each county would receive. The Year 1 model allocated funding based primarily on the projected increase in counties' offender populations that realignment would induce. The committee balanced the model somewhat by also considering each county’s estimated overall adult population and the county’s success in reducing returns to prison for probation revocations under SB 678. However, concerns emerged among some county officials that this model rewarded counties with high pre-realignment prison use. In the Year 2–3 model, the committee attempted to address that concern by introducing greater flexibility into the formula—as a result, counties with low levels of state prison use prior to realignment received relatively large increases in their allocations. Nonetheless, questions about the fairness and efficacy of the allocation persist as the committee continues to work on the development of a permanent allocation model. We argue that the ideal components of such a model must include differences across counties in the burden of realignment, differences in the capacities of counties to manage their realignment populations, and the inclusion of recidivism reduction bonuses to incentivize state goals. Finally, as a practical consideration, we recognize that developing and using such a funding model requires access to appropriate, high-quality data. To this end, we identify publicly available data to measure these components and use them to calculate recommended allocation shares, which we compare with the allocations from previous years' models. Our proposed Year 4 model consists of a base allocation, adjustments for county characteristics, and incentive bonuses for reductions in recidivism. We believe that our model will prove useful to policymakers—not only as they develop their Year 4 strategies for distributing realignment allocations to the counties, but also as a sound foundation for building a permanent allocation model. Details: Sacramento: Public Policy Institute of California, 2013. 31p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 17, 2016 at: http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_1113MBR.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_1113MBR.pdf Shelf Number: 144944 Keywords: Costs of Corrections Costs of Criminal Justice Criminal Justice Policy Criminal Justice Reform Public Safety realignment

Author: Oregon. Task Force on Public Safety Title: Justice Reinvestment Report to the Legislature Summary: In July 2013, the Oregon Legislature passed House Bill 3194, known as the Justice Reinvestment Act, in response to a nearly 50% increase in Oregon's rate of incarceration between 2000 and 2010. Justice Reinvestment is an approach to spending resources more effectively with the goals of decreasing prison use, reducing recidivism, increasing public safety and holding offenders accountable. This approach can only continue to work as long as it is fully funded. The program depends on certainty of funds for county Justice Reinvestment programs to continue to operate. If Justice Reinvestment is not adequately funded there will be immediate prison bed costs far in excess of the cost of funding the program. HB 3194 created the Justice Reinvestment Grant Programs and included several sentencing changes. This bill also created the Task Force on Public Safety with the purpose of reviewing the implementation of the bill. The Task Force must submit a report to the Legislative Assembly by October 1, 2016 that describes their findings. The Criminal Justice Commission (CJC) staffs the Task Force and tracks prison bed savings from the sentencing changes in HB 3194, county prison use for related Property, Drug and Driving crimes, recidivism and the male and female prison forecasts. This report includes legislative recommendations and topics for further consideration by the Task Force and summarizes the implementation of several key areas in the bill, including sentencing changes, the Justice Reinvestment Grant Program and the Center for Policing Excellence. Details: Salem, OR: The Task Force, 2016. 56p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 14, 2016 at: http://www.oregon.gov/cjc/Documents/TaskForceonPublicSafetyJusticeReinvestmentReporttotheLegislature.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.oregon.gov/cjc/Documents/TaskForceonPublicSafetyJusticeReinvestmentReporttotheLegislature.pdf Shelf Number: 144884 Keywords: Costs of Corrections Costs of Criminal Justice Justice Reinvestment Sentencing Reform

Author: Roth, Lenny Title: Justice reinvestment Summary: Justice reinvestment is based on the premise that imprisonment is an expensive and largely ineffective way of reducing crime. Different versions of the concept have emerged but the original idea in the United States was that funding for prisons should be reduced and redirected towards addressing the underlying causes of crime in communities with high levels of incarceration. Over the last decade, many State governments in the United States have introduced a justice reinvestment policy. The United Kingdom Government has also conducted some pilot justice reinvestment projects at the local council level. This paper outlines the development and experience of justice reinvestment in those countries, summarises key reports and commentary in Australia, and refers to local trials in NSW, South Australia and the ACT. Details: Sydney: NSW Parliamentary Research Service, 2016. 16p. Source: Internet Resource: e-brief: Accessed December 20, 2016 at: https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/researchpapers/Documents/Justice%20reinvestment.pdf Year: 2016 Country: Australia URL: https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/researchpapers/Documents/Justice%20reinvestment.pdf Shelf Number: 147305 Keywords: Costs of Corrections Costs of Criminal Justice Costs of Prisons Justice Reinvestment

Author: Gabor, Thomas Title: Costs of Crime and Criminal Justice Responses Summary: In light of rising criminal justice expenditures in Canada over the last decade, concerns about the sustainability of the Canadian justice system programs and services have emerged. Although there is a growing body of international evidence on the associated costs, little has been done to synthesize this literature. This report presents a global, comprehensive literature review on the costs of crime and criminal justice responses for the purpose of examining their comparative burdens to society. An important aim of this report was to lay the groundwork for a comparison of cost estimates from Canadian studies with those found in the international literature and to aid in the development of a framework that could be applied in future costing studies. The report emphasizes the importance of costing methodology (e.g., accounting-based versus court-based awards), crime definitions, study location, population age, and the differentiation between tangible and intangible costs when determining accurate cost estimates for crimes and criminal justice responses. Finally, it offers some key theoretical considerations for the interpretation of study findings, and identifies four recommendations that social science researchers and operational personnel need to know about the future of crime costing studies. Details: Ottawa: Public Security Canada, 2016. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Research Report: 2015-R022: Accessed December 23, 2016 at: https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/2015-r022/2015-r022-en.pdf Year: 2016 Country: Canada URL: https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/2015-r022/2015-r022-en.pdf Shelf Number: 144811 Keywords: Costs of Crime Costs of Criminal Justice Criminal Justice Expenditures

Author: Kaplan, Aliza B. Title: Oregon's Death Penalty: A Cost Analysis Summary: The primary goal of this study was to estimate the economic costs associated with aggravated murder cases that result in death sentences and compare those costs to other aggravated murder cases, the majority of which resulted in some form of a life sentence, in the state of Oregon. Importantly, Oregon law does not require the prosecution to file a formal notice indicating whether or not the state will seek the death penalty in aggravated murder cases. Therefore, all aggravated murder cases are treated as death penalty cases, likely inflating the average cost of aggravated murder cases that do not result in a death sentence. In order to provide a bit more context, we include costs for non-aggravated cases where defendants were charged with a lesser charge of murder, in categories where data were both available and reliable. The following are the main findings from the study, presented by total (includes all cost categories), then by individual cost category. The information contained within this research report reflects a thorough analysis of data collected from hundreds of aggravated murder and murder cases over 13 years in Oregon, from 2000 through 2013. We also examined the appeals process of aggravated murder cases that resulted in death sentences between 1984 until 2000. The economic findings below are limited because no cost data were available or provided by district attorneys or the courts. We were able to get cost-related information from local jails (costs associated with incarceration during trial), Department of Corrections (DOC) (incarceration costs), Office of Public Defense Services (OPDS) (trial, appeals, and all stages of post-conviction costs), and the Department of Justice (DOJ) (Oregon's Attorney General's Office) (costs related to appeals and all stages of post-conviction). Although these categories make up a great deal of the overall costs related to aggravated murder cases, they only represent a portion of the total costs for pursuing the death penalty in Oregon. We approached all data and cost estimations from a conservative standpoint, meaning the costs are intentionally underestimated. Details: Seattle, WA: Lewis & Clark Law School, and Seattle University, 2016. 86p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 23, 2016 at: https://law.lclark.edu/live/files/22888-oregons-death-penalty-a-cost-analysis-2016 Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://law.lclark.edu/live/files/22888-oregons-death-penalty-a-cost-analysis-2016 Shelf Number: 147809 Keywords: Capital Punishment Costs of Criminal Justice Death Penalty

Author: Henrichson, Christian Title: The Costs and Consequences of Bail, Fines and Fees in New Orleans Summary: The justice system in New Orleans, like most others, is partly supported by "user-funded revenue," meaning the money it collects from individuals charged with a crime. This practice has long been common in the United States, but an emerging body of research has begun to uncover the perverse incentives it creates for justice agencies and the depth of its impact on individuals. This report is an in-depth study of the costs and consequences of user-funded revenues in New Orleans, a city where the effects of this practice are likely to be particularly acute because of a poverty rate that is nearly twice the national average and a jail incarceration rate that is among the highest in the nation. Although there are steep challenges in New Orleans, there are also factors that bode well for reform. The jail population, while still nearly twice the national average, has been declining and is now the lowest it's been in decades. Furthermore, there are a number of new jail population reduction efforts— under the leadership of the mayor and city council—and a federal consent decree has led to an increased focus on improving conditions inside the jail. Data is often a prerequisite for reform. So to uncover the costs and consequences of the user-funded justice system in New Orleans, Vera researchers examined agency financial reports and justice-agency administrative records to measure (1) annual justice system expenses and user-pay revenue (namely financial bail and conviction fines and fees), (2) how much justice agencies and bond agents benefit from these revenues, (3) the financial impact of bail for defendants, (4) the financial impact of conviction fines and fees for defendants, and (5) the consequences of a user-funded system, including the human cost of jail and the disparate impact on black communities. Through analysis of 2015 financial reports and administrative court records, Vera found that: • Law enforcement, judicial, and corrections agency expenses totaled $265 million. • User-funded revenues totaled $11.5 million and comprised bond fees ($1.7 million), conviction fines and fees ($2.8 million), traffic court fines and fees ($5 million), and “other” sources that include asset seizures and drug testing fees ($1.9 million). • User-funded costs paid to commercial bond agents totaled $4.7 million for non-refundable bond premiums. • User-funded revenues comprise a sizable share of the budget for four agencies: traffic court (99 percent), municipal court (18 percent), criminal district court (32 percent), and Orleans Public Defenders (41 percent). • The cost of posting a surety bond averaged—inclusive of bond fees—$2,408 in criminal district court and $451 in municipal court. • 1,275 individuals, in criminal district court, spent an average of 114 pretrial days in jail because they could not pay their bail; 1,153 individuals, in municipal court, spent an average of 29 pretrial days in jail because they could not pay their bail. • More than 8,000 people were assessed conviction fines and fees totaling $3.8 million. o In criminal district court, 2,156 individuals were assessed a total of $2.4 million in fines and fees; o In municipal court, 6,175 individuals were assessed a total of $1.4 million. • Conviction fines and fees per individual averaged $1,125 in criminal district court and $228 in municipal court. • In 2015, municipal court issued 3,014 warrants for failing to pay (or failing to appear for payment) and criminal district court issued 990 warrants. Over those 12 months, 536 people were arrested on such warrants, all but 88 of them stemming from municipal court cases. (This includes people who were sentenced well before 2015 but were arrested in that year.) • The transfer of wealth that results from bail, fines and fees falls disproportionately on black communities: $5.4 million of the $6.4 million (84 percent) for bail premiums and fees and $2.7 million of the $3.8 million (69 percent) for conviction fines and fees were assessed to black defendants. • Once assessed fines and fees, black defendants were issued an arrest warrant in relation to unpaid fines and fees at higher rates than white defendants for both misdemeanor cases (43 percent versus 29 percent) and felony cases (18 percent versus 14 percent). Vera’s surveys and interviews with individuals previously involved in the New Orleans criminal justice system reveal that many relied on a number of people—including partners, parents, and children— to raise the money to pay the costs associated with justice system contact. And many still have trouble paying all their costs. This suggests that, for most respondents, raising the money for bail, fines and fees was a hardship that they either could not overcome, or one for which they had to rely on the resources of their community to meet. The total range of potential criminal justice costs goes far beyond those Vera analyzed through administrative records. So it is little surprise that more than half of survey respondents reported they and their family spent over $4,500 on costs associated with their most recent court case – including bail, fines, fees, transportation to court, attorney fees, and money put into their jail commissary account, among other expenses. The majority of people we surveyed reported that these costs had a major or moderate negative impact on their family's financial stability. Interviews with court-involved individuals and justice system stakeholders underscored the financially detrimental impact of user-funded costs on families, the stress of ongoing financial obligations to the justice system, the role of these criminal justice costs in exacerbating justice involvement, and the ways in which these costs damage perceptions of fairness and trust. The greatest cost, however, may be the human cost of jail (such as the risk of harm in jail and the deprivation of liberty) for those unable to bail, fines and fees, which Vera estimates to be substantially greater than the cost of jail to taxpayers. Details: New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2017. 61p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 25, 2017 at: https://storage.googleapis.com/vera-web-assets/downloads/Publications/past-due-costs-consequences-charging-for-justice-new-orleans/legacy_downloads/past-due-costs-consequences-charging-for-justice-new-orleans-technical-report.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://storage.googleapis.com/vera-web-assets/downloads/Publications/past-due-costs-consequences-charging-for-justice-new-orleans/legacy_downloads/past-due-costs-consequences-charging-for-justice-new-orleans-technical-report Shelf Number: 140663 Keywords: Bail Costs of Criminal Justice Criminal Fines Criminal Justice Debt Criminal Justice Systems Financial Sanctions Jails

Author: Laisne, Mathilde Title: Past Due: Examining the Costs and Consequences of Charging for Justice in New Orleans Summary: Every year, government agencies in New Orleans collect millions of dollars in the form of bail, fines and fees from people involved in the criminal justice system and, by extension, from their families. Millions more are transferred from the pockets and bank accounts of residents to for-profit bail bond agents. These costs have become the subject of considerable public attention. Some view them as a necessary way to offset the expense of operating the criminal justice system. But because many "users" of the system have very low incomes or none at all, there is growing concern that charging for justice amounts to a criminalization of poverty, especially when people who can't pay become further entangled in the justice system. Take bail, for example: In theory, bail aims to ensure that people charged with crimes actually face justice in court, and high bail is intended to keep potentially dangerous defendants behind bars while their cases are pending. But here in New Orleans, as in many systems across the country, bail amounts are not calibrated to reflect a person’s ability to pay. As a result, poor families scrape together bail from money that they need to live on. And those who can't raise the money sit in jail not because they’re a risk of flight or a danger to the public, but simply because they can’t pay. Similarly, a host of fees for the use of the courts and other justice system resources, along with fines imposed as part of a person’s sentence if convicted, are levied in amounts that many poor and low-income people can't easily afford or afford at all. As part of a study to better understand the cost and consequences of bail, fines and fees for individuals in New Orleans, researchers at Vera interviewed people who have faced these costs. Two of their stories are illustrative. When Veronica was arrested and detained, her mother risked losing her house to raise the $2,500 to purchase a bail bond and pay associated government fees. It’s money she’ll never get back, but it was the only way to get her daughter out of jail after she had already spent 10 days behind bars. Keith, who is 61, still struggles to pay off thousands of dollars in court costs and restitution as a result of writing a bad check in 2014. He is making monthly payments that at times have deprived his family of basic necessities, including running water, and have strained his marriage almost to the breaking point. Details: New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2017. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 25, 2017 at: https://storage.googleapis.com/vera-web-assets/downloads/Publications/past-due-costs-consequences-charging-for-justice-new-orleans/legacy_downloads/past-due-costs-consequences-charging-for-justice-new-orleans.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://storage.googleapis.com/vera-web-assets/downloads/Publications/past-due-costs-consequences-charging-for-justice-new-orleans/legacy_downloads/past-due-costs-consequences-charging-for-justice-new-orleans.pdf Shelf Number: 145425 Keywords: Bail Costs of Criminal Justice Criminal Fines Criminal Justice Debt Criminal Justice Systems Financial Sanctions

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: Vanlaar, Ward Title: Driving While Impaired Arrest Process Improvement: Six Case Studies of Strategies Used by Law Enforcement to Reduce the Cost and Time of Processing a DWI Arrest Summary: This final report of the Driving While Impaired Arrest Process project includes six case studies of strategies used by law enforcement to reduce the cost and time of processing DWI arrests. The objectives of this study are to identify law enforcement agencies that have made improvements to their DWI arrest procedures that have resulted in time and/or cost savings, and gather data from these jurisdictions to describe any such savings experienced as a result of these improvements. The improvements, their resulting time and cost savings, as well as experiences regarding the implementation of these improvements are described in this report and used to inform the development of a roadmap that other agencies can rely upon if they are interested in implementing these types of solutions. Details: Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2016. 62p. Source: Internet Resource: DOT HS 812 308: Accessed January 27, 2017 at: https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/812308-dwi-arrest-process-improvement.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/812308-dwi-arrest-process-improvement.pdf Shelf Number: 144924 Keywords: Arrests Costs of Criminal Justice Driving Under the Influence Drunk Driving DUI Impaired Drivers

Author: Henrichson, Christian Title: Using Cost-Benefit Analysis for Justice Policymaking Summary: Justice policymakers must make tough decisions with limited resources. Any number of investments, whether in law enforcement, corrections, probation—or even programs outside the justice system, such as early childhood education—can promote public safety. The critical question is which choices produce the greatest benefits. Increasingly, government officials and other decision makers are turning to cost-benefit analysis (CBA)—an economic tool that compares the costs of programs with the benefits they deliver—to help weigh their options. But justice-related cost-benefit studies can be complicated, technical, and hard to understand, making it easy for people to misinterpret their findings and overlook critical information that can aid their decisions. This white paper was written for a broad range of readers, including elected officials and their staff, policymakers, justice agency personnel, and service providers. It is meant to help people make sense of justice CBAs even if they have little interest or expertise in examining the details of a cost-benefit study. The paper draws on the experience of policymakers and practitioners, as well as CBA experts and researchers, to explain:  what CBA is, how it’s applied to justice policies and programs, and how it differs from other economic tools;  how to assess the overall strengths and weaknesses of a cost-benefit study;  what potential pitfalls to avoid when interpreting cost-benefit results;  what information beyond the bottom-line results to pay attention to in a CBA; and  how CBA fits within larger policy, planning, and decision-making processes. Readers can use this paper to help them know what to look for in a justice-related CBA, understand what cost-benefit results mean, and use those results to inform their decisions. Details: New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2014. 25p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 30, 2017 at: https://storage.googleapis.com/vera-web-assets/downloads/Publications/using-cost-benefit-analysis-for-justice-policymaking/legacy_downloads/using-cost-benefit-analysis-for-justice-policymaking.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: https://storage.googleapis.com/vera-web-assets/downloads/Publications/using-cost-benefit-analysis-for-justice-policymaking/legacy_downloads/using-cost-benefit-analysis-for-justice-policymaking.pdf Shelf Number: 147339 Keywords: Cost-Benefit Analysis Costs of Criminal Justice Criminal Justice Policy

Author: Council of State Governments Justice Center Title: Justice Reinvestment in North Dakota: Policy Framework Summary: Over the past decade, the number of people in North Dakota’s prisons and jails, on probation, and on parole has increased, and the state and county governments have spent tens of millions of dollars expanding the capacity of existing correctional facilities and building new facilities to accommodate this growth. Unless action is taken, the prison population is projected to grow by 36 percent by FY2022 at a cost of $115 million to accommodate the projected growth. To address these challenges, Governor Jack Dalrymple, Chief Justice Gerald VandeWalle, Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem, Senate Majority Leader Rich Wardner, House Majority Leader Al Carlson, Senate Minority Leader Mac Schneider, House Minority Leader Kenton Onstad, and Legislative Management Chairman Raymond Holmberg requested intensive technical assistance from The Council of State Governments (CSG) Justice Center with support from The Pew Charitable Trusts and the U.S. Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Assistance to use a data-driven justice reinvestment approach to help the state reduce the corrections population, contain corrections spending, and reinvest a portion of the savings in strategies that can reduce recidivism and increase public safety. The Incarceration Issues Committee—which included stakeholders from all three branches of government—worked with CSG Justice Center staff to review analyses and develop policy options that will curb prison population growth by reducing the number of people in prison who have committed lower-level felony offenses and who have violated the conditions of their supervision. These policies will also ensure that people with serious behavioral health needs and those assessed as being at a high risk of reoffending receive effective post-release supervision programming, and treatment as necessary. By implementing these proposed policies, the state will avert a minimum of $63.8 million by 2022 in costs for the contract beds that would be necessary to accommodate the projected prison population growth, and will be able to reinvest those savings in strategies that can reduce recidivism and increase public safety. In September 2016, the Incarceration Issues Committee approved a policy draft containing components of the justice reinvestment policy framework, and in November 2016, the Legislative Management committee voted the bill to the legislative assembly for introduction in the House. Details: New York: Council of State Government Justice Center, 2017. 16p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 10, 2017 at: https://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/JR-in-ND_Policy-Framework_2.7.17.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/JR-in-ND_Policy-Framework_2.7.17.pdf Shelf Number: 147298 Keywords: Costs of Corrections Costs of Criminal Justice Criminal Justice Policy Criminal Justice Reform Justice Reinvestment

Author: Glod, Greg Title: Incentivizing Results: Lessons From Other States' Probation Funding Formula Reforms and Recommendations to Texas Lawmakers Summary: Prison is an important and necessary component of the criminal justice system. It is, in many cases, necessary to incarcerate offenders who pose a danger to society even with strict and modern monitoring. That being said, the state should supervise offenders outside the prison walls if the interests of public safety and liberty are best served by forgoing incarceration. When implemented effectively, probation keeps neighborhoods safer, saves money, and produces more successful outcomes for nondangerous offenders. When taking into account risk level, recidivism rates for individuals who are sentenced to community supervision (also known as probation) are lower than for those who are incarcerated. Key Points • Most probation funding to counties comes from the state based upon the amount of offenders being directly supervised. • This funding formula does not incentivize counties to implement strategies that maximize results but may cost counties more on the front-end. • Several states have altered their probation funding formulas to incentivize counties to reduce the amount of offenders going to state correctional facilities and to get a portion of the savings back.. • Texas could make minor changes to its current funding formula to achieve better probation results and save millions on incarceration costs Details: Austin, TX: Texas Public policy Foundation, 2017. 12p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 11, 2017 at: http://www.texaspolicy.com/library/doclib/2016-11-PP27-IncentivizingResults-CEJ-GregGlod.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://www.texaspolicy.com/library/doclib/2016-11-PP27-IncentivizingResults-CEJ-GregGlod.pdf Shelf Number: 144934 Keywords: Community Supervision Costs of Corrections Costs of Criminal Justice Criminal Justice Systems Offender Supervision Probation

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: Oklahoma Justice Reform Task Force Title: Final Report Summary: Since 2010, 31 states across the country have decreased imprisonment rates while reducing crime rates. Yet Oklahoma's prison population has grown by nine percent in the last five years, reaching 28,580 inmates as of June 2016. As a result of the large and growing inmate population, Oklahoma has the second highest imprisonment rate in the country, 78 percent higher than the national average in 2015. More concerning, since 1991, Oklahoma has had the highest female imprisonment rate in the country. These trends have burdened state taxpayers with extraordinary costs, with Oklahoma spending over half a billion dollars on corrections in FY2015. At this rate, Oklahoma's prison population is projected to grow 25 percent or 7,218 inmates by 2026. One-quarter of this overall growth will be driven by increases in the female prison population, which is projected to grow by 60 percent over the next ten years. The projected prison population growth is estimated to cost the state at least $1.2 billion in capital expenditures to build or lease three new prisons and an additional $700 million in operating costs over ten years. Seeking a better public safety return on corrections spending, state leaders from all three branches of government joined together in May of 2016 to request technical assistance through the Justice Reinvestment Initiative, a public-private partnership between the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance, and The Pew Charitable Trusts (Pew), to be provided by the Crime and Justice Institute (CJI). Governor Fallin issued Executive Order 2016-24 in July of 2016, establishing the bi-partisan, inter-branch Oklahoma Justice Reform Task Force (Task Force) and charging it with "developing" comprehensive criminal justice and corrections reform policy recommendations designed to alleviate prison overcrowding and reduce Oklahoma's incarceration rate while improving public safety. Over a six-month period, the Task Force analyzed the state's sentencing, corrections, and community supervision data and reviewed the latest research on reducing recidivism and improving public safety. The Task Force found that: Seventy-five percent of people admitted to prison were sentenced for nonviolent crimes; over half of individuals sentenced to prison for nonviolent offenses have one or no prior felony convictions, and 80 percent have no history of violent crimes. Research demonstrates that incarceration is no more effective at reducing recidivism than alternatives to prison and can actually increase the recidivism rates of lower-level individuals. Despite the risk of increasing recidivism for lower-level, non-violent offences, Oklahoma uses prison over alternatives more often than other states and has focused many of its prison beds on those sentenced for nonviolent crimes with limited criminal history. Sentences for nonviolent offenders in Oklahoma are longer compared to other states, and release options are underutilized and/or delayed. Despite research demonstrating that longer prison terms do not reduce recidivism more than shorter prison terms, less than 10 percent of the individuals released from prison are paroled, and drug and property offenders are released on average nine months past their parole eligibility date. Based on this analysis and the directive from Governor Fallin, the Task Force developed a comprehensive, data-driven, evidence-based package of 27 policy recommendations, supported by a substantial majority of Task Force members, and specifically aimed at improving public safety by holding offenders accountable and reducing recidivism. These policies, if signed into law, would avert all of the projected prison population growth, and ultimately reduce the current prison population by seven percent, saving $1.9 billion in prison costs over the next ten years. Details: Oklahoma City: The Task Force, 2017. 39p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 13, 2017 at: http://s3.amazonaws.com/content.newsok.com/documents/OJRTFFinalReport%20(1).pdf?embeddedLinkType=document Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://s3.amazonaws.com/content.newsok.com/documents/OJRTFFinalReport%20(1).pdf?embeddedLinkType=document Shelf Number: 145119 Keywords: Costs of Corrections Costs of Criminal Justice Criminal Justice Reform Criminal Justice Systems Evidence-Based Practices

Author: Gotsis, Tom Title: Social Impact Bonds and recidivism: A new solution to an old problem? Summary: Recidivism is not a topic that has traditionally been associated with the world of high finance. Yet, in recent times, recidivism and other intractable social challenges have become the subject of Social Impact Bonds (SIBs); a novel form of investment that makes use of private funds to address pressing public concerns. In July 2016 the NSW Government entered into its third SIB and Australia’s first recidivism SIB, known as On TRACC (Transition, Reintegration and Community Correction). On TRACC funds intensive support services to parolees, particularly in the first four months after their release, in order to facilitate their successful reintegration into the community. This paper provides an overview of SIBs. It defines recidivism, and considers the extent and costs of recidivism in NSW. The effectiveness of overseas SIBs designed to reduce recidivism is examined. The paper concludes by discussing NSW's nascent experience with SIBs, including its new On TRACC recidivism SIB. Details: Sydney: NSW Parliamentary Research Service, 2017. 17p, Source: Internet Resource: e-brief Issue 1/2017: Accessed February 16, 2017 at: http://apo.org.au/files/Resource/t_gotsis_social_impact_bonds_and_recidivism_feb_2017.pdf Year: 2017 Country: Australia URL: http://apo.org.au/files/Resource/t_gotsis_social_impact_bonds_and_recidivism_feb_2017.pdf Shelf Number: 141053 Keywords: Costs of Criminal Justice Interventions Recidivism Social Impact Bonds

Author: Communities United Title: The $3.4 Trillion Mistake: The Cost of Mass Incarceration and Criminalization, and How Justice Reinvestment Can Build a Better Future for All Summary: Imagine if, back in 1982, our federal, state, and local policymakers had assembled the U.S. public and offered us a choice between two paths that we could take over the next 30 years. Path One would involve using our tax dollars to invest in the massive expansion of our justice system and a tripling of our incarcerated population, but would not substantially improve public safety. Path Two would make the same level of investment in providing tens of millions of youth with higher-quality educational and developmental opportunities, creating millions of living-wage jobs, dramatically expanding the availability of affordable housing and first-rate healthcare, and making meaningful advances in addressing the effects of environmental degradation, while keeping the justice system at the same size. Would anyone have chosen Path One? Nevertheless, that is effectively what we did. Over the last 30+ years, the U.S. has invested heavily in police, prosecutors, courts, jails, and prisons to address not only public safety issues but also public health concerns such as the effects of poverty, mental illness, and drug use. As a result, the justice system now intersects with our lives far more often, and far more harshly, than ever before, and there are many millions more people that are either under the control of, or employed by, that system. For example, in 1982, the U.S. already had an expansive justice system, totaling $90 billion in justice spending, including police, corrections, judicial/legal, and immigration enforcement expenditures. Indeed, our incarcerated population then – 621,885 – would still rank as third-highest in the world today, behind only China and Russia. Nevertheless, we continued to aggressively expand both the size and role of our justice system, particularly as a result of the escalation of the “War on Drugs” and the increased use of the "tough on crime" approach. Thus, by 2012, total justice spending had increased by 229% to nearly $297 billion. Even more staggering is the cumulative impact of those shifts in resources. Over the 30-year period from 1983 to 2012, we spent $3.4 trillion more on the justice system than we would have if it had stayed the same size as it was in 1982. This "surplus justice spending" turned our already-huge justice system into the one we have today, in which there are nearly eight million adults and youth behind bars or within the probation and parole systems in the U.S. In other words, 1 in 40 U.S. residents is either in prison, in jail, on probation or parole, or otherwise under control of the justice system. For communities of color that have been devastated by decades of over-investment in flawed and ineffective criminal justice strategies and racially discriminatory policing – and under-investment in meeting critical community needs – the impact has been particularly severe. For example, approximately 1 in 18 Black residents, and 1 in 34 Latino residents, were under the control of the justice system in 2013 (compared to 1 in 55 White residents). However, despite the massive investment in the expansion of our justice system, it is not at all clear that this approach has been effective at promoting public safety. On the contrary, the evidence suggests that it has been far less effective than other public safety strategies available to us. Moreover, there is an enormous amount of research demonstrating that the harms caused by this approach far exceeded whatever benefits have been realized, particularly with regard to the low-income communities of color that have been suffocating under extreme versions of these mass incarceration and criminalization approaches. Details: s.l.: Communities United, Make the Road New York, Padres & Jóvenes Unidos, and the Right on Justice Alliance , 2016. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 22, 2017 at: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/57dadad0e58c62763389db93/t/57fe699c440243a439dcc3d6/1476290979801/FINAL+Report+-+hi+res.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/57dadad0e58c62763389db93/t/57fe699c440243a439dcc3d6/1476290979801/FINAL+Report+-+hi+res.pdf Shelf Number: 141175 Keywords: Costs of Corrections Costs of Criminal Justice Justice Expenditures Justice Reinvestment Mass Incarceration

Author: Jaitman, Laura Title: The Costs of Crime and Violence: New Evidence and Insights in Latin America and the Caribbean Summary: This publication is the first to provide a comprehensive, systematic, and rigorous analysis of the costs of crime in Latin America and the Caribbean. The main challenges in the region are addressed: the social cost of homicides, private and public spending on security, the penitentiary crisis, violence against women, organized crime, and cybercrime. The volume estimates that the direct cost of crime for 17 LAC countries in 2010-2014 is, on average, 3.5 percent of the region's GDP, twice as much as in the developed world. It also provides a detailed analysis of the costs of crime in Brazil by state, as well as an examination of the geographical distribution and drivers of crime in the most dangerous subregions: the Northern Triangle in Central America and the Caribbean. The situation in terms of violence against women and cybercrime is assessed: the region is lagging behind to confront these new and old crimes. Details: Washington, DC: Inter-American Development Bank, 2017. 129p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 23, 2017 at: https://publications.iadb.org/bitstream/handle/11319/8133/The-Costs-of-Crime-and-Violence-New-Evidence-and-Insights-in-Latin-America-and-the-Caribbean.pdf?sequence=7 Year: 2017 Country: Latin America URL: https://publications.iadb.org/bitstream/handle/11319/8133/The-Costs-of-Crime-and-Violence-New-Evidence-and-Insights-in-Latin-America-and-the-Caribbean.pdf?sequence=7 Shelf Number: 141203 Keywords: Costs of Crime Costs of Criminal Justice Cybercrime Economics of Crime Homicides Organized Crime Prisons Violence Against Women Violent Crime

Author: Leerdam, J. van Title: Expensive friendships: what problematic youth groups cost society Explorative study in a large city (full text only available in Dutch) Summary: Summary reasons for study Commissioned by the Research and Documentation Centre of the Ministry of Security and Justice, we conducted an experimental study in one municipality on problematic youth groups. The aim was to identify social problems such youth groups can cause, the social costs connected with this and the extent to which the estimated costs are reliable and valid. problematic youth groups in test municipality The situation of mid-2015 is the basis for the calculations in this study. At that time, 2 criminal and 3 troublesome youth groups were active. The criminal youth groups have already existed for years and currently consist of a total of 35 boys of about 22 years old. The troublesome groups have been active for two years and comprise a total of 28 boys of about 20 years. Many young people in problematic youth groups have a history of multiple problems and have not (yet) completed their education. They often come from broken families with an unfavourable socio-economic perspective and an unstimulating rearing environment. As a result, possible tendencies to cause social problems are strengthened rather than restrained. Moreover, there are indications of mental and/or psychological problems, making them vulnerable to peer pressure. defining social costs Social costs are defined as the welfare effects for various parties in society, caused by the behaviour of problematic youth groups. In addition to costs resulting from this behaviour (such as social damage), it involves costs associated with the response of the authorities (such as support and punishment of perpetrators) and prevention costs (such as a different organisation of the public space). Furthermore, the costs should be traceable to the group behaviour and should not directly result from (personal) problems of individual boys. method The study is exploratory in nature and focused on providing insight into the most important cost items for which suitable data are available. To that end, several steps were completed. First, an overview of social impacts was made based on scientific literature and interviews with professionals. With the help of this overview a preliminary cost model was drawn up which was discussed with a broad group of experts in the pilot municipality. Based on their insights, the cost model was improved. Subsequently, from various bodies data was retrieved (at client level) to quantify social impacts. Insofar as cost amounts were not directly available, data on young people and/or provided support were translated to costs. The costs were charted for a period of about 5 years. To validate the cost calculations an analysis was made to determine the susceptibility of the results to variations in assumptions. Finally, an independent methodological test was conducted by a scientist with expertise in the area of cost-benefit analysis. reference groups The cost calculations were performed for problematic youth groups and for reference youth groups that were matched to the following characteristics: sex, age and district/postcode area. By using reference groups, social costs resulting from problematic group behaviour can be isolated as much as possible. The fact is, many social costs are not made solely for young people from the youth groups, but also for other young people with similar backgrounds. social impact in 3 areas In the study, nine direct effects of problematic youth groups were identified, divided into three domains. In addition, there are indirect effects between these domains. social costs By using data from various sources cost assessments were made of the social costs of both types of problematic youth groups. This mainly concerns costs made in recent years that can be ascribed to young people in these youth groups. Only those costs are taken into account that are additional with respect to the reference groups. The study estimates that criminal youth groups annually cause an average of approximately 1.9 million euros of social costs per group, that are borne especially by the judiciary. Costs caused by troublesome youth groups involve amounts in the order of 1.5 million euros per group, of which the municipality bears a substantial amount. The calculations per cost category are included in Chapter 6. In total, the social costs in the pilot municipality amount to approximately 8.2 million euros. So these are ‘expensive’ friendships. The reason for the study was the perceived knowledge gap with regard to the precise social costs of problematic youth groups. It was obvious that such youth groups have large social impacts and this was the reason to develop an integrated approach. This exploratory study is the first to map out the composition and (potential) size of the social costs caused by such youth groups. This insight is important for municipalities and the Ministry of Security and Justice to further optimise the local approach. discussion It has been found possible to translate many social effects to costs. Some cost figures are an underestimate because the image of the youth groups in question was not complete. With regard to a number of effects usable data were entirely lacking. Possibly, these p.m. items can be mapped out in a continuation study. In addition, the study period was limited to about 5 years which means ‘lifetime’ effects, with potential substantial cost implications, have not been taken into account. The calculations were based on data from reliable sources and, where possible, directly related to people. The degree of validity varies and depends on whether use could be made of direct personal data over several years and cost statements from primary sources or not and whether there was a need to elaborate on input derived from other sources. Details: Amsterdam: Cebeon - Centrum Beleidsadviserend Onderzoek, Regioplan, WODC, 2016. 4p.(summary) Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 17, 2017 at: https://english.wodc.nl/binaries/2635_Summary_tcm29-240540.pdf (English Summary) Year: 2016 Country: Netherlands URL: https://english.wodc.nl/binaries/2635_Summary_tcm29-240540.pdf Shelf Number: 144483 Keywords: At-Risk Youth Cost-Benefit Analysis Costs of criminal Justice Gangs Juvenile Delinquency Juvenile Offenders Youth Gangs

Author: Ludwig, Anika Title: Resource Allocation Processes in Policing in Great Britain Summary: This report is the product of an 18-month research project funded by CIPFA (the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy) looking at police resourcing in Great Britain. This report will also summarise several working papers produced which draw on important themes directly associated with aspects of this work. The funding model (McLean, Norton & Ludwig 2016) In total, the 43 Policing areas in England and Wales spend over £14 billion a year on policing functions. Some of this is raised locally, some is grant from central government. We consider the decision-making and resource-allocation processes used by Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) and Chief Constables, to decide how budgets are allocated to specific programmes and geographical areas across a number of all the UK’s territorial police forces. The funding of policing in England and Wales has undergone a number of radical changes in recent years. The introduction of PCCs in November 2012 has resulted in the transfer of responsibility for police budgets from Police Authorities to individual PCCs. We analysed the three funding models in Great Britain: those for England, Wales, and Scotland. The models for England and for Wales differ slightly; that for Scotland differs more radically. In England and Wales there are two main components: grant and precept. Both are problematic. Most police grant comes from a formula operated by the Home Office which attempts to determine funds per head on a basis of need. It does so badly, because the formula has been frozen for 7 years, and for distributional and incentive reasons that we explain in this report. A proposed replacement formula died at birth when a PCC's office found that the data it was purportedly based on (which were not made freely available to PCCs) had been wrongly entered into the formula. This led to a scathing Commons Select Committee report and a promise to revise the formula in spring 2017. The precept component derives from the right of police authorities, and now PCCs, to levy a charge on Council Tax bills. There are two problems with this: a) the charge is far from transparent, as almost no bill-payers understand precepting, nor whom to blame for which elements of their bill; b) as with any other service part-funded by Council Tax, the regressive structure of the tax means that it is far more difficult to precept in poor areas than in rich ones. Hence, perversely, PCCs in the parts of England and Wales that might most need to top up their grant have least ability to do so. Formulae try to compensate for variations in the tax base, but this introduces a new set of problems. The Council Tax base is often frozen on the orders of central government. What are PCCs for and what have they achieved? (Ludwig & McLean 2016a) Analysis was carried out into the motivations for and introduction of PCCs in 2012. The first elections, held in November and not in the cycle of any other elections, produced the lowest turnouts recorded in UK electoral history. On the evidence collected, it appears that PCCs have been a modest success. Citizen satisfaction with policing has risen slightly, although police expenditure has dropped, since they were instituted. Prior to 2012, very few members of the public will have known where or how to complain about their police force; the introduction of PCCs has changed this. In the 2012 elections number of independent candidates won; the 2016 election was more party-dominated (although a number of independents won again). However, we found that the elections were barely party-political. Candidates of the main parties used very similar language to one another, rather than carve out distinctive policies. In the jargon of political science, these have been 'valence', not ‘positional’, elections. The level of crime reported by the public in the British Crime Surveys has declined somewhat over the period since PCCs were created, despite the reduction in police expenditure. The evidence suggests that there has been some improvement in police performance, in value for money, and in public satisfaction since 2010, but there are several other steps that a reforming government could take. The introduction of the mayoral model in Manchester, following from London, means accountability and oversight will change again in the next few years; the impact of which will need to be assessed in due course. Details: Oxford, UK: Gwilym Gibbon Centre for Public Policy Nuffield College, University of Oxford, 2017. 153p. Source: Internet Resource: A Gwilym Gibbon Centre for Public Policy Paper: Accessed April 1, 2017 at:http://ggcpp.nuff.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Resource-Allocation-Processes-in-Policing-in-Great-Britain-%E2%80%93-Project-report..pdf Year: 2017 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://ggcpp.nuff.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Resource-Allocation-Processes-in-Policing-in-Great-Britain-%E2%80%93-Project-report..pdf Shelf Number: 144676 Keywords: Costs of Criminal Justice Police Administration Police Budgets Police Effectiveness Police Resources

Author: Canada. Public Safety Canada Title: Tyler's Troubled Life: The story of one young man's path towards a life of crime Summary: The fictional account of Tyler was developed to illustrate the compounding influence of risk factors on the pathway to criminal offending. The account does not depict any real persons or events, but serves as an illustrative example of a prototypical adolescent offender in Canada. Using cost estimates from Canada, the US, and Australia, average costs are affixed to events in Tyler's life and tallied for a grand total cost of his crimes. The direct costs associated with Tyler's life of crime range from a court appearance by police ($239 CAD) to a 5-year federal prison sentence ($550,000 CAD) and total over $1,400,000 CAD by the time Tyler reaches the age of 30. Three evidence-based interventions are also provided to illustrate the potential cost savings by investing in crime prevention at critical junctures of Tyler's youth, and to highlight the importance of intervening early and often in the life of disadvantaged or at-risk youth. Details: Ottawa: Public Safety Canada, 2016. 25p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 10, 2017 at: https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/2016-r005/2016-r005-en.pdf Year: 2016 Country: Canada URL: https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/2016-r005/2016-r005-en.pdf Shelf Number: 144764 Keywords: At-Risk Youth Costs of Criminal Justice Juvenile Delinquents Juvenile Offenders

Author: Mai, Chris Title: The Price of Prisons: Examining State Spending Trends, 2010-2015 Summary: After decades of a stable rate of incarceration, the U.S. prison population experienced unprecedented growth from the early 1970s into the new millennium - with the number of people confined to state prisons increasing by more than 600 percent, reaching just over 1.4 million people by the end of 2009. The engine driving this growth was the enactment and implementation over time of a broad array of tough-on-crime policies, including the rapid and continuous expansion of the criminal code; the adoption of zero-tolerance policing tactics, particularly around minor street-level drug and quality-of-life offenses; and the proliferation of harsh sentencing and release policies aimed at keeping people in prison for longer periods of time (such as mandatory minimum sentences, truth-in-sentencing statutes, and habitual offender laws). Unsurprisingly, this explosion in the use of incarceration had a direct financial influence on state budgets. Creating and sustaining such a sprawling penal system has been expensive. With more people under their care, state prison systems were compelled to build new prison facilities and expand existing ones. To staff these new and expanded facilities, they also had to hire, train, and retain ever more employees. In addition to expanding the state-operated prison system, some states also began to board out increasing numbers of people to county jails, privately-run facilities, and other states' prison systems. After hitting a high of 1.4 million people in 2009, however, the overall state prison population has since declined by 5 percent, or 77,000 people. Lawmakers in nearly every state and from across the political spectrum - some prompted by the 2008 recession - have enacted new laws to reduce prison populations and spending, often guided by a now-large body of research supporting alternative, more effective responses to crime. In addition to fiscal pressures, the push for reform has been further bolstered by other factors, including low crime rates; shifting public opinion that now favors less incarceration and more rehabilitation; and dissatisfaction with past punitive policies that have failed to moderate persistently high recidivism rates among those sent to prison. With these various political, institutional, and economic forces at play, most states have adopted a variety of different policies, including those that increase opportunities to divert people away from the traditional criminal justice process; expand the use of community-based sanctions; reduce the length and severity of prison sentences for certain offenses, including the rollback of mandatory penalties; increase opportunities for people to gain early release; and better provide enhanced reentry support for those leaving prison or jail. In light of nearly a decade of broad-based criminal justice reform, this report seeks to determine where state prison spending stands today and how it has changed in recent years. In particular, if a goal of recent reforms has been to make deep and lasting cuts to prison spending by reducing the prison population, have states who have witnessed the desired downward shift in prison size also witnessed it in spending? To answer this question, researchers at the Vera Institute of Justice (Vera) developed a survey to measure changes in state prison population and expenditures between 2010 and 2015, and conducted follow-up interviews with state prison budget officials to better understand spending and population trends. Vera's study confirms that prisons remain an expensive enterprise, despite the success of many states - including Michigan, New Jersey, New York, and South Carolina - in simultaneously reducing their prison populations while achieving budget savings. The first part of this report describes 2015 prison expenditures, identifying the main driver of corrections spending across responding states. The second half of the report then discusses how changes in prison populations during the study period, and other trends largely outside the control of departments of corrections have affected prison spending. What is clear is that increased spending is not inevitable, since nearly half of states have cut their spending on prisons between 2010 and 2015. But while one might expect that states with shrinking prison populations are uniformly spending less on prisons, or conversely that states with growing populations are spending more, Vera's findings paint a more complicated picture. Indeed, often there is no single reason that explains a rise or fall in spending, but a multitude of factors that push and pull expenditures in different directions. Details: New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2017. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 25, 2017 at: https://storage.googleapis.com/vera-web-assets/downloads/Publications/price-of-prisons-2015-state-spending-trends/legacy_downloads/the-price-of-prisons-2015-state-spending-trends.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://storage.googleapis.com/vera-web-assets/downloads/Publications/price-of-prisons-2015-state-spending-trends/legacy_downloads/the-price-of-prisons-2015-state-spending-trends.pdf Shelf Number: 145794 Keywords: Costs of Corrections Costs of Criminal Justice Criminal Justice Expenditures Mass Incarceration Prisons

Author: Wheller, Levin Title: 'What works' in organisational change and business improvement? A Rapid Evidence Assessment Summary: The police service is currently facing a considerable challenge: to maintain service delivery in the light of substantial budget cuts. The service needs to be able to respond flexibly to adapt to the economic climate. Many forces are adopting business improvement techniques to examine current practices and explore where there may be scope to change processes to release savings. In some cases this requires large scale organisational change, shifting from operating in a culture where resources were plentiful and financial management was the preserve of headquarters staff, to one where they are scarce, tightly controlled and all staff are being asked to take some responsibility for efficiency savings. The NPIA Research Analysis and Information Unit (RAI) were commissioned to establish what is known about successful organisational change and business improvement to support the changes forces are being asked to make and inform NPIA programme activity in this area. This paper presents the methods used and cumulative findings of two Rapid Evidence Assessments (REAs) designed to examine what is known about effective organisational change and business improvement practices. A summary paper presenting key findings from these REAs and implications for practice is available here (summary report). Practitioners may also find it useful to look at the Continuous Improvement Self-Assessment Matrix (CI-SAM) which was developed based on findings from the REAs and workshops with practitioners. The matrix describes the elements necessary to achieve continuous improvement, together with a clear indication of the types of behaviours that should be in place in order to achieve higher levels of organisational performance and development. The first REA was conducted within a very tight timescale and was limited to systematic review evidence in order to meet time constraints. From 797 references identified by the searches, this 'review of reviews' identified 5 relevant papers which together cover a limited pool of robust experimental studies. In response to the lack of experimental evidence on this subject RAI carried out a second REA, this time relaxing the inclusion criteria to include individual evaluative studies with a minimum of a before and after measure. The second REA was conducted over a two-month period, following systematic principles, but is not exhaustive and is likely to be biased towards published sources rather than grey (unpublished) literature. The time constraints inevitably resulted in a tightly restricted scope, limited to published evidence for which electronic abstracts were available and contained within databases held by the National Police Library or obtainable from the British Library by the cut off date. The REA only covered papers published in the last twenty years, resulting in a risk that any older 'classic' studies of organisational change or business improvement may not be included. Over 11,000 references were identified by the initial searches for the second REA, and after sifting these abstracts, 178 full papers were requested. Of these, 134 were received by the cut off date. Further review of these papers found only 36 papers met the inclusion criteria (representing 0.3% of initial abstracts identified, and 27% of papers received). This paper draws together the findings from both REAs and is therefore based on a total of 41 papers, 5 studies identified in the first 'review of review' together with 36 papers from the second REA. Details: Ryton-on-Dunsmore, UK: National Policing Improvement Agency, 2012. 79p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 1, 2017 at: http://whatworks.college.police.uk/Research/Documents/What_works_organisational_change_business_improvement_-_full_report.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://whatworks.college.police.uk/Research/Documents/What_works_organisational_change_business_improvement_-_full_report.pdf Shelf Number: 146493 Keywords: Costs of Criminal Justice Costs of Policing Police Administration Police Reform Policing

Author: Yoshimoto, Julia Title: Unlocking Measure 57 Summary: Oregon is now facing the unfortunate results of having overlooked its justice-involved women for too long during the era of mass incarceration. Over the past twenty years, the incarceration rate of women in Oregon has tripled, despite Oregon's crime rate being at 30- year lows and the arrest rate for women having decreased in the last two decades by 36-40%. Oregon's only women's prison, Coffee Creek Correctional Facility (CCCF), is struggling to operate safely under the pressure of housing 1285 women. Its built capacity, or the number for which it is truly intended, is 1253 women, and its threshold capacity using emergency beds is 1280. Legislators must now grapple with the decision to open a second women's prison, with estimated costs of approximately $18 million dollars for the first biennium. This proposed expenditure comes at a time when the state faces a $1.7 billion budget shortfall. Although these are challenging circumstances indeed, legislators can choose to view the 2017 legislative session as an opportunity for real criminal justice reform. It is possible to safely, economically, and more justly reduce the women's prison population for the long term and avoid opening another prison. To achieve this goal, the legislature should repeal Ballot Measure 57 (M57) which was first enacted on January 1, 2009. M57, in part, created mandatory minimum prison sentences for non-violent property offenses, the type of crime for which nearly half the women at CCCF have been convicted. In 2016, 47% of prison intakes at CCCF were for property crimes. Three of the four most common offenses, comprising nearly 31% of all women intakes were theft in the first degree, identity theft, and unauthorized use of a vehicle. Mandatory minimum sentences take away judicial discretion and shift more power to prosecutors, who already hold significant sway in the criminal justice system. They have nearly unrestricted and opaque discretion to charge crimes in ways that trigger overly punitive and disproportionate sentences Details: Portland, OR: Oregon Justice Resource Center, 2017. 18p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 18, 2017 at: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/56dc86d8f699bb4be006b32c/t/58cc51f0bebafb2e3999f31d/1489785332987/Unlocking+M57+March+2017.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/56dc86d8f699bb4be006b32c/t/58cc51f0bebafb2e3999f31d/1489785332987/Unlocking+M57+March+2017.pdf Shelf Number: 147385 Keywords: Costs of Corrections Costs of Criminal Justice Female Inmates Female Offenders Female Prisoners Property Crimes

Author: Pew Charitable Trusts Title: Prison Time Surges for Federal Inmates: Average period of confinement doubles, costing taxpayers $2.7 billion a year Summary: The average length of time served by federal inmates more than doubled from 1988 to 2012, rising from 17.9 to 37.5 months. Across all six major categories of federal crime - violent, property, drug, public order, weapon, and immigration offenses - imprisonment periods increased significantly. For drug offenders, who make up roughly half of the federal prison population, time served leapt from less than two years to nearly five. Mandatory minimum sentencing laws, the elimination of parole, and other policy choices helped drive this growth, which cost taxpayers an estimated $2.7 billion in 2012 alone. Despite these expenditures, research shows that longer prison terms have had little or no effect as a crime prevention strategy - a finding supported by data showing that policymakers have safely reduced sentences for thousands of federal offenders in recent years. Details: Washington, DC: Pew Charitable Trusts, 2015. 8p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 25, 2017 at: http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/assets/2015/11/prison_time_surges_for_federal_inmates.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/assets/2015/11/prison_time_surges_for_federal_inmates.pdf Shelf Number: 147437 Keywords: Costs of Corrections Costs of Criminal Justice Federal Inmates Federal Prisons Inmates Prisoners Sentencing

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: Bedard, Mathieu Title: Private Reinforcements for Public Police Forces? Summary: Policing costs have been rising for 25 years in Canada, while the number of criminal incidents per officer has fallen. These growing costs can be explained in part by an increase in the number of police officers, which has certainly contributed to a reduction in the crime rate, but also by the fact that those officers perform a growing number of tasks. In order to contain these rising costs while ensuring the same quality and scope of public safety services, the work of police officers should be refocused on their essential duties, and other categories of personnel should be employed wherever possible. Some efforts have already been made in this direction, among other things by entrusting police cadets with certain foot patrol or bicycle duties, and by getting them to help during outdoor events. The next step in controlling costs is to call on private security companies, which can under certain circumstances supply qualified personnel who are less expensive than police officers. Details: Montreal: Montreal Economic Institute , 2015. 4p. Source: Internet Resource: Economic Notes: Accessed September 27, 2017 at: http://www.iedm.org/files/note0115_en.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Canada URL: http://www.iedm.org/files/note0115_en.pdf Shelf Number: 147478 Keywords: Costs of Criminal Justice Private Police Private Security Privatization Security Officers

Author: Montgomery, Ruth Title: The Use of Private Security Services for Policing Summary: Over a decade ago, the Law Reform Commission of Canada (2002) opened a dialogue on the trend in the growth of private policing in Canada. A continued rise in police expenditures, combined with economic downturns, have contributed to pressure being placed on police services around the world to become more effective and efficient. This has resulted in a growing interest in discussing the value of privatizing or civilianizing functions of public police services (Public Safety Canada, 2012). This study examines the intersections between private security and public policing, with an emphasis on those functions that private security are now performing that have traditionally been performed by the public police, as well as cooperative efforts between public police and private security. METHOD The research included a literature review of the roles and responsibilities of private security and public police in the United Kingdom, the United States of America, Australia, New Zealand and Canada, a review of relevant Canadian legislation, and interviews with key individuals in Canadian government, private security, policing, and police governance organizations. FINDINGS There is the potential for private security to play an important role in community safety and addressing issues of crime and social disorder. Research evidence as to the effectiveness of police-private security initiatives in preventing crime and reducing disorder is mixed. A key factor in the success of these initiatives is management; that is, ensuring there is open communication among the parties, the integrity of the initiative, effective supervision of police and private security officers, and protocols for evaluation. In all of the jurisdictions reviewed, a major challenge is that the core functions of the police have not been defined. This makes it difficult to identify the parameters of the role and responsibilities of the public police, and to determine the niche for private security, working in partnership either with the police, or in an outsourcing or privatization arrangement. There are a number of key factors that are important to the success of police-private security partnerships: 1) a common interest in reducing a specific crime or crime set; 2) effective leadership, with personnel with authority from each partner organization driving participation; 3) mutual respect; 4) information sharing based on high levels of trust in confidentiality; 5) formal meetings of consultation and communication; and, 6) a willingness to experiment and consider all ideas. These processes seem to be in their infancy in Canada. The tiered policing system in Alberta is perhaps the best current example of a system-wide framework for police-private security collaboration. Ideally, police-private security partnerships would be a component of strategic plans that identify areas where collaboration between public police and other groups in the community can be undertaken, monitored, and evaluated. Cost should be one of only several metrics that are used to evaluate the effectiveness of these collaborative partnerships and of outsourcing. Given the unique role of the police in society, other metrics including the legitimacy of the police, the community's view of the various initiatives, and the sustainability of collaborative partnerships must be examined. It is evident that the size and scope of activities of new private security services is expanding. Despite this, there are few, if any, protocols in place to ensure communication and information sharing between these units, many of which are staffed by ex-police and security officers, and the public police. Similarly, there is no information on the size of these units, their budgets, and their activities. At present, these firms seem to inhabit a parallel universe to both public police and traditional private security firms. It is often assumed that privatizing and outsourcing traditional police tasks will result in reductions in the numbers of sworn police officers. Public police-private security collaboration may, on the other hand, result in innovative initiatives that previously did not exist. Little attention has been given to the legal framework within which private security firms operate. There has been little attention given to developing compliance standards and structures for a regulatory regimen. There is also considerable variability across jurisdictions in provisions for enforcement where regulations do exist. Most often, sanctions involve revoking operating licenses. In the absence of a national, provincial or territorial strategic plan for private security, there has also been a failure to develop mechanisms to ensure effective oversight of private security. This has a number of consequences, including an inability to ensure that private security companies are not vulnerable to organized crime, unethical and/or illegal behaviour. The movement to expand the role of private security is occurring in the absence of empirical research studies that would reveal the nature and extent of cost savings, the effectiveness, and the sustainability of policeprivate sector partnerships, outsourcing, and privatization. Cost savings are most often assumed rather than demonstrated. Within the larger context of the economics of policing, there is no published data on the relative cost-effectiveness of private versus public police. The absence of evaluation research on private policing in Canada precludes an informed discussion on proposals for expanding the activities of private policing companies. As well, it is difficult to assess the proposals that are made by private security companies to assume responsibilities currently managed by public police, or to evaluate the effectiveness of the strategies that are being proposed by private security firms. There is a need to know more about what private security personnel are doing, the rationale for their activities, and whether these rationales are supported by empirical data. There is no information on the ethics of private security, the values of private security officers, and the private security subculture - all key facets in the study of public police. Details: Ottawa: Public Safety Canada, 2015. 100p. Source: Internet Resource: Research Report: 2015-R041: Accessed October 17, 2017 at: https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/2015-R041/2015-R041-en.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Canada URL: https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/2015-R041/2015-R041-en.pdf Shelf Number: 147706 Keywords: Costs of Criminal Justice Partnerships Policing Private Policing Private Security Privatization Security Officers

Author: Wilson, Jeremy M. Title: Pathways to Consolidation: Taking Stock of Transitions to Alternative Models of Police Service Summary: The economic recession of 2008-09 and its aftermath had a devastating impact on local policing . Adding to nearly 28,000 furloughed officers, at least 40,000 law enforcement positions were lost in 2011 through either layoffs or defunding of vacated positions (Office of Community Oriented Policing Services 2011) . In 2013, most police agencies reported having experienced budget cuts in the prior year, and 40 percent anticipated cuts in the coming one (Police Executive Research Forum 2013) . More generally, five years after the downturn, most municipal governments had not returned to their prior revenue and employment levels (House 2013) . Such losses of capacity have produced enormous changes in the nature of police service delivery . The projected nature of these changes include greater use of technology as a force multiplier, greater use of civilians (both as employees and volunteers), alternative responses to nonemergency radio calls, and consolidation of both services and entire agencies (Cohen and Spence 2012; Wilson and Weiss 2012) . It is within this last category that consideration of alternative service-delivery models occurs . Public-safety costs consume significant portions of the general-fund budget for local governments . Managing these costs is an ongoing challenge for local administrators . To this end, some administrators have introduced or even embraced the concept of service consolidation . There are several forms that these mergers can take, but all typically involve integrating distinct organizations into a single entity . Merging police organizations, in particular, is a complex process . Organizations have their own traditions, history, style, policy, procedures, structure, pension and benefits systems, culture, and so on . Failure to recognize these characteristics can make the consolidation even more challenging . Even when a proposed consolidation makes infinitely good sense from an efficiency or operational perspective, its ultimate success may lie with the skill that is exhibited when the organizations and people are united . This report seeks to shed light on the implementation of various forms of consolidation, particularly emphasizing the transition process . The goal is to provide police administrators, local decision makers, and other stakeholders an overview that will help inform discussions about consolidation in their communities. Details: Washington, DC: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. 2015. 40p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 5, 2017 at: http://policeconsolidation.msu.edu/sites/default/files/PathwaysToConsolidationAlternativeModels.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://policeconsolidation.msu.edu/sites/default/files/PathwaysToConsolidationAlternativeModels.pdf Shelf Number: 148706 Keywords: Costs of Criminal Justice Police Administration Police Consolidation Policing

Author: Shames, Alison Title: Common Ground: How all of Oregon Contributes to Criminal Justice Reform Summary: After Oregon's prison population grew 50 percent over the span of twelve years (2000 to 2012), Governor John Kitzhaber reconvened and expanded the state's Commission on Public Safety to examine the drivers of Oregon's prison population and recommend fiscally responsible, evidence-based policy options to minimize anticipated growth. This brief describes how the state of Oregon worked together with its local community and government partners to address its growing prison population. It is the final brief in a series of three that focuses on the Justice Reinvestment Initiative (JRI)-an initiative funded by the U.S. Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), in partnership with the Pew Charitable Trusts. JRI is a data-driven approach to improve public safety, examine corrections and related criminal justice spending, manage and allocate criminal justice populations in a more cost-effective manner, and reinvest savings in strategies that can hold system-involved people accountable, decrease crime, and strengthen neighborhoods. At least 30 states have engaged in this process. By working together at state and local levels, Oregon's successful bid to lower its prison population and the associated costs can serve as a model for other jurisdictions seeking similar solutions. Details: New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2016. 8p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 8, 2017 at: https://storage.googleapis.com/vera-web-assets/downloads/Publications/common-ground-how-all-of-oregon-contributes-to-criminal-justice-reform/legacy_downloads/common-ground-oregon-criminal-justice-reform-web-updated.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://storage.googleapis.com/vera-web-assets/downloads/Publications/common-ground-how-all-of-oregon-contributes-to-criminal-justice-reform/legacy_downloads/common-ground-oregon-criminal-justice-reform-web-updated.pdf Shelf Number: 148777 Keywords: Collaboration Costs of Criminal Justice Criminal Justice Expenditures Criminal Justice Reform Justice Reinvestment Mass Incarceration Partnerships Prisons

Author: Ford, Matt Title: Trends in criminal justice spending, staffing and populations Summary: This UK Justice Policy Review Focus looks at trends in key data about the criminal justice systems in each jurisdiction of the UK. It covers the main criminal justice institutions of the police, courts, probation and prison. The aim is to provide reliable, accessible data on trends in areas such as criminal justice spending, staffing, and the populations subject to criminal justice sanctions. It will be useful to policy makers, practitioners, researchers and anyone else with an interest in the criminal justice system in the UK. How to understand the data The data we provide in this briefing gives a rough sense of the overall 'size' of the criminal justice system, in terms of funding, workforce and people processed by criminal justice institutions. Trends in these areas will be affected by a variety of complex interrelated factors, both within the criminal justice system and without. For instance, the number of people prosecuted in the courts will in part depend on the number of police officers available to arrest people in the first place, which in turn will depend on police budgets. On the other hand, the number of people arrested will depend, amongst other things, on demographic factors such as the size of the specific populations targeted by the police. Where possible we present data covering the period from 2005-2006 to 2015-2016 to get a meaningful understanding of current trends. The financial year 2015-2016 is the most recent year for which comparable data for each jurisdiction is available. All data are taken from official government sources. Details: London: Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, 2017. 12p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 27, 2018 at: https://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/sites/crimeandjustice.org.uk/files/Trends%20in%20criminal%20justice%20spending%2C%20staffing%20and%20populations%2C%20Dec%202017.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/sites/crimeandjustice.org.uk/files/Trends%20in%20criminal%20justice%20spending%2C%20staffing%20and%20populations%2C%20Dec%202017.pdf Shelf Number: 149276 Keywords: Costs of Criminal Justice Criminal Justice Expenditures Criminal Justice Systems

Author: Chapman, Jason E. Title: Quasi-Experimental Evaluation of Reentry Programs in Washington and Linn Counties Summary: Justice reinvestment is a data-driven approach to improve public safety, examine corrections and related criminal justice spending, manage and allocate criminal justice populations in a more costeffective manner, and reinvest savings in strategies that can hold offenders accountable, decrease recidivism, and strengthen neighborhoods. In 2010, the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) launched the Justice Reinvestment Initiative (JRI), with funding appropriated by the U.S. Congress in recognition of earlier successes of justice reinvestment efforts. JRI provides technical assistance to states and localities as they collect and analyze data on drivers of criminal justice populations, identify and implement changes to increase efficiencies, and measure the fiscal and public safety impacts of those changes. Oregon is one of several JRI-involved states. In Oregon, JRI-related activities were formalized in 2013 with the passage of HB 3194. Among other things, this bill established a grant program to strengthen local public safety capacity, which is overseen by the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission (CJC). In the 2015 legislative session, the Oregon legislature approved 38.7 million dollars for the CJC to grant to counties for JRI-related programs. The law includes a provision that 3% of these monies be used for rigorous evaluations of the JRI programs that each county adopted. The CJC has identified three promising areas to target for JRI program evaluation efforts; Reentry programs represent one of those three targeted areas. Thus far, although considerable research exists on Reentry programs, a clear set of evidence-based best practices has yet to emerge due to the diversity of Reentry programming features. Reentry programs are widely considered to be effective at reducing recidivism and prison usage. Ndrecka conducted a meta-analysis of Reentry programs nationwide. The study synthesized results from 53 independent evaluations of Reentry programs and revealed an overall effect size of .06, meaning that on average, these programs reduce recidivism by 6%. Moderator analyses indicated that Reentry programs are more effective when services begin while offenders are still incarcerated and continue through their release to the community, versus being limited to just pre- or post-prison release. Considering these findings, the CJC sought to determine the effectiveness of Reentry programs funded by Justice Reinvestment in Oregon, to inform future funding decisions and to further the body of criminal justice knowledge. Researchers at the Oregon Social Learning Center (OSLC) submitted a proposal and were selected to conduct this research on Reentry programs. Specifically, OSLC Investigators conducted a quasi-experimental study of the Reentry programs in Washington and Linn Counties. These counties were chosen by the CJC for evaluation because they implement similar Reentry services and because they directed their JRI dollars toward funding their Reentry programs. Further, and as described next, their services span pre- and post-prison release, consistent with evidence on "what works" from the above-mentioned meta-analysis. In general, Reentry programs are designed to facilitate an offender's release from prison and successful integration back into the community. Neither Washington nor Linn County have a fully detailed manual for their Reentry programs, but they were able to describe the components they generally provide. Of note, the program provided in each county is structured such that every offender receives a few key components, but some components are provided on an as-needed basis. - Services begin with an in-person "Reach-In" meeting with offenders prior to their release from prison: -- The Reach-In is a 30-60 minute in-person visit with the offender that happens after Community Corrections receives a prison release plan. The Reach-In tends to happen 90 days prior to prison release. -- During this Reach-In, a Reentry specialist employed by Community Corrections assesses each offender's needs and develops an individualized post-release case plan. -- A key goal of the Reach-In is to help alleviate the offender's anxiety about being released and about working with their Community Corrections officer post-release.- Other targets of the Reach-In may include planning for housing, basic needs, treatment needs, employment/education, transportation, or other needs the offender anticipates facing post-release. - Mentoring services are frequently provided to the offender, although there are slight differences across Washington and Linn Counties. - In Washington, all offenders are provided mentoring services. In Linn, all female offenders are provided mentoring, while male offenders are provided mentoring services whenever mentors are available. - Mentoring begins with one to four mentoring sessions occurring prior to prison release and generally continues for at least three months post-release. - Mentors are sometimes contracted directly by Community Corrections and are sometimes provided by community organizations, treatment providers, or volunteer groups. - The mentor communicates directly with the Community Corrections officer, either through individual communication or at weekly "staffing" meetings between the officer, treatment provider, and mentor. - A Community Corrections officer provides enhanced supervision post-release. Both Washington and Linn Counties incorporate a Motivational Interviewing approach into their supervision. They also develop holistic supervision plans that aim to identify an offender's goals, address barriers to these goals, and facilitate prosocial thinking. The officer may provide assistance with housing, basic needs, treatment needs, employment/education, transportation, or other needs that arise for the offender, in an effort to help the offender avoid re-engaging in criminal activity. - Offenders may receive a range of supportive services for several months following release from prison: -- When needed, offenders receive rapid access to comprehensive substance abuse and/or mental health treatment. Treatment providers meet regularly with the offender's Community Corrections officer to coordinate services. -- When needed, offenders receive access to short-term housing services, including sober living homes (i.e., group homes for people who are recovering from addiction). -- Offenders may receive assistance from an employment specialist who works directly with Community Corrections and is specialized in assisting offenders to find employment. A quasi-experimental study was conducted to evaluate the impact of the Reentry programs in Washington and Linn Counties. The primary outcome for this analysis was recidivism as defined in Oregon (i.e., arrest, conviction, or incarceration for a new crime within 3 years of prison release). Reentry services have been provided in Washington and Linn Counties since approximately 2007, but when JRI funding became available, Washington and Linn Counties decided to use the JRI funding to pay for the costs of their Reentry programs. Thus, although the JRI funding was not available until later, the data since 2007 could be included in the evaluation to help expand the number of years with eligible data (i.e., offenders who had 3 years post-release data). In addition, data prior to 2007 were utilized as a comparison window, or "baseline phase" that was the time period prior to the Counties' Reentry programs beginning. The CJC provided OSLC investigators with the recidivism data, and the current report summarizes the results of the Reentry program evaluation. Details: Eugene, OR: Oregon Social Learning Center, 2017. 59p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 8, 2018 at: http://www.oslcdevelopments.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Quasi-Experimental-Evaluation-of-Reentry-Programs-in-Washington-and-Linn-Counties-Final-Report.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://www.oslcdevelopments.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Quasi-Experimental-Evaluation-of-Reentry-Programs-in-Washington-and-Linn-Counties-Final-Report.pdf Shelf Number: 149396 Keywords: Costs of Criminal Justice Justice Reinvestment Mentoring Programs Prisoner Reentry Reentry Programs

Author: Washburn, Maureen Title: Costs Rise Amid Falling Populations at California's Division of Juvenile Justice Summary: A fact sheet from the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice finds that state spending at California's state youth correctional system, the Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ), continues to rise despite continued reductions in its youth population. For the 2018-19 fiscal year, the Governor's Budget proposes expanding DJJ to a larger population of young adults, accompanied by a budget increase of nearly $4 million. The fact sheet finds: State youth correctional facilities will cost taxpayers a record high of $317,771 per youth in FY 2017-18. Since 2011, DJJ has reported a 39% decrease in its population, resulting in facilities that are operating at just 37% of their design capacity. As a result, per capita costs at DJJ have climbed each year since FY 2012-13. The DJJ budget has increased for three consecutive years, despite a downward trend in population. The budget proposal to expand DJJ in FY 2018-19 would offset the division's years-long population declines and increase its budget to over $200 million. Counties reimburse a small share of DJJ costs and vary widely in their reliance on the system. The 19 counties with the highest DJJ commitment rates are 29 times more likely, on average, to place a young person at DJJ compared to the state's 20 lowest committing counties. The result is a lopsided fiscal burden: counties with low DJJ commitment rates, such as Santa Clara or San Diego, subsidize the cost of counties with higher rates. Details: Sacramento: Center for Juvenile and Criminal Justice, 2018. 5p. Source: Internet Resource: Fact Sheet: Accessed March 12, 2018 at: http://www.cjcj.org/uploads/cjcj/documents/costs_rise_amid_falling_populations_at_californias_division_of_juvenile_justice.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: http://www.cjcj.org/uploads/cjcj/documents/costs_rise_amid_falling_populations_at_californias_division_of_juvenile_justice.pdf Shelf Number: 149432 Keywords: Costs of Corrections Costs of Criminal Justice Costs of Juvenile Justice Criminal Justice Expenditures Juvenile Justice Systems

Author: San Francisco Child Abuse Prevention Center Title: The Economics of Child Abuse: A Study of San Francisco Summary: "The Economics of Child Abuse: A Study of San Francisco" is a first-of-its-kind report quantifying the economic cost of child abuse to the San Francisco community. The report asses community risk factors that make families of the city vulnerable to abuse. It also discusses protective factors which keep families safe and strong. Key Findings -- Estimated lifetime cost per victim of child abuse in San Francisco is $400,533 - The total estimated costs associated with one year of substantiated cases of child abuse in San Francisco is $301.6 million. - Given significant under-reporting of child abuse, the total economic cost could be as high as $5.6 billion. - San Francisco has community risk factors that make its residents more susceptible to abuse, including: impact of economic instability and homelessness, emigration and immigration, low number of families and young children. - Strengthening protective factors - parental resilience, social connections, concrete support in times of need, knowledge of parenting, and social / emotional competence of children - is critical to preventing child abuse. Details: San Francisco: The Child Abuse Prevention Center, and the Haas School of Business at University of California, Berkeley, 2017. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: accessed March 14, 2018 at: https://safeandsound.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/economicsofabuse_report_sfcapc1.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://safeandsound.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/economicsofabuse_report_sfcapc1.pdf Shelf Number: 149468 Keywords: Child Abuse and Neglect Child Protection Costs of Crime Costs of Criminal Justice Economics of Crime Health Care

Author: Kneen, Hannah Title: An exploratory estimate of the economic cost of Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic net overrepresentation in the Criminal Justice System in 2015 Summary: In January 2016, the former Prime Minister David Cameron invited David Lammy MP to lead a review of the CJS in England and Wales to investigate evidence of possible bias against defendants who are Black, Asian or another ethnic minority1. The Lammy Review considers the treatment and outcomes of Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) individuals in the CJS, addressing issues arising from CPS charge onwards, including the court system, prisons, youth custody and rehabilitation in the community. To explore the estimated economic cost associated with the net overrepresentation of BAME individuals in the Criminal Justice System (CJS) post-charge in 2015. This short summary of economic analysis is intended to inform discussions around the wider Lammy Review and highlight particular areas of the CJS in 2015, where there was observed net overrepresentation of BAME defendants/offenders, relative to the general population. This analysis does not make recommendations regarding how the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) could change behaviour or make policy changes to realise estimated savings. Key findings - The estimated economic cost to the CJS of net overrepresentation of BAME youths and adults in 2015 is approximately L309m. This estimate covers representation at the courts, prisons and probation stages. - Estimated cost associated with the courts stage is $50m ($3m attributable to youths and L47m attributable to adults). For triable either way offences this includes youths and adults tried in the youth/magistrates' courts, and Crown Court, and committed for sentence to the Crown Court. For indictable only offences, this includes youths and adults tried and/or sentenced in the Crown Court. Relevant legal aid representation is included in this estimate for the aforementioned court activities. - Estimated cost associated with the prisons stage is L234m (L26m attributable to youths and $208m attributable to adults). This includes the youth secure custodial estate population (aged 10-17) in Young Offender Institutions (YOIs), Secure Training Centres (STCs) and Secure Children's Homes (SCHs). The cost also includes BAME overrepresentation of adults aged 18+ in the prison population. - Estimated cost associated with the probation stage is L25m (all attributable to adults). This includes the pre-sentence assessments conducted by the National Probation Service (NPS) and the probation services provided to high risk offenders by the NPS. Probation costs have not been calculated for youths or for adult offenders managed by Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs). Details: London: Ministry of Justice, 2017. 9p. Source: Internet Resource: Analytical Summary: Accessed March 19, 2018 at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/642551/david-lammy-economic-paper-short-summary.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/642551/david-lammy-economic-paper-short-summary.pdf Shelf Number: 149518 Keywords: Costs of Criminal Justice Economic Analysis Ethnic Groups Juvenile Offenders Minority Groups Racial Disparities

Author: O'Brien, Matthew Title: The Fiscal Burden of Illegal immigration on United States Taxpayers (2017) Summary: A continually growing population of illegal aliens, along with the federal government's inefective eforts to secure our borders, present signifcant national security and public safety threats to the United States. Tey also have a severely negative impact on the nation's taxpayers at the local, state, and national levels. Illegal immigration costs Americans billions of dollars each year. Illegal aliens are net consumers of taxpayer-funded services and the limited taxes paid by some segments of the illegal alien population are, in no way, significant enough to offset the growing financial burdens imposed on U.S. taxpayers by massive numbers of uninvited guests. Political and judicial efforts to accord illegal aliens the same government benefits available to U.S. citizens (e.g., the Supreme Court's holding in Plyler v. Doe guaranteeing illegal alien children a free public education, at taxpayer expense) have increasingly stressed federal, state and local budgets - to the detriment of Americans, particularly the poor, elderly, and disabled. Te impact on public school systems1 and criminal justice institutions has been particularly harsh. And the situation has been greatly exacerbated by government refusal to implement measures aimed at deterring, detecting and prosecuting illegal aliens who commit fraud to obtain benefits and/or to avoid deportation following a criminal conviction. Tis study examines the fiscal impact of illegal aliens as reflected in both federal and state budgets. It does not address the question of whether unchecked mass migration is a net boon to the United States. Most studies that extol the many benefits that allegedly accrue from illegal immigration suffer from a number of key problems: - Unreasonable assumptions about who is an illegal alien. Most relevant data sets don't clearly distinguish who is an illegal alien and who isn't. Studies that wish to portray illegal immigration in a favorable light frequently rely on narrow definition of "illegal alien" to skew data in their favor. - Failure to examine whether the same, or even more significant, benefits would be achieved by flling vacant jobs, at market wages, with American employees. - Refusal to acknowledge that there are many activities which create profit but remain illegal because of their negative effects on society as a whole. Te exploitation of illegal alien labor to increase the profits of unscrupulous employers falls squarely into this category. - A deceptive and inappropriate focus on the amount of taxes remitted by illegal aliens, rather than the taxes actually paid by illegal aliens. Te American system of taxation returns a signifcant portion of monies paid by people earning low incomes. As a result, most illegal aliens receive a refund of all tax payments along with additional net income from the federal government, in the form of tax credits. - Erroneous claims that illegal aliens subsidize federal benefit programs through un-refunded tax payments remitted by illegal aliens who are unable collect a return. Most illegal aliens are able to file a tax return using an Individual Tax Identification Number (ITIN). In addition, neither the states or the federal government have any data indicating how much of the pool of unclaimed tax refunds is attributable to illegal aliens versus deceased taxpayers, foreign investors, etc. Even in the absence of any complex studies, basic mathematics make it self-evident that illegal aliens are a drain on the U.S. economy. For example, in its report Te Sinking Lifeboat: Uncontrolled Immigration and the U.S. Health Care System in 2009, FAIR found that, in some hospitals, as many as two-thirds of total operating costs are attributable to uncompensated care for illegal aliens.3 If those costs are being borne by American taxpayers, rather than the illegal aliens who received medical treatment, then those illegal aliens are consuming more services than they pay for, and the costs of providing those services are never recouped. Tat makes them a net drain on the economy. A careful examination of the federal budget shows an annual outlay of approximately $46 billion for expenses related to illegal immigration. A review of state budgets indicates even greater local costs, estimated at $89 billion annually. This means that the overall costs attributable to illegal aliens totals an annual bill of $135 billion. Tat equates to over $8,000 per illegal alien and dependent, per year. Some illegal aliens do pay certain taxes. However, employers usually hire illegal aliens to obtain cheap labor at wages well below the market rate for a given area. Many of those employers pay illegal aliens "under-the-table" and do not deduct payroll taxes. Due to their lack of immigration status, illegal aliens are unlikely to report their income to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Therefore, state and local governments, as well as the federal government, are not collecting enough taxes from illegal aliens to cover the costs of the services they consume. We estimate that illegal aliens actually pay just under $19 billion in combined state, local, and federal taxes. Tat means that the United States recoups only about 14 percent of the amount expended annually on illegal aliens. If the same jobs held by illegal aliens were fled by legal workers, at the prevailing market wage, it may safely be presumed that federal, state and local governments would receive higher tax payments. FAIR firmly believes that the costs of illegal immigration (and massive legal immigration) significantly outweigh any perceived benefit. Accordingly, this study focuses only on calculating the overall costs of illegal immigration. Details: Washington, DC: Federation for American Immigration Reform, 2017. 72p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 23, 2018 at: https://fairus.org/sites/default/files/2017-09/Fiscal-Burden-of-Illegal-Immigration-2017.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://fairus.org/sites/default/files/2017-09/Fiscal-Burden-of-Illegal-Immigration-2017.pdf Shelf Number: 149551 Keywords: Cost Analysis Costs of Criminal Justice Illegal Immigrants Illegal Immigration Immigration

Author: U.S. Government Accountability Office Title: Bureau of Prisons: Methods for Cost Estimation Largely Reflect Best Practices, but Quantifying Risks Would Enhance Decision Making Summary: Why GAO Did This Study Highlights Accountability Integrity Reliability November 2009 BUREAU OF PRISONS Methods for Cost Estimation Largely Reflect Best Practices, but Quantifying Risks Would Enhance Highlights of GAO-10-94, a report to Decision Making congressional committees The Department of Justice's (DOJ) Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) is responsible for the custody and care of about 209,000 federal inmates-a population which has grown by 44 percent over the last decade. In fiscal years 2008 and 2009, the President requested additional funding for BOP because costs for key operations were at risk of exceeding appropriated funding levels. GAO was congressionally directed to examine (1) how BOP estimates costs when developing its annual budget request to DOJ; (2) the extent to which BOP's methods for estimating costs follow established best practices; and (3) the extent to which BOP's costs for key operations exceeded requested funding levels identified in the President's budget in recent years, and how this has affected BOP's ability to manage its growing inmate population. In conducting our work, GAO analyzed BOP budget documents, interviewed BOP and DOJ officials, and compared BOP's cost estimation documentation to criteria in GAO's Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide. What GAO Recommends GAO recommends that BOP (1) conduct an uncertainty analysis quantifying the extent to which its operational costs could vary due to changes in key cost assumptions and submit the results, along with budget documentation, to DOJ; and (2) improve documentation of calculations used to estimate its costs. BOP agreed with GAO's recommendations. Details: Washington, DC: GAO, 2009. 71p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 17, 2018 at: https://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1094.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: https://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1094.pdf Shelf Number: 117109 Keywords: Costs of Corrections Costs of Criminal Justice Costs of Prison Federal Bureau of Prisons

Author: Willis, Matthew Title: Justice reinvestment in Australia: A review of the literature Summary: Justice reinvestment (JR) is an emerging field in the Australian criminal justice landscape. It is a data-driven approach to reducing criminal justice system expenditure and improving criminal justice system outcomes through reductions in imprisonment and offending. JR is a comprehensive strategy that employs targeted, evidence-based interventions to achieve cost savings which can be reinvested into delivering further improvements in social and criminal justice outcomes. However, there is no single definition of JR, and the effective development and implementation of JR strategies involve an evidence-based understanding of the local contexts, circumstances and needs that impact on involvement in the criminal justice system. JR has gained a great deal of support in Australia, with a number of JR strategies in operation or under development. As it has emerged in Australia, JR has taken on a wider meaning than has been applied in the US. While the focus of JR in the United States (US) and the United Kingdom (UK) has been about reducing the costs of incarceration, in Australia a broader application of JR is being developed, with states and territories also examining how to reduce crime and strengthen communities. In Australia, JR is being described as a way of addressing key justice problems including the over-representation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the justice system. As well as there being no single definition of JR, there have been a range of different approaches to its development and implementation. The criminal justice outcomes sought through JR can be achieved through approaches that include: - changes to policy and legislation that would otherwise tend to increase the likelihood of people being imprisoned; - improved treatment programs and models of supervision for individuals at the most risk of offending; - investing in neighbourhoods that house a disproportionately high number of offenders; - development of interventions based on locally identified needs and sound evidence; - improving drug addiction and mental health outcomes; and - engagement of interested and motivated supporters, including those providing financial and in-kind contributions for developing and implementing JR approaches. range of different financial approaches can be taken to facilitate JR strategies. Some models involve realizing savings from criminal justice interventions which are then reinvested to build and maintain those outcomes. Other approaches involve upfront investment from other sources, so that savings can be realized that are then used to finance a return on the initial investment. Under these approaches initial investment is procured through non-government sources like private companies or charitable institutions. Repayment of this initial investment by the government is linked to further investment, encouraging the use of strategies to achieve tangible benefits, such as demonstrated reductions in reoffending and prison population growth. JR has also contributed to the development of innovative approaches to financing; for example, social impact investment through mechanisms such as social impact bonds or Payment by Results arrangements. As a data-driven and evidence-based approach, JR relies on rigorous evaluation and monitoring of interventions and their outcomes. JR strategies must be underpinned by a framework of robust evaluation so that the impacts of interventions and resulting cost savings can be demonstrated and the results used to generate further savings and positive outcomes. In the US, JR has grown at a rapid rate since it was first conceived in the early 2000s, driven by the need to address the high incarceration and remand costs of the US criminal justice system. This has now grown into a large-scale body of funding, supported by the US Government as well as by large not-for-profit organisations. More than half of all US states now have JR programs in place, with many of these implemented in accordance with the frameworks established by the Justice Reinvestment Initiative, backed by the Bureau of Justice Administration. Reviews by key stakeholder organizations in the US give strong indications of JR having been successful in achieving actual or projected cost savings in several states (see Bureau of Justice Administration nd a; Council of State Governments Justice Center 2011b). Independent analysis has highlighted some issues with attribution of these savings to JR initiatives, but indicators of success remain and appear likely to continue to build over time. JR strategies adopted in the US have focused largely on reforms to criminal justice system practices and processes, backed by legislative change. Key areas for reform have included: - increased use of risk and needs assessment to more effectively match offenders with programs and services-particularly cognitive-behavioural and substance use treatment programs; - increasing the range of sentencing options available to courts; - improving the quality, extent and nature of supervision for offenders on probation and parole; and - changing responses to breached probation and parole conditions-for example, providing more non-custodial options and reducing the length of prison terms that can be imposed for breaches. The US adoption of JR has led to the creation of models, including financial models, to guide the stages of development and implementation. Development and implementation models have emphasised a number of crucial steps, including: - establishment of governance structures; - analysis and mapping; - development of options for cost savings through improved criminal justice and social outcomes; - quantification and reinvestment of savings; and - outcome and impact evaluations. JR has been positively received in Australia. The Commonwealth, as well as most if not all of the states and territories, have taken steps to explore the potential of JR strategies. In many cases these strategies have focused on the over-representation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the justice system, as well as changes to the youth justice system. In those jurisdictions that have generated greater progress in JR implementation, this has been achieved through the collaborative efforts of government, service providers, community representatives and academics. At the time of writing, separate community-led JR projects were well underway in the western New South Wales towns of Bourke and Cowra. The ACT had also taken substantial steps towards developing a JR strategy, including financial commitment through the Territory budget. JR is an emerging concept in Australia, and there remains considerable scope for the establishment of JR models and approaches that are adapted to Australian circumstances. In contrast to US models that have focused strongly on reforms within the criminal justice system, Australian approaches appear likely to include system reforms as well as a strong focus on localised social changes. As Australian iterations of JR emerge, they may well differ in some substantial ways from US models. While they are likely to retain the key principles of being data-driven, focused on cost savings and improved criminal justice outcomes, it also appears that the Australian application of JR aims for improved social outcomes. Details: Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology, 2018. 65p. Source: Internet Resource: Research Reports no. 9: Accessed May 14, 2018 at: https://aic.gov.au/publications/rr/rr09 Year: 2018 Country: Australia URL: https://aic.gov.au/publications/rr/rr09 Shelf Number: 150171 Keywords: Cost-Benefit Analysis Costs of Corrections Costs of Criminal Justice Criminal Justice Expenditures Evidence-Based Practices Justice Reinvestment

Author: Gluckman, Peter Title: Using evidence to build a better justice system: The challenge of rising prison costs Summary: 1. Crime, especially violent crime, hurts individuals and society. Both direct and indirect victims of crime may suffer untold consequences that can endure for years and can even affect next generations. Those who do not suffer personally may nonetheless acquire negative perceptions of people or places because of criminal activity. The net effect of such perceptions can change societal attitudes creating a more negative environment. This is a loss for everyone. These perceptions can be disproportionately magnified by advocacy groups, media and political agendas. 2. Policy responses are often viewed in binary terms: tough or soft on crime. This simplistic duality has long had political resonance, but its impact on our prison system is a major concern. The New Zealand prison population is increasing and is one of the highest in the OECD at a time when crime rates are actually decreasing. This can only be explained by the systemic and cumulative impact of successive policy decisions over time, often in response to public demand and political positioning. 3. Successive governments of different political orientations have supported a progressively retributive rather than a restorative approach to crime with unsupported claims that prisons can solve the problems of crime. As a result, the costs of prisons far exceed those justified by the need to protect the public. We keep imprisoning more people in response to dogma not data, responding to shifting policies and media panics, instead of evidence-based approaches to prevention, intervention, imprisonment and rehabilitation. This does not diminish the importance of incarceration for a subset of individuals so as to protect the public. 4. The strong evidence base related to what fuels the prison 'pipeline' suggests that prisons are extremely expensive training grounds for further offending, building offenders' criminal careers by teaching them criminal skills, damaging their employment, accommodation and family prospects, and compounding mental health and substance use issues. On release, even after a short period of imprisonment, for example on remand, offenders have been found to reintegrate poorly to the community. Furthermore, this does nothing to reassure victims that the risk of harm is being effectively managed by the justice system. 5. It is now well understood that prisons act as recruitment centres for gangs (especially for young offenders) and underpin the illegal drug trade. Imprisonment leaves those incarcerated with high rates of undiagnosed and untreated alcohol/drug addictions and mental illness. They have a negative impact on the next generation, given that a high percentage of people in prison are parents. These issues disproportionately affect Māori. 6. Other countries, such as Finland, have significantly reduced their incarceration rates without crime rates rising. There is strong scientific evidence for putting resources into crime prevention, early intervention (identifying and mitigating risk), and a smarter approach to rehabilitation and subsequent social inclusion for those already in the criminal-justice system - not for building more prisons. 7. To assist in such an approach, there must be adequate investment in piloting and evaluating early intervention and prevention initiatives. With leadership and knowledge, we can fundamentally transform the justice system, reduce victimisation and recidivism and make prisons only a part of a much more proactive and effective systemic response to a complex problem. Details: Auckland, NZ: Office of the Prime Minister's Chief Science Advisor, 2018. 30p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 5, 2018 at: http://www.pmcsa.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/Using-evidence-to-build-a-better-justice-system.pdf Year: 2018 Country: New Zealand URL: http://www.pmcsa.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/Using-evidence-to-build-a-better-justice-system.pdf Shelf Number: 150471 Keywords: Costs of Corrections Costs of Criminal Justice Early Intervention Evidence-Based Practices Mass Incarceration Prisons

Author: Illinois Sentencing Policy Advisory Council Title: A Cost-Benefit Tool for Illinois Criminal Justice Policymakers Summary: In recent years, criminal justice research, including rigorous evaluation of existing programs and policies, has established that recidivism can be reduced through targeted interventions that address the drivers of a person's criminal behavior. These drivers are identified through risk and needs assessment and can be changed with proper programming and services. Programs that reduce the risk that individuals released from prison will commit additional crimes create measureable outcomes in terms of less victimization, lower government costs, and other economic benefits. The critical question for policymakers is: Do the benefits of a program outweigh the costs? Cost-benefit analysis (CBA) answers that question by quantifying and weighing both costs and benefits to determine programs that will produce a sufficient return to warrant the investment of tax dollars. For this report, the Illinois Sentencing Policy Advisory Council (SPAC) used the Illinois Results First cost-benefit model which includes a database of 52 programs in the criminal justice sector that have successfully reduced recidivism over time in a variety of states. SPAC chose nine Illinois programs that are consistent with the programs in the database and for which cost data was available. The model incorporates Illinois-specific system costs incurred by state and local governments, crime trend and recidivism data, and victimization costs established by national research, including the costs to victims of medical expenses, property damage and losses, and lost wages. SPAC's model compares the money spent on programs with the social value of the outcomes produced by that spending to produce a "Consumer Reports" style guide that allows policymakers to do an apples-to-apples comparison of these nine programs. In sum, Illinois can get a better return on investment for taxpayers' dollars by focusing resources on programs with the most benefits and focusing cuts on those with the least benefits. The outcome measure used in the model is a reduction in recidivism. This report is intended to be solely descriptive of the expected outcomes of investing in evidence-based programs that are implemented with fidelity to the evaluated programs and are subject to evaluation. SPAC does not make recommendations, oppose, or support specific policy proposals. SPAC is a statutorily created, independent commission of criminal justice stakeholders that reports to all three branches of government. SPAC is mandated to provide system-wide fiscal impact analysis and provide research and analysis to support implementation of evidence-based practices. Cost-benefit analysis is one tool SPAC is using to weigh alternatives and potential outcomes as measured by lower recidivism rates. This is not a recommendation for specific programs but an informative report to facilitate planning and budgeting. Details: Springfield: SPAC, 2016. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 14, 2018 at: http://www.icjia.state.il.us/spac/pdf/Illinois_Results_First_Consumer_Reports_072016.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.icjia.state.il.us/spac/pdf/Illinois_Results_First_Consumer_Reports_072016.pdf Shelf Number: 150532 Keywords: Cost-Benefit Analysis Costs of Criminal Justice Criminal Justice Policy Evidence-Based Practices Rehabilitation Programs

Author: Sullivan, Riley Title: The Fiscal Impact of the Opioid Epidemic in the New England States Summary: The rise in the abuse of-and addiction to-opioids and the rapid increase in the number of fatal overdoses in recent years have made the opioid epidemic a priority for local, state, and federal policymakers. Understanding the epidemic's direct fiscal impact is key to acknowledging its scope and magnitude. While opioid abuse has many direct and indirect fiscal costs, few studies quantify them. This report assembles available data on the impact of opioid epidemic on criminal justice, treatment, and related health expenditures in the New England states. The research finds that state governments in the region spend a higher percentage on total opioid-related costs and more per capita than the national averages. Across the region, treating opioid-use disorder-on both an emergency and a long-term basis-accounts for the majority of the costs. Estimates for medical treatment expenditures associated with opioid abuse reach as high as $340 million annually in Massachusetts alone. While providing new insight the author acknowledges that the costs considered in this policy report are incomplete. It's plausible that the opioid epidemic's impact on state revenues is also significant and could affect regional fiscal health. For example, individuals incarcerated for drug crimes or in residential treatment programs are not earning wages. Evidence also suggests that non-institutionalized individuals abusing opioids are more likely out of work than employed, likewise resulting in lost revenue (Krueger 2017). The author plans to conduct further research on opioid abuse's impact on employment and labor force participation, which should contribute to a fuller understanding of the epidemic's fiscal cost to the region. However, beyond the fiscal cost is the toll opioid abuse has taken on individuals, families, and communities. The costs analyzed in this report are just a small part of the greater damage inflicted across the region and the country. Details: Boston: New England Public Policy Center; Federal Reserve Bank of Boston: 2018. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Policy Report 18-1: Accessed July 9, 2018 at: https://www.bostonfed.org/publications/new-england-public-policy-center-policy-report/2018/the-fiscal-impact-of-the-opioid-epidemic-in-the-new-england-states.aspx#collapse2 Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://www.bostonfed.org/publications/new-england-public-policy-center-policy-report/2018/the-fiscal-impact-of-the-opioid-epidemic-in-the-new-england-states.aspx#collapse2 Shelf Number: 150778 Keywords: Cost Analysis Costs of Criminal Justice Drug Abuse and Addiction Drug Abuse Treatment Opioid Crisis Opioid Epidemic Opioids Prescription Drug Abuse

Author: Menart, Renee Title: An Opportunity for Reinvestment: California State Juvenile Justice Funding in Five Bay Area Counties Summary: A new report from the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice examines how California's counties use millions in state funding provided by the Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act (JJCPA) and the Youthful Offender Block Grant (YOBG) intended to serve justice-involved youth within their communities. The report investigates statewide funding trends as well as local trends among five Bay Area counties (Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, San Francisco, San Mateo), which receive a significant share of these funds and provide broader insight. The report finds that JJCPA and YOBG program implementation is out of step with juvenile justice trends and best practices. Amid California's consistent declines in youth crime and confinement, counties continue to invest heavily in detention-based services at nearly-vacant local facilities rather than community-based programs. Counties would benefit from the inclusion of community stakeholders in planning and implementing their funding priorities to meet the diverse needs of youth and communities most affected by the justice system. Details: San Francisco: Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, 2018. 15p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 13, 2018 at: http://www.cjcj.org/uploads/cjcj/documents/california_state_juvenile_justice_funding_in_five_bay_area_counties.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: http://www.cjcj.org/uploads/cjcj/documents/california_state_juvenile_justice_funding_in_five_bay_area_counties.pdf Shelf Number: 151115 Keywords: Costs of Criminal Justice Criminal Justice Expenditures Justice Reinvestment

Author: Aboal, Diego Title: Los costos del crimen en Uruguay Summary: In this paper we estimate some of the costs associated with crime and violence in Uruguay. The method used is that of cost accounting. Considered costs include security and prevention of crime, justice, imprisonment and rehabilitation of inmates, costs of stolen property, health costs and loss of lives as a result of the violence and costs associated with the loss of productive time in prison of the inmates. For this we have used a variety of sources of information and methodologies. Even though we have covered a significant range of costs, we have not covered the universe of them due to information limitations. Therefore, our estimates should be interpreted as a minimum level. The total cost estimated for 2010 reaches 4% of Uruguay's GDP. Details: Centro de Investigaciones Economicas - Uruguay, 2013. 50p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 12, 2018 at: https://www.bcu.gub.uy/Comunicaciones/Jornadas%20de%20Economa/t_campanella_jorge_2014.pdf Year: 2013 Country: Uruguay URL: https://www.bcu.gub.uy/Comunicaciones/Jornadas%20de%20Economa/t_campanella_jorge_2014.pdf Shelf Number: 151501 Keywords: Costs of Crime Costs of Criminal Justice Economics of Crime

Author: California. Office of the Inspector General Title: Special Review: Assessment of Electronic Monitoring of Sex Offenders on Parole and the Impact of Residency Restrictions Summary: Proposition 83 ("Jessica's Law"), passed by California voters in 2006, requires that all convicted sex offenders paroled from prison and required by law to register with local law enforcement shall be subjected to monitoring by global positioning technology (GPS) and to restrictions on where they may reside. The Office of the Inspector General conducted a review of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation's electronic monitoring of sex offender parolees and the impact of residency restrictions on sex offender parolees at the request of the Senate Rules Committee. The review found: - The annual costs of GPS tracking has decreased over the past five fiscal years. In fiscal year 2009-10, the department spent $12.4 million to monitor sex offender parolees with GPS. By fiscal year 2013-14, these costs were $7.9 million. - There exists little objective evidence to determine to what extent, if any, GPS tracking is a crime deterrent, although a small 2012 study funded by the National Institute of Justice of 516 high-risk sex offenders found that offenders who were not subjected to GPS monitoring had nearly three times more sex-related parole violations than those who were monitored by GPS technology. Despite the rarity of studies defending GPS as a crime deterrent, the OIG's interviews with parole agents and local law enforcement personnel found that they value GPS technology as a tool for its ability to locate parolees, track their movements, and provide valuable information in solving crimes. - GPS technology adds to parole agents' workloads in certain aspects, while affording time-savings in others. For example, agents spend approximately two hours reviewing and analyzing parolees' tracks for a single-day period. On the other hand, GPS facilitates mandatory face-to-face contacts between parole agents and parolees by allowing the agent to locate parolees more quickly than might be the case in locating a non-GPS parolee. - Over 60 percent of parole agents who supervise sex-offender parolees have caseloads exceeding established departmental ratios (parolee-to-agent) when taking into consideration the mix of high-risk vs low-risk parolees per caseload. In addition, the department has a disparity of caseloads across its parole units, with 14 of the 37 parole units that supervise sex offenders reporting caseload sizes exceeding the department's established ratios for all agents assigned to those units. Simultaneously, five other parole units report caseload sizes below the department's established ratios for all of their parole agents. - Field agents whom the OIG interviewed consistently expressed their concerns that the department-issued laptops used for tracking parolee movements in the field should be replaced by smaller hand-held devices such as smart phones, stating that the laptops were not only cumbersome, but may inhibit officer safety in certain situations. Many agents the OIG encountered were using their personal smart phones for GPS mapping and tracking in the field. - The residency restrictions imposed by Jessica's Law, which prohibit paroled sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a school or park where children congregate, contribute to homelessness among paroled sex offenders. According to the California Sex Offender Management Board, there were only 88 sex offenders on parole statewide who were registered as transient when Proposition 83 was passed in November 2006. As of June 2014, there were 1,556 sex offender parolees identified as transient by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. While this represents 3.38 percent of all parolees, the incidence of homelessness is 19.95 percent (approximately one in five) among the subset of parolees who are sex offenders. - Transient sex offender parolees are more "labor intensive" than are parolees who have a permanent residence. The OIG interviewed parole administrators in 12 parole districts, who said that because transient sex offenders are moving frequently, monitoring their movement is time consuming. Transient sex offenders must register with local law enforcement monthly (as opposed to yearly for those with permanent residences), thus requiring more frequent registration compliance tracking by parole agents. Adding further to the workload associated with monitoring transients, agents are required to conduct weekly face-to-face contacts with them. - Transient sex offender parolees are more likely to violate the terms of their parole than those who have a permanent residence. Transient sex offenders have committed a majority of parole violations (which include technical violations as well as new crimes) among parolee sex offenders over a recent five-year period. Less than 1 percent of those violations were for sex-related crimes. In the most recently completed fiscal year (2013-14), over 76 percent of the sex offender parolees whom the department charged with violating their parole terms were transient. - While Jessica's Law leaves open the option for local governments to impose their own restrictions on paroled sex offenders, parolees are finding relief from residency restrictions through the courts. Several counties have issued stays suspending the blanket enforcement of residency restrictions to those who petition the local court, and San Diego County has issued a stay suspending the blanket enforcement of residency restrictions on sex offenders pending the outcome of the California Supreme Court's decision of the matter In re Taylor (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 210, review granted January 3, 2013, S206143. - The California Sex Offender Management Board's findings and recommendations remain largely unaddressed. While some of the board's recommendations have been implemented, most recently with CDCR's implementation of the sex offender containment model, major recommendations, such as tiering registration requirements, reevaluating residency restrictions, and applying best practices for GPS monitoring, have not. Details: Sacramento: Author, 2014. 85p. Source: Internet Resource: accessed May 15, 2019 at: https://www.oig.ca.gov/media/reports/Reports/Reviews/OIG_Special_Review_Electronic_Monitoring_of_Sex_Offenders_on_Parole_and_Impact_of_Residency_Restrictions_November_2014.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: https://www.oig.ca.gov/media/reports/Reports/Reviews/OIG_Special_Review_Electronic_Monitoring_of_Sex_Offenders_on_Parole_and_Impact_of_Residency_Restrictions_November_2014.pdf Shelf Number: 155844 Keywords: Costs of Criminal Justice Electronic Monitoring Global Positioning Technology (GPS) Offender Monitoring Parolees Proposition 83 Residency Restrictions Sex Offender Registration Sex Offenders

Author: Children's Commissioner for England Title: Who are they? Where are they? Children locked up Summary: At any given time almost fifteen hundred children in England are 'locked up' in secure children's homes, secure training centre, young offenders institutions, mental health wards and other residential placements, either for their own safety or the safety of others. These are some of the most vulnerable children in the country who, for a variety of reasons, we have not been able to help to live freely in their own homes or communities. The report seeks to identify who these children are and where they living, the costs of keeping them locked up, and to understand more about whether these places are truly meeting their needs. We have combined data from a range of different sources to show that 1,465 children in England were securely detained in March 2018, of whom 873 were in youth justice settings, 505 were detained under the Mental Health Act, and 87 were in secure children's homes for their own welfare. In total, we estimate that it costs over L300 million a year to look after these children. We also found that there are at least 200 children deprived of liberty in other settings, but they are 'invisible' to us from publicly available data as no information is published about where they are living or why they need to be there. Details: London: Author, 2019. 47p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 14, 2019 at: https://www.childrenscommissioner.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/cco-who-are-they-where-are-they-may-2019.pdf Year: 2019 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.childrenscommissioner.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/cco-who-are-they-where-are-they-may-2019.pdf Shelf Number: 156424 Keywords: Costs of Criminal Justice Juvenile Detention Locked-up Children Training Centers Youth Custody