Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: November 22, 2024 Fri
Time: 12:12 pm
Time: 12:12 pm
Results for costs of corrections
90 results foundAuthor: Warren, Jenifer Title: One in 31: The Long Reach of American Corrections Summary: Explosive growth in the number of people on probation or parole has propelled the population of the American corrections system to more than 7.3 million, or 1 in every 31 U.S. adults. The vast majority of these offenders live in the community, yet new data in this report finds that nearly 90 percent of state corrections dollars are spent on prisons. The report examines the scale and cost of prison, jail, probation and parole in each of the 50 states, and provides a blueprint for states to cut both crime and spending by reallocating prison expenses to fund stronger supervision of the large number of offenders in the community. Details: Washington, DC: Pew Center on the States, 2009. 45p. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 114731 Keywords: CorrectionsCosts of CorrectionsImprisonmentInmates |
Author: Weatherburn, Don Title: Prison Populations and Correctional Outlays: The Effect of Reducing Re-Imprisonment Summary: "Between 1998 and 2008, the Australian imprisonment rate (per capita) rose 20 per cent. In 2008, net recurrent and capital expenditure on prisons in Australia exceeded $2.6 billion per annum. Efforts to reduce the prison population through the creation of alternatives to custody have not been very successful. This bulletin explores the potential savings in prison costs and prison numbers of reducing the rate at which prisoners return to custody. The results of our analysis suggest that modest reductions in the rate at which offenders are re-imprisoned would result in substantial savings in prisoner numbers and correctional outlays. A ten per cent reduction in the overall re-imprisonment rates would reduce the prison population by more than 800 inmates, saving $28 million per year. Comparable reductions in the number of new sentenced prisoners also produce benefits but they are smaller. The potential benefits of reducing the rate of re-imprisonment among subgroups of offenders with a high re-imprisonment rate are particularly noteworthy. A 10 per cent reduction in the Indigenous re-imprisonment rate, for example, would reduce the Indigenous sentenced prisoner population by 365 inmates, resulting in savings of more than $10 million per annum." Details: Sydney: New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, 2009. 11p. Source: Internet Resource; Contemporary Issues in Crime and Justice, No. 138; Accessed August 8, 2010 at http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/cjb138.pdf/$file/cjb138.pdf Year: 2009 Country: Australia URL: http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/cjb138.pdf/$file/cjb138.pdf Shelf Number: 119575 Keywords: Costs of CorrectionsInmatesPrison OvercrowdingPrison Population (Australia)PrisonsRecidivism |
Author: Schaenman, Phil Title: Opportunities for Cost Savings in Corrections Without Sacrificing Service Quality: Inmate Health Care Summary: In many cities and counties, inmate health care comprises as much as a third of the cost of the corrections department. Options are presented on ways to substantially reduce the costs without reducing the quality of the care. We drew on practices of jails and prison across the nation. The approaches for cost reduction include ways to reduce demand or need for health care (e.g., screening need for hospitalization), and ways to reduce the cost per inmate when care is need (e.g. use of telemedicine.) Details: Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 2013. 44p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 15, 2013 at: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412754-Inmate-Health-Care.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412754-Inmate-Health-Care.pdf Shelf Number: 127964 Keywords: Costs of CorrectionsInmate Health Care (U.S.)Prisoners |
Author: Kansas. Department of Corrections Title: Offender Program Evaluation: Volume VIII Summary: The programs described in this report have different curricula, different program durations, different objectives, different offender target groups, and different contractors. This set of differences makes program-to-program comparisons not “apples-to-apples.” Nonetheless, below we present a summary of some of the FY 2008 program results. Please keep in mind that these comparisons are not direct and that final interpretation and meaning must occur within the context of each individual program. Detailed data for each program is reported in subsequent sections of this report. It should be noted that during quality assurance reviews of the final draft of this report, the Department identified errors and inconsistencies with utilization data. Due to time constraints to investigate and correct the errors, utilization data is not provided in this evaluation. Total Program Participants -- The total number of program participants ranges from a low of 88 (Substance Abuse Treatment Program for females) to a high of 1,535 (Academic Education) for FY 2008. The Work Release Program had the second highest total number of participants at 828 and the Sex Offender Treatment Program had the third highest total participant number with 723. Number of Program Completions The total number of program completions (unduplicated) during FY 2008 ranged from a high of 412 (Work Release) to a low of 11 (Special Education). The Academic Education program achieved the second highest number of program completions at 390 and the Sex Offender Treatment program ranked third with a total of 251 program completions. The programs considered in this report also vary in the number of slots contracted or allocated to each program. This figure contributes heavily to the number of total participants that, in turn, influences the number of potential program completers. For FY 2008, the largest number of slots (average full-time equivalents) was for the Work Release program at 316. The next highest number of slots was for the Therapeutic Communities substance abuse treatment program at 220. Vocational Education (all types of vocational education combined) had the third-highest number of slots at 213. The smallest program in terms of contracted slots was Substance Abuse Treatment program for females (16 slots). Cost per Program Slot For the contractually operated programs, the FY 2008 actual expenditures can be divided by the number of program slots to obtain a cost per slot for the program. To ensure comparable figures, all slots are stated in terms of full-time equivalents. Actual program expenditures are not maintained for the KDOC-operated programs in a fashion that is separable from other KDOC functions (e.g., security, classification, etc.) associated with the program. Therefore, no cost per program slot is available for the KDOC-operated Chemical Dependency Recovery Program (CDRP) substance abuse treatment, Pre-Release, or Work Release programs. It should also be noted costs per slot are not reported for InnerChange, as all costs are assumed by the contract provider. Of the contracted programs considered in this report, Therapeutic Communities substance abuse treatment program demonstrates the lowest cost per program slot at $5,110 followed by Vocational Education at $5,137 and the Transitional Training Program at $6,149. The highest cost per slot was in the Academic Education Program ($10,520) followed by Special Education ($10,100) and the Sex Offender Treatment program ($9,970). Cost per Participant Using the same actual expenditure figures, the cost per participant can also be calculated for each of the contracted programs. As previously noted, costs are not reported for InnerChange, as all costs are assumed by the contract provider. Cost per participant was highest for the Special Education program ($4,720) followed by the Transitional Training program ($2,617) and the Sex Offender Treatment Program ($2,151). The lowest cost per participant was realized by Academic Education ($1,017), followed by Vocational Education ($1,460) and Therapeutic Community substance abuse treatment program ($1,976). The costs per participant for Special Education in Corrections, as it is in the public school system, are higher than other programs due in part to mandated requirements including lower class sizes, comprehensive evaluations, development and annual review of individualized education plans, provision of necessary services to qualified student(s) regardless of number of students available (can create teacher-student class ratios of 1 to 1), and that often as a result of disabilities, few students will achieve GED or complete all aspects of the IEP in the time in the program. Cost per Program Completion Although cost per participant gives a sense of how much it costs to have an offender enrolled in these programs, how much it costs for a program completion is also of interest. Special Education realized the highest cost per completion of the programs considered in this report ($45,909). This was followed by the Transitional Training program ($13,665) and the Therapeutic Community substance abuse treatment program ($8,185). The lowest cost per program completion was the Academic Education program ($4,003) followed by the Vocational Education program ($4,410). Note that important factors in this program cost calculation include the number of slots, the completion ratio, and the length of the treatment program. Costs per program completion for InnerChange are not reported, as all costs are assumed by the contract provider. The costs per program completion for Special Education in Corrections, as it is in the public school system, are higher than other programs due in part to mandated requirements including lower class sizes, comprehensive evaluations, development and annual review of individualized education plans, provision of necessary services to qualified student(s) regardless of number of students available (can create teacher-student class ratios of 1 to 1), and that often as a result of disabilities, few students will achieve GED or complete all aspects of the IEP in the time in the program. Completion Ratio The Completion Ratio is a calculation that compares the number of offenders completing a specific program within a fiscal year to the number who enrolled and had the opportunity to complete the program. The completion ratio is another measure of program efficiency. In FY 2008, the highest completion ratios were achieved by the Pre-Release program (88.9%), followed by the Work Release program (78.6%), the Substance Abuse Treatment Program for females (77.5%), and the Sex Offender Treatment program (68.0%). The lowest completion ratios were experienced by the Special Education Program (17.5%), Transitional Training (36.0%) and Academic Education (38.3%). PROGRAM OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: OVERVIEW Recidivism For most of the correctional interventions considered in this report, one of the program goals includes a reduction in recidivism, i.e., the number of returns to prison. There is no universally accepted definition of recidivism and it varies in three main areas: definition of “recidivating act”, “recidivism pool” and “length of follow-up period”. Please take caution in comparing outcome results in this report to those generated by other jurisdictions. The recidivism analysis pool consists of “new commitments” (including probation violators with or without new sentences) admitted and released during the period FY 1992 – FY 2008. For this evaluation some refinements to the outcome pool were imposed. In order to increase the homogeneity of the group on which recidivism information is reported and to ensure that all offenders in this recidivism analysis pool have “similar” opportunities for “success” or “failure,” the initial outcome pool was refined by excluding certain sub-groups (primarily “short termers” – offenders who served less than four months, which is usually insufficient time for program completion). The basic outcome measure is return to a Kansas Department of Corrections facility with or without a new sentence during the period of post-incarceration supervision or as a return via new court commitment following discharge from the initial sentence. Each offender is tracked individually for follow-up periods of one year, two years and three years. For most programs covered in this report, outcome is considered across the period FY 1992 through FY 2008. Exceptions to this include the Work Release program where outcomes are tracked from FY 1995 through FY 2008, InnerChange program where outcomes are tracked from FY 2000 through FY 2008 and the Therapeutic Communities for which the outcome tracking period varies. Further, given the fact that we do not employ experimental design (for discussion, see Section IV: Study Limitations), the difference in recidivism rates among groups does not necessarily imply a causal relationship with program experience. At best, we can only say that these events co-occur. To move toward a causal relationship would require employment of experimental or quasi-experimental research design(s). Also, in the following data presentation, treatment programs are treated as if they have remained static in modality and curriculum over the time period considered. In experience, however, this is not the case. The programs have undergone numerous changes over the course of the time frame considered. In alignment with the Department’s commitment to evidence-based practices, the KDOC has made strides toward identifying and targeting the high risk offender with the implementation of the Level of Service Inventory-Revised (LSI-R). Research suggests that targeting higher risk offenders for intensive treatment and reducing the mixing of risk levels will reduce recidivism (Andrews, Zinger, Hoge, Bonta, Gendreau & Cullen, 1990; Andrews & Dowden, 1999, 2006; Dowden & Andrews, 1999a, 1999b; Lipsey & Wilson, 1998; Lowenkamp & Latessa, 2005; Lowenkamp, Latessa, & Holsinger, 2006; Lowenkamp, Smith & Bechtel, 2007).1 In an effort to conduct more rigorous analyses with our data, the Department has conducted logistic regression models.2 While previous reports have primarily provided frequencies for re-admission to KDOC, this analysis considers the influence that sex, race, age and LSI-R total score have on recidivism and controls for these factors. These multivariate models can generate probabilities which can be interpreted as rates of failure based on the low, medium and high risk levels as determined by the LSI-R. These probabilities are presented in the bar chart below.3 Specifically, these findings suggest that over the three year follow-up period, recidivism rates do increase, regardless of the risk level. Over the three years, the rates of recidivism for the low risk group increases from 11.7% to 45.2%, resulting in an increase of 33.5%. Similarly, for the medium and high risk groups, the difference in rates of recidivism between the three year periods is 43.2% and 35.4% respectively. The key finding with this bar chart is that for each time period, the lower risk offenders are consistently re-admitted at a significantly lower rate than that of the moderate and high risk groups. Further, this provides empirical evidence that the Kansas Department of Corrections is adhering to the risk principle. It is important to note that these findings are not to be interpreted as program characteristics associated with the recidivism rates by risk level as we have not conducted such an analyses. Details: Topeka, KS: Kansas Department of Corrections, 2009. 156p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 9, 2013 at: http://www.doc.ks.gov/publications/program-evaluation-reports/offender-programs-evaluation-volume-viii-april-2009/view Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: http://www.doc.ks.gov/publications/program-evaluation-reports/offender-programs-evaluation-volume-viii-april-2009/view Shelf Number: 128329 Keywords: Correctional Programs (Kansas, U.S.)Costs of CorrectionsEvidence-Based PoliciesPrisoner RehabilitationRecidivism |
Author: FAMM (Families Against Mandatory Minimums) Title: Turning Off the Spigot. How Sentencing Safety Valves Can Help States Protect Public Safety and Save Money Summary: During the 1980s and 1990s, lawmakers with good intentions voted to enact many mandatory minimum sentences in an effort to reduce crime. Lawmakers across the country were led to believe that mandatory minimum prison sentences were necessary to remove drug dealers from the streets and stop the flow of illegal drugs into our communities. This national movement toward harsh punishment has had the opposite effect of its intentions as many states have seen an unprecedented increase in their inmate populations without a proportionate benefit to public safety. Mandatory minimums are a one-size-fits-all approach to sentencing that have taken away judges’ discretion and force the sentencing of offenders without consideration of the individual circumstances of a case. Mandatory sentences have been extended from applying to “big-time dealers” to many smaller fish who deal drugs to support their own addiction. At least two-thirds of our inmates have drug addiction issues. Mandatory minimums have been a driving force behind Pennsylvania’s inmate population increase from 8,000 in 1980 to 51,000 in 2011. FAMM’s work on fair sentencing issues is changing attitudes here in Pennsylvania and across the country as many states are now moving toward fairer sentencing practices. FAMM has provided valuable advice and insight to the Pennsylvania Senate Judiciary Committee and to me personally as we work toward prison reform. This report examines several states’ “safety valve” statutes — legislation that allows judges to bypass a mandatory sentence under certain circumstances. I support legislation that would provide a safety valve for cases where the mandatory minimum sentence would be unjust. A federal law providing for a safety valve was enacted in 1994. Since that time nearly 80,000 federal drug offenders facing mandatory minimum sentences have received the benefit of the safety valve, saving the federal government an estimated $25,000 per prisoner, per year for each year shaved off of the sentence. About one-third of states have enacted some type of safety valve statute, with considerable cost savings and without a reduction in public safety. The following report should serve as a guide to lawmakers and policy advisors across the country who are seeking to reduce their states’ inmate populations and save precious resources currently spent on incarceration. FAMM has demonstrated that we can be tough on crime as well as smart on crime. Details: Washington, DC: FAMM, 2013. 23p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 16, 2013 at: http://www.famm.org/Repository/Files/Turning%20Off%20the%20Spigot%20web%20final.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.famm.org/Repository/Files/Turning%20Off%20the%20Spigot%20web%20final.pdf Shelf Number: 128382 Keywords: Costs of CorrectionsDrug OffendersMandatory Minimum Sentences (U.S.)PunishmentSentencing |
Author: Council of State Governments, Justice Center Title: Lessons from the States: Reducing Recidivism and Curbing Corrections Costs Through Justice Reinvestment Summary: Over the past 20 years, state spending on corrections has skyrocketed—from $12 billion in 1988 to more than $52 billion in 2011.1 Declining state revenues and other fiscal factors are putting a serious strain on many states’ criminal justice systems, often putting concerns about the bottom line in competition with public safety. Strategies tested in numerous states and local jurisdictions, however, show that there are effective ways to address the challenge of containing rising corrections costs while also increasing public safety. Details: New York: Council of State Governments, Justice Center, 2013. 10p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 22, 2013 at: http://justicereinvestment.org/resources/lessons-learned Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://justicereinvestment.org/resources/lessons-learned Shelf Number: 128422 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCosts of CorrectionsCosts of Criminal Justice (U.S.)Criminal Justice Expenditures |
Author: Hakim, Simon Title: Cost Analysis of Public and Contractor-Operated Prisons Summary: As states continue to grapple with aging correctional facilities, overcrowding, underfunded retiree obligations and other constraints, new research from Temple University’s Center for Competitive Government finds that privately operated prisons can substantially cut costs – from 12 percent to 58 percent in long-term savings – while performing at equal or better levels than government-run prisons. Temple economics Professors Simon Hakim and Erwin A. Blackstone analyzed government data from nine states that generally have higher numbers of privately held prisoners (Arizona, California, Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Texas), and Maine, which does not contract its corrections services. The professors calculated both short- and long-run savings per state, finding that contracted prisons generate significant savings without sacrificing quality. "Contracts between private-prison operators and state governments can be very precise in terms of the outcomes the state expects," said Hakim, director of Temple’s Center for Competitive Government, which is affiliated with the Fox School of Business. "And contractors have an incentive to overshoot the performance metrics established by the state – lest they lose out to a higher-performing company on the next contract bid." The study uses economic models to determine each state’s avoidable costs, which are compared to the contracted per diem rates charged by the private operators. The study also takes into account underfunded pensions and retiree healthcare costs – a critical issue, with the Pew Center on the States reporting in 2010 of a $1.38 trillion gap between states’ assets and their pension and healthcare retiree obligations. Details: Philadelphia: Center for Competitive Government, Temple University, 2013. 43p. Source: Internet Resource: Working Paper: Accessed May 15, 2013 at: http://d3iovmfe1okdrz.cloudfront.net/cms/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Cost-Analysis-of-Public-and-Contractor-Operated-Prisons-FINAL.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://d3iovmfe1okdrz.cloudfront.net/cms/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Cost-Analysis-of-Public-and-Contractor-Operated-Prisons-FINAL.pdf Shelf Number: 128732 Keywords: Cost-Benefit AnalysisCosts of CorrectionsPrivate Prisons (U.S.)Privatization |
Author: California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Office of Research Title: Realignment Report: A One-year Examination of Offenders Released from State Prison in the First Six Months of Public Safety Realignment Summary: One-year arrest rates are down and conviction rates are virtually static for offenders released after completing their state prison sentences post-Realignment, according to a report released today by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). For this Realignment Report, CDCR identified all offenders who had served their full sentence and were released from prison during the first six months after the implementation of Realignment (October 2011 through March 2012). Researchers then tracked the offenders, which include those released to state parole supervision and those released to county probation supervision, for one year to see if they were re-arrested, convicted of a new crime, or returned to state prison. CDCR then compared those results with all offenders released during October 2010 to March 2011 (pre-Realignment) and tracked them for one year in the same manner. Key findings include: • Post-Realignment offenders were arrested at a lower rate than pre-Realignment offenders (62 percent pre-Realignment and 58.7 percent post-Realignment). • The rate of post-Realignment offenders convicted of new crimes is nearly the same as the rate of pre-Realignment offenders convicted of new crimes (21.3 percent pre-realignment and 22.5 percent post realignment). • Post-Realignment offenders returned to prison at a significantly lower rate than pre-Realignment offenders, an intended effect of Realignment as most offenders are ineligible to return to prison on a parole violation. (42 percent pre-Realignment and 7.4 percent post-Realignment) Under California’s Public Safety Realignment Act of 2011, no offenders receive an early release from state prison. The law, which was passed by the Legislature in response to a federal court order to reduce California’s prison population, has achieved dramatic reductions by stemming the flow of low-level inmates and parole violators into prison. The intent of Realignment is to encourage counties to develop and implement evidenced-based practices and alternatives to incarceration to limit future crimes and reduce victimization. Prior to Realignment, more than 60,000 felon parole violators returned to state prison annually, with an average length of stay of 90 days. Beginning on October 1, 2011, most parole violations are now served in county jails. Also, offenders newly convicted of certain low-level offenses serve their time in county jail. Under another component of Realignment, inmates who have served their full state prison sentence for a non-serious, non-violent or non-sexual offense are now supervised upon their release by county probation rather than state parole. Realignment provides a dedicated, constitutionally protected, and permanent revenue stream to the counties. Details: Sacramento: California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, 2013. 31p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 1, 2013 at: http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/realignment/docs/Realignment%206%20Month%20Report%20Final_5%2016%2013%20v1.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/realignment/docs/Realignment%206%20Month%20Report%20Final_5%2016%2013%20v1.pdf Shelf Number: 128887 Keywords: California RealignmentCosts of CorrectionsParoleesPrison OvercrowdingPrisoners (California)Recidivism |
Author: Mason, Cody Title: Too Good to be True: Private Prisons in America Summary: In 2010 private prisons held 128,195 individuals, representing eight percent of America's total prison population and an 80 percent increase compared to 1999. This growth has been fueled by claims that private prisons provide equal or superior services compared to publicly operated facilities, and at a lower cost. This report details the history of the movement to privatize prisons in America and documents the increase in their use. It also examines the purported ability of private prisons to provide the same level of services as publicly operated facilities, but at a lower cost, as well as the lobbying and contribution activities of private prisons on the state and federal level. Details: Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project, 2012. 25p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 1, 2013 at: http://sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/inc_Too_Good_to_be_True.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/inc_Too_Good_to_be_True.pdf Shelf Number: 128892 Keywords: Costs of CorrectionsPrivate Prisons (U.S.)Privatization |
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 CorrectionsCosts of Criminal JusticePrison ReformPrisons (U.K.) |
Author: U.S. Government Accountability Office Title: Bureau of Prisons: Timelier Reviews, Plan for Evaluations, and Updated Policies Could Improve Inmate Mental Health Services Oversight Summary: During a 5-year period--fiscal years 2008 through 2012--costs for inmate mental health services in institutions run by the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) rose in absolute dollar amount, as well as on an annual per capita basis. Specifically, mental health services costs rose from $123 million in fiscal year 2008 to $146 million in fiscal year 2012, with increases generally due to three factors--inmate population increases, general inflationary increases, and increased participation rates in psychology treatment programs such as drug abuse treatment programs. Additionally, the per capita cost rose from $741 in fiscal year 2008 to $821 in fiscal year 2012. It is projected that these costs will continue to increase with an estimated per capita cost of $876 in fiscal year 2015, due, in part, to increased program funding and inflation. BOP conducts various internal reviews that assess institutions' compliance with its policies related to mental health services, and it also requires institutions to obtain external accreditations. BOP's internal program reviews are on-site audits of a specific program, including two that are relevant to mental health services--psychology and health services. Most institutions in GAO's sample received good or superior ratings on their psychology and health services program reviews, but these reviews did not always occur within BOP-established time frames, generally due to lack of staff availability. When reviews were postponed, delays could be lengthy, sometimes exceeding a year, even for those institutions with the lowest ratings in previous reviews. Moreover, BOP has not evaluated whether most of its psychology treatment programs are meeting their established goals and has not developed a plan to do so. BOP is developing an approach for reporting on the relative reduction in recidivism associated with major inmate programs, which may include some psychology treatment programs. Using this opportunity to develop a plan for evaluating its psychology treatment programs would help ensure that the necessary evaluation activities, as well as any needed program changes, are completed in a timely manner. Further, BOP's program statements--its formal policies--related to mental health services contain outdated information. Policy changes are instead communicated to staff through memos. By periodically updating its program statements, BOP would be better assured that staff have a consistent understanding of its policies, and that these policies reflect current mental health care practices. BOP collects information on the daily cost to house the 13 percent of federal inmates in contract facilities, but it does not track the specific contractor costs of providing mental health services. The performance-based, fixed-price contracts that govern the operation of BOP's contract facilities give flexibility to the contractors to decide how to provide mental health services and do not require that they report their costs for doing so to BOP. BOP uses several methods to assess the contractors' compliance with contract requirements and standards of care. BOP conducts on-site reviews to assess the services provided to inmates in contract facilities, including those for mental health. BOP uses results from these reviews, as well as reports from external accrediting organizations, the presence of on-site monitors, and internal reviews conducted by the contract facility, to assess contractor compliance and to ensure that the contractor is consistently assessing the quality of its operations. Details: Washington, DC: GAO, 2013. 76p. Source: Internet Resource: GAO-13-1: Accessed July 18, 2013 at: http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/655903.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/655903.pdf Shelf Number: 129437 Keywords: Costs of CorrectionsFederal Bureau of Prisons (U.S.)Health CareMental Health ServicesMentally Ill OffendersPrisoners |
Author: Vera Institute of Justice. Center on Sentencing and Corrections Title: The Potential of Community Corrections to Improve Safety and Reduce Incarceration Summary: As the size and cost of jails and prisons have grown, so too has the awareness that public investment in incarceration has not yielded the expected return in public safety. This creates an opportunity to reexamine the wisdom of our reliance on institutional corrections—incarceration in prisons or jails—and to reconsider the role of community-based corrections, which encompasses probation, parole, and pretrial supervision. However, it could also be an opportunity wasted if care is not taken to bolster the existing capacity of community corrections. With this report, Vera’s Center on Sentencing and Corrections provides an overview of the state of community corrections, the transformational practices emerging in the field (including those in need of further research), and recommendations to policymakers on realizing the full value of community supervision to taxpayers and communities. Details: New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2013. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 19, 2013 at: http://www.vera.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/potential-of-community-corrections.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.vera.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/potential-of-community-corrections.pdf Shelf Number: 129463 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity Corrections (U.S.)Costs of Corrections |
Author: Levin, Marc A. Title: The Verdict on Federal Prison Reform: State Successes Offer Keys to Reducing Crime & Costs Summary: Key Findings • The federal government should better utilize probation, accountability courts, and other community-based sanctions that the states have used to control criminal justice costs and improve public safety. • The federal prison system should expand good time credits. • The federal government should implement better strategies to improve ex-offender reentry and limit the “collateral consequences” of incarceration. • Congress should reverse decades of overcriminalization and limit the use of criminal law to regulate behavior that is not traditionally considered criminal in nature. Details: Austin, TX: Texas Public Policy Foundation, 2013. 11p. Source: Internet Resource: Policy Perspective: Accessed August 6, 2013 at: http://www.texaspolicy.com/sites/default/files/documents/2013-07-PP24-VerdictOnFederalPrisonReform-CEJ-LevinReddy.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.texaspolicy.com/sites/default/files/documents/2013-07-PP24-VerdictOnFederalPrisonReform-CEJ-LevinReddy.pdf Shelf Number: 129561 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity Based CorrectionsCosts of CorrectionsFederal Prisons (U.S.)Prison Reform |
Author: Pew Charitable Trusts Title: Managing Prison Health Care Spending Summary: Nationwide, spending on both health care and corrections is putting serious pressure on state budgets. Medicaid-the largest component of states' health care spending-has been the fastest-growing part of state expenditures over the past two decades, with corrections coming in just behind it. Despite increasing interest among policymakers and taxpayers in improving outcomes and controlling costs in health care and corrections, the intersection of these two areas-health care for prison inmates-has garnered comparatively little attention. To better understand spending for inmate health services, researchers from The Pew Charitable Trusts analyzed cost data from the 44 states included in a study by the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics, or BJS. Pew found that prison health care spending in these 44 states totaled $6.5 billion in 2008, out of $36.8 billion in overall institutional correctional expenditures. Most states' correctional health care spending increased substantially from fiscal 2001 to 2008, the years included in the BJS report: Spending increased in 42 of the 44 states, with median growth of 52 percent. In a dozen states, prison health expenditures grew 90 percent or more. Only Texas and Illinois experienced inflation-adjusted decreases in this spending area. Per-inmate health care spending rose in 35 of the 44 states, with 32 percent median growth. In 39 of the states, prison health care costs claimed a larger share of their total institutional corrections budgets, increasing, on average, from 10 percent in fiscal 2001 to 15 percent in fiscal 2008. Maine, Nevada, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and West Virginia were the only exceptions. This significant growth reflects, in part, the rise in prison populations nationally. From 2001 to 2008, the number of sentenced prisoners in correctional institutions increased by 15 percent, from 1,344,512 to 1,540,100. This rise was part of a multi-decade trend; the number of Americans in prison nearly tripled from 1987 to 2007. The dramatic increase was driven in part by tougher sentencing laws and more restrictive probation and parole policies that have put more people in prison and held them there longer. This trend, however, has recently begun to reverse in about half of the states as sentencing and corrections reforms have spurred reductions in prison populations. The sheer number of state prisoners does not explain all of the increased spending. Higher per-inmate expenses and the expanding slice of corrections budgets devoted to health care suggest that other factors are also pushing costs up, including: Aging inmate populations; Prevalence of infectious and chronic diseases, mental illness, and substance abuse among inmates, many of whom enter prison with these problems; and challenges inherent in delivering health care in prisons, such as distance from hospitals and other providers. Inmates' health, the public's safety, and taxpayers' total corrections bill are all affected by how states manage prison health care services. Effectively treating inmates' physical and mental ailments, including substance abuse, improves their well-being and can reduce the likelihood that they will commit new crimes or violate probation once released. In addition to examining spending data, Pew researchers interviewed correctional health care experts across the country to identify innovative strategies to deliver health care to inmates, protect public safety, and control costs. This report examines Pew's findings on state prison health care spending and explores the factors driving costs higher. It also illustrates a variety of promising approaches that states are taking to address these challenges by examining four strategies that were frequently cited during the expert interviews: the use of telehealth technology, improved management of health services contractors, Medicaid financing, and medical or geriatric parole. These examples offer important lessons as policymakers seek the best ways to make their correctional health care systems effective and affordable. Details: Washington, DC: Pew Charitable Trusts, 2013. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 7, 2013 at: http://www.pewstates.org/uploadedFiles/PCS_Assets/2013/SHCS_Pew-Managing_Prison_Health_Care_Spending_Report.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.pewstates.org/uploadedFiles/PCS_Assets/2013/SHCS_Pew-Managing_Prison_Health_Care_Spending_Report.pdf Shelf Number: 131609 Keywords: Cost AnalysisCosts of Corrections Inmate Health Care (U.S.)Prisoners, Medical Care |
Author: Lofstrom, Magnus Title: Impact of Realignment on County Jail Populations Summary: Has California's historic public safety realignment shifted the problem of overcrowding from state prisons to county jails? This report finds that the shift of most lower-level offenders to the counties has increased the statewide county jail population but decreased the overall incarceration rate. The authors also examine county-level factors outside the direct impact of realignment that help explain variations in jail population growth. California's recent corrections realignment, authorized under AB 109, is arguably the most significant change in the state's corrections system in decades. Prompted by a federal court order to reduce the state's overcrowded prison system, this legislation, signed by Governor Brown in 2011, seeks to reduce the prison population by sentencing lower-level offenders to county jails rather than prison, thereby transferring substantial incarceration responsibility, as well as funding, from the state to its 58 counties. Proponents of realignment argue that it offers an opportunity to shift the focus from costly state incarceration to local approaches that favor rehabilitative services and treatments, while critics argue that this policy will lead to more "street time" for offenders and an increase in criminal activity. There is also concern that realignment has simply shifted the overcrowding problem, and related lawsuits, from state prisons to local jails. We are now at a point where relevant data are becoming available, allowing researchers to assess the effects of realignment. In this report, we examine how the decline in California's prison population resulting from realignment affects county jail populations. We also investigate factors that explain the differences between counties that have relied more heavily on jails in implementing their new responsibilities and counties that have emphasized non-jail alternatives. Details: an Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California, 2013. 33p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 13, 2014 at Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_613MLR.pdf Shelf Number: 131763 Keywords: California RealignmentCosts of CorrectionsPrison Overcrowding (California, U.S.)Prisoners |
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 IncarcerationCommunity-Based CorrectionsCosts of CorrectionsCosts of Criminal JusticePrisons (Arkansas)Recidivism |
Author: Victoria (Australia). Auditor General Title: Prisoner Transportation Summary: In Victoria, there is a minimum of 58 000 prisoner movements per year. Prisoners need to be moved for a range of reasons - including being transported for medical treatment and to attend court. The audit focused on how effectively, efficiently and economically prisoners have been transported throughout Victoria's criminal justice system. It looked at the movement of prisoners by Corrections Victoria, Victoria Police and a prisoner transport contractor, and the extent to which outsourced prisoner transport services have supported effective service delivery. The audit found a lack of overarching and coordinated oversight of prisoner transportation. Governance and risk management processes do not cover the full movement of prisoners within the justice system, but instead focus on each area separately and in isolation from each other. It found that the full cost of prisoner transportation is not known and that current arrangements do not drive efficiencies. Neither Corrections Victoria nor Victoria Police collects information about the total number and cost of prisoner movements across the justice system, which means they cannot assess whether current contractual arrangements are minimising the cost and maximising the efficiency of prisoner transportation. The audit identified some initiatives in place which are designed to improve the efficiency of the system. However, the audit also identified opportunities to improve service delivery outcomes specifically related to prisoner separation and the timely delivery of prisoners. Details: Melbourne: Victorian Auditor-General, 2014. 64p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 25, 2014 at: http://www.audit.vic.gov.au/publications/20140611-Prisoner-Transport/20140611-Prisoner-Transport.pdf Year: 2014 Country: Australia URL: http://www.audit.vic.gov.au/publications/20140611-Prisoner-Transport/20140611-Prisoner-Transport.pdf Shelf Number: 132770 Keywords: Costs of CorrectionsPrisoner Transportation (Australia)Prisoners |
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 AdministrationCosts of CorrectionsCosts of Criminal JusticeFederal Prisons (U.S.)InmatesPrisoners |
Author: McCarthy, Dan Title: Florida's Aging Prisoner Problem Summary: Florida's prison population is rapidly increasing despite declining crime rates, and this report recommends options to prevent increasing costs from overwhelming taxpayers. The report warns that the steadily growing elderly prison population in state facilities will require more costly medical care, resulting in additional budget concerns for an already struggling Department of Corrections. Details: Tallahassee: Florida TaxWatch, 2014. 20p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 15, 2014 at: http://www.floridataxwatch.org/resources/pdf/ElderlyParoleFINAL.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.floridataxwatch.org/resources/pdf/ElderlyParoleFINAL.pdf Shelf Number: 133955 Keywords: Aging PrisonersCosts of CorrectionsElderly Inmates (Florida)Prisoners |
Author: Florida TaxWatch Title: Over-Criminalization in Florida: An Analysis of Nonviolent Third-degree Felonies Summary: Over-criminalization is the new buzzword among criminologists and legislators looking for ways to reform federal and state criminal justice systems and reduce the cost of corrections. Headline stories once monopolized by tough on crime terminology and prison building and expansion plans, now ask whether over-criminalization is making us a nation of felons. This concern led the federal government in 2013 to create a bipartisan Over-Criminalization Task Force comprised of ten congressmen from large population states like California, Texas, and New York, and southeast regional neighbors Georgia, Virginia, North Carolina, and Tennessee. The work of this committee, which is focused on reducing the federal prison population, which has skyrocketed tenfold since 1980 (now 219,000 inmates at $7 billion annually), was renewed last month to review the 4,500 statutory federal crimes in the U.S. Code. Federal and state research regarding prison populations support the need for critical analysis. America leads the world in incarceration, with 760 prisoners per 100,000 compared to Britain with 153, Germany with 90 and Japan with 63.4 America incarcerates more than Cuba, China, Venezuela and Russia. America makes up 5% of the world's population, but has 25% of the world's prison Florida statistics reveal an even more acute situation than the national picture. The state prison population (102,225 as of January 2014) is projected to increase to 106,793 by 2017. To add context, in the last 35 years the state population increased 102.8%, but the prison population jumped 402.5%, resulting in state spending on corrections during this same period increasing by 1200%, to $2.4B. This despite the fact that crime statistics have steadily declined during this period, and have reached 30 year lows. Florida has 1.5 million felons living within the state, or one in ten adults. Prison populations are not the only numbers growing dramatically, so are the number of actions criminalized by Florida laws. Thousands of different offenses are now scattered throughout Florida statutes. Some drug and environmental laws do not even require criminal intent. Removing the element of intent means anyone found with illegal substances, or disposing of hazardous waste improperly, commits a felony whether the offense was committed inadvertently or not. Details: Tallahassee: TaxWatch, 2014. 8p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 20, 2014 at: http://floridataxwatch.org/resources/pdf/ThirdDegreeFINAL.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://floridataxwatch.org/resources/pdf/ThirdDegreeFINAL.pdf Shelf Number: 133745 Keywords: Cost-Benefit AnalysisCosts of CorrectionsCriminal Justice PolicyImprisonment, Economic Impacts ofPrisoners (Florida)Punishment |
Author: Great Britain. National Audit Office Title: Managing the Prison Estate Summary: The National Offender Management Service (the Agency) is an executive agency of the Ministry of Justice (the Ministry). It is responsible for the prison system in England and Wales. It runs some 130 prisons, which vary considerably in age, type, size and the resources required to operate them. Since 2010, through an estate strategy, the Agency has made major changes to its land and buildings. It has closed some prisons, expanded others and built more on new sites. This report looks at the value for money of these changes, considering whether they have: - reduced resource costs (Part Two); and - improved quality and performance (Part Two) - in terms of security, safety, decency, and providing 'purposeful activity'. We also examine how estate changes may be affecting the prison system overall (Part Three). Finally, we consider how the Agency, working with other government bodies, might reduce the prison population by managing key offender groups better. In particular, we consider those serving indeterminate sentences and foreign national prisoners (Part Four). We carried out fieldwork between May and September 2013. This included: reviewing the Agency's estate strategy, prison closure methodology and business cases for new capacity; statistical and financial analysis; and interviews with officials. We visited prisons, including some that were closing and others that had recently opened. Details: London: NAO, 2013. 54p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 22, 2014 at: http://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/10304-001-Full-Report.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/10304-001-Full-Report.pdf Shelf Number: 133792 Keywords: Correctional Administration (U.K.)Costs of CorrectionsPrison Administration |
Author: Pew Charitable Trusts Title: State Prison Health Care Spending: An examination Summary: Health care and corrections have emerged as fiscal pressure points for states in recent years as rapid spending growth in each area has competed for scarce revenue. Not surprisingly, the intersection of these two spheres - health care for prison inmates - also has experienced a ramp-up, reaching nearly $8 billion in 2011. Under the landmark 1976 Estelle v. Gamble decision, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that prisoners have a constitutional right to adequate medical attention and concluded that the Eighth Amendment is violated when corrections officials display "deliberate indifference" to an inmate's medical needs. The manner in which states manage prison health care services that meet these legal requirements affects not only inmates' health, but also the public's health and safety and taxpayers' total corrections bill. Effectively treating inmates' physical and mental illnesses, including substance use disorders, improves their well-being and can reduce the likelihood that they will commit new crimes or violate probation once released. The State Health Care Spending Project previously examined cost data from 44 states and found that prison health care spending increased dramatically from fiscal year 2001 to 2008. However, new data from a survey of budget and finance staff officials in each state's department of corrections, administered by The Pew Charitable Trusts and the Vera Institute of Justice, show that some states may be reversing this trend. This report examines the factors driving costs by analyzing new data on all 50 states' prison health care spending from fiscal 2007 to 2011. It also describes a variety of promising strategies that states are using to manage spending, including the use of tele-health technology, improved management of health services contractors, Medicaid financing, and medical or geriatric parole. The project's analysis of the survey data yielded the following findings: - Correctional health care spending rose in 41 states from fiscal 2007 to 2011, with median growth of 13 percent, after adjusting for inflation. - Per-inmate health care spending also rose in 39 states over the period, with a median growth of 10 percent. - In a majority of states, however, total spending and per-inmate spending peaked before fiscal 2011. Nationwide, prison health care spending totaled $7.7 billion in fiscal 2011, down from a peak of $8.2 billion in fiscal 2009. The downturn in spending was due, in part, to a reduction in state prison populations. - From fiscal 2007 to 2011, the share of older inmates - who typically require more expensive care - rose in all but two of the 42 states that submitted prisoner age data. Not surprisingly, states where older inmates represented a relatively large share of the total prisoner population tended to incur higher per-inmate health care spending. As states work to manage prison health care expenditures, a downturn in spending was a positive development as long as it did not come at the expense of access to quality care. But states continue to face a variety of challenges that threaten to drive costs back up. Chief among these is a steadily aging prison population. Details: Washington, DC: Pew Charitable Trusts, 2014. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 30, 2014 at: http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/Assets/2014/07/StatePrisonHealthCareSpendingReport.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/Assets/2014/07/StatePrisonHealthCareSpendingReport.pdf Shelf Number: 133833 Keywords: Costs of CorrectionsElderly InmatesHealth CareMentally Ill OffendersPrisoners (U.S.) |
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 CorrectionsCosts of Criminal JusticeCriminal Justice Expenditures |
Author: American Civil Liberties Union Title: The Dangerous Overuse of Solitary Confinement in the United States Summary: Over the last two decades, the use of solitary confinement in U.S. correctional facilities has surged. Before 1990, "supermax" prisons were rare. Now, 44 states and the federal government have supermax units, where prisoners are held in extreme isolation, often for years or even decades. On any given day in this country, it's estimated that over 80,000 prisoners are held in isolated confinement. This massive increase in the use of solitary has happened despite criticism from legal and medical professionals, who have deemed the practice unconstitutional and inhumane. It's happened despite the fact that supermax prisons typically cost two or three times more to build and operate than traditional maximum-security prisons. And it's happened despite research suggesting that supermax prisons actually have a negative effect on public safety. As fiscal realities are forcing us to cut budgets for things like health and education, it is time to ask whether we should continue to use solitary confinement despite its high fiscal and human costs. This briefing paper provides an overview of the excessive use of solitary confinement in the U.S. and strategies for safely restricting its use. Details: New York: ACLU, 2014. 45p. Source: Internet Resource: Briefing Paper: Accessed April 1, 2015 at: https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/stop_solitary_briefing_paper_updated_august_2014.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/stop_solitary_briefing_paper_updated_august_2014.pdf Shelf Number: 135105 Keywords: Costs of CorrectionsIsolationPrisonersPrisonsSolitary Confinement (U.S.)Supermax Prisons |
Author: Galik, Lauren Title: The High Cost of Incarceration in Florida: Recommendations for Reform Summary: Over the past few decades, Florida has passed a number of laws that have dramatically increased criminal sentences, and enacted others that have limited the amount of gain-time credits-or credits for good behavior or participation in rehabilitative programming-inmates may earn toward a reduction of their sentences. These laws have mandated that all prisoners, even nonviolent offenders, serve not only longer sentences, but a larger percentage of their sentences as well. Taken together, these laws have contributed to Florida's burgeoning prison population, which has become increasingly expensive for taxpayers. Some of Florida's more problematic laws include: Drug Trafficking Statutes: The types and quantities of drugs required for an offense to be considered drug trafficking in Florida are wildly disparate. Illegal possession of some drugs, such as prescription painkillers that contain oxycodone or hydrocodone, require a very small amount to trigger a drug trafficking charge that carries the same mandatory minimum sentence as trafficking a much larger quantity of other drugs, such as cocaine or marijuana, for example. Florida's mandatory minimum sentences for these offenses are not only disproportionately harsh, but have led to the imprisonment of numerous low-level, non-violent offenders, have increased corrections expenditures, and have effectively eliminated judicial discretion, which has resulted in unjust and unnecessary punishment in some cases. 10-20-Life: Florida's 10-20-Life law was enacted with the intention of incapacitating violent offenders who use firearms during the commission of an offense, as well as deterring others from committing these types of crimes. However, the law has not worked as intended. Since its enactment, 10-20-Life has been routinely applied to defendants whose crimes were far removed from the original intent of the law, including those who have brandished a firearm or fired a "warning shot" to defend themselves or others. Although this aspect of the law was reformed in 2014, many who would not necessarily be sentenced to mandatory sentences under the law today remain in prison because these reforms were not made retroactive. In addition to being misapplied in some cases, studies have shown that the 10-20-Life law cannot be definitively linked to a reduction in violent crime in the state. Habitual Offender Statutes: Florida has a number of overlapping habitual offender statutes that require judges to sentence certain offenders to significantly longer terms of imprisonment based on their criminal history. Some of Florida's habitual offender laws, such as the Habitual Felony Offender Law and the Habitual Violent Felony Offender Law, have required judges to send a number of nonviolent offenders to prison for disproportionately longer terms of imprisonment, even when the judge believes that doing so is not in the best interest of justice. There are currently over 100 Florida inmates who were sentenced to life without parole for a nonviolent offense under these habitual offender laws. Only two other states, Louisiana and Alabama, have more inmates serving a life without parole sentence for a nonviolent offense as habitual offenders than Florida. Limits on Incentive Gain-Time: Most states allow at least some inmates to earn credits toward a reduction in their sentences as a way to incentivize rehabilitation and good behavior while incarcerated, and reduce recidivism post-release. Florida is unique in that it prohibits all of its inmates-regardless of whether they committed a violent or nonviolent crime-from earning more than a 15% reduction in their sentences in the form of credits. In other words, all inmates are required to serve 85% of their sentences at a minimum. Reducing the earning power of these credits by mandating that all prisoners serve such a large portion of their sentences not only disincentivizes rehabilitation and good behavior, but also removes individualization from punishment, and requires taxpayers to continue to pay for the incarceration of individuals who may have adequately rehabilitated themselves and are ready to return to society at an earlier date. These laws have produced a number of unfortunate consequences, such as contributing to an 11-fold increase in the state's prison population between 1970 and 2014 while Florida's state population roughly tripled over that same period of time, and a $1.1 billion increase in corrections expenditures over the past 20 years. Because these laws have mandated prisoners serve longer prison terms and larger percentages of their sentences, Florida's elderly prison population has increased at a faster rate than any other age group over the past 10 years. The cost of incarceration for these inmates-roughly $68,000 per year-is more than three times higher than the cost of an average inmate. Beyond this, evidence suggests that these laws may not have been the most effective at reducing crime in the state. Indeed, a study by The Pew Center on the States estimates that prison provided no public safety benefit for over 1,700 nonviolent offenders released from Florida prisons in 2004. In addition, it found that over 4,000 more nonviolent offenders could have been released earlier without negatively impacting public safety. Other studies have shown that laws mandating longer sentences, such as those in Florida, do not have a positive deterrent effect on crime, and may even be counter-productive. Another study has shown that Florida's 10-20-Life law cannot be definitively linked to a reduction of violent crime in the state. Moreover, because many of these laws are routinely applied to low-level, nonviolent offenders whose lengthened terms of incarceration not only cost taxpayers exorbitant amounts of money and fail to increase public safety, they apply harsh laws indiscriminately, without concern for whether the sentence fits the crime. In order to limit the unintended consequences and negative impacts of these laws, this study suggests numerous reforms legislators could pursue that would help reduce the state's prison population and corrections expenditures without compromising public safety. First, this study suggests that Florida legislators eliminate mandatory minimum sentences in order to give judges more discretion in sentencing. This would allow judges to prevent the imposition of arbitrary and unjust prison terms, but retain the option of imposing long terms of imprisonment for those offenders whose crimes warrant such a punishment, such as violent or serious offenders. Eliminating mandatory minimum prison terms does not mean that individuals will suddenly stop being sent to prison for these crimes, but it will instead allow judges to make individual determinations in sentencing, so that a convicted offender receives a punishment that is proportionate to the crime committed. Alternatively, this study suggests that legislators significantly increase the threshold necessary to trigger certain drug trafficking offenses and subsequent mandatory minimum prison terms so that they are targeted at higher-level dealers as intended, not low-level offenders. Although modest reform was enacted in 2014 to this end, many of Florida's drug trafficking laws still fail to distinguish between drug users, low-level drug dealers, and large-scale drug traffickers, and often end up punishing low-level offenders with the same type of severity normally reserved for more serious criminals. Indeed, a 2009 study published by the Florida Senate found that lower-level offenders are sometimes punished more harshly than higher-level dealers and traffickers under the state's drug trafficking laws. If neither of these reforms is politically feasible, this study recommends that Florida legislators enact broad safety valve legislation, which would allow judges to depart below mandatory minimum sentences, such as those required under the 10-20-Life law and Florida's drug trafficking laws, when they believe doing so would be in the best interest of justice. This would give judges the option of not sending low-level offenders to prison for a mandatory minimum of 20 years if they determine that doing so is not warranted for the crime committed or would not be in the best interest of justice or public safety, for example. This study also suggests that legislators limit the scope of Florida's habitual offender laws so that they may only be applied to violent habitual offenders. Prohibiting these laws from applying to nonviolent offenders would ensure that prison resources are being used to keep individuals who pose the largest threat to society behind bars, not those whose prolonged periods of incarceration do not benefit public safety. Finally, this study also recommends that legislators allow certain inmates to earn additional incentive gain-time credits so that non-violent and/or low-level offenders whose prolonged incarceration results in no positive impact on public safety may be released before serving 85% of their sentences. Allowing inmates-especially nonviolent offenders-to earn more credits toward a reduction in their sentences incentivizes rehabilitation, which could help reduce the chances of recidivism upon release, and will save taxpayers millions of dollars in the long term. Details: Los Angeles: Reason Foundation, 2015. 40p. Source: Internet Resource: Policy Study No. 444: Accessed April 7, 2015 at: http://reason.org/files/florida_prison_reform.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://reason.org/files/florida_prison_reform.pdf Shelf Number: 135179 Keywords: Costs of CorrectionsCosts of Criminal Justice (Florida)Criminal Justice ReformImprisonment, Economic Aspects of |
Author: Carson, Bethany Title: Payoff: How Congress Ensures Private Prison Profit with an Immigrant Detention Quota Summary: In 2009, in the midst of a multi-year decline in the undocumented immigrant population, Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV), then Chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security, inserted the following language regarding Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) detention budget into the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2010:"...funding made available under this heading shall maintain a level of not less than 33,400 detention beds." This directive established what would become a controversial policy interpreted by ICE as a mandate to contract for and fill 33,400 (increased in 2013 to 34,000) detention beds on a daily basis. The directive would come to be known as the "immigrant detention quota" or "bed mandate." The immigration detention quota is unprecedented; no other law enforcement agency operates under a detention quota mandated by Congress. Since its implementation, the quota has become a driver of an increasingly aggressive immigration enforcement strategy. The immigrant detention system has expanded significantly since the implementation of the quota, and the percent of the detained population held in private facilities has increased even more dramatically. Two major private prison corporations have emerged as the main corporate beneficiaries of immigrant detention policies: Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) and GEO Group. This report provides an in-depth assessment of the inception and implementation of the quota, with a specific focus on the role played by for-profit, private prison corporations. These companies have profited handsomely from the artificial stability provided by the quota while contributing millions of dollars in federal lobbying expenditures and in campaign contributions to ensure their interests are met. This report also features testimony from people directly impacted by detention and deportation, revealing the momentous human cost of the quota. Key Findings: 1.Private prison corporations have increased their share of the immigrant detention industry. Since just before the onset of the quota, the private prison industry has increased its share of immigrant detention beds by 13 percent. Sixty-two percent of all ICE immigration detention beds in the United States are now operated by for-profit prison corporations, up from 49 percent in 2009. Nine of the ten largest ICE detention centers are private. This is particularly noteworthy in light of the expansion of the entire ICE detention system by nearly 47 percent in the last decade. 2.Private prison corporations lobby on immigration and immigrant detention issues that affect their bottom line. Contrary to private prison corporation claims that they do not lobby on issues related to immigration policy, between 2008 and 2014, CCA spent $10,560,000 in quarters where they lobbied on issues related to immigrant detention and immigration reform. Of that amount, CCA spent $9,760,000, - 61 percent of total private prison lobbying expenditures - in quarters where they directly lobbied the DHS Appropriations Subcommittee, which maintains the immigrant detention quota language and shapes the way in which it is interpreted. Lobbying disclosure forms reveal spending on: "Issues related to comprehensive immigration reform", and "FY 2014 and FY 2015 Department of Homeland Security appropriations - provisions related to privately-operated ICE detention facilities". Since 2010, CCA has spent at least 75 percent of its lobbying expenditures in quarters where it has lobbied directly on the DHS Appropriations Subcommittee. Though GEO Group has not directly lobbied the DHS Appropriations Subcommittee, the company recently began lobbying on immigration and immigrant detention issues, spending $460,000 between 2011 and 2014 in quarters when they lobbied on these issues. 3.Two private prison corporations - CCA and GEO Group - dominate the immigration detention industry. Together, they operate eight of the ten largest immigrant detention centers. GEO and CCA combined operate 72 percent of the privately contracted ICE immigrant detention beds. In the years following the implementation of the immigrant detention quota, CCA and GEO expanded their share of the total ICE immigrant detention system from 37 percent in 2010 to 45 percent in 2014. GEO Group in particular has increased its share of the total ICE immigrant detention system to 25 percent in FY14 from 15 percent in FY10. Both companies have significantly augmented their profits since the implementation of the quota, CCA from $133,373,000 in 2007 to $195,022,000 in 2014. GEO experienced an even more dramatic profit increase from $41,845,000 in 2007 to $143,840,000 in 2014, a 244 percent increase. 4.CCA and GEO have recently expanded their immigrant detention capacity, including new contracts for detaining asylum-seeking families. Since FY2014, the most recent numbers released by ICE, both CCA and GEO have both expanded their capacity for detaining women and children in new family detention centers[22] in South Texas. The CCA-operated South Texas Family Residential Center in Dilley opened in December 2014 and currently holds about 480 women and children. It is under expansion to grow to an expected capacity of 2,400 by May 2015. If this expansion proceeds, Dilley will be the largest immigrant detention center in the U.S. The GEO-run Karnes County Residential Center opened in June 2014 and now holds around 600 women and children, but will expand to a capacity of 1,200. Additionally, in January 2015, GEO acquired LCS Corrections, which owns several large immigrant detention facilities in Texas and Louisiana, further increasing its share of the immigrant detention business. Details: Charlotte, NC: Grassroots Leadership, 2015. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 20, 2015 at: http://grassrootsleadership.org/sites/default/files/reports/quota_report_final_digital.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://grassrootsleadership.org/sites/default/files/reports/quota_report_final_digital.pdf Shelf Number: 135261 Keywords: Costs of CorrectionsImmigrant DetentionPrivate Prisons (U.S.)Privatization |
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 CorrectionsCosts of Criminal JusticeCriminal Justice SystemsDrug Abuse TreatmentDrug OffendersGood Time CreditsInmatesJail OvercrowdingJailsPretrial Detention |
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 CorrectionsCosts of Criminal JusticeJails |
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 InstitutionsCorrectional ProgramsCosts of CorrectionsCosts of Criminal JusticeInmatesPrisonersPrisonsRecidivism |
Author: Utah. Legislative Auditor General Title: A Performance Audit of Inmate High School Education Summary: Our office was asked to compare the effectiveness and efficiency of inmate high school education programs in Utah's jails and prisons. Educational services are provided by the adult education program of the school district where an inmate is incarcerated. Programs include adult high school completion (AHSC), adult basic education (ABE), and English for speakers of other languages (ESOL). In 2011, 21 local school districts provided educational services to 5,268 inmate students in 23 jails and 2 state prisons. The Utah State Office of Education (USOE) administers the adult education programs, including tracking student demographics, contact hours, and outcomes on a compute-based information system. Inmate High School Education Costs Were about $5.4 Million in 2011. This chapter identifies the cost of educating inmate students. There are two primary revenue sources for inmate high school education: (1) a portion of the Adult Education budget distributed based on a formula that considers the number of enrollees, contact hours, and outcomes (diplomas/GEDs, credits, and academic level gains); and (2) Corrections Education funds distributed only to the two school districts with prison programs, Canyons and South Sanpete. In 2011, school districts with prison programs received significantly more funds ($1330 per student) than districts with jail programs ($653 per student). Based on this inequity, we recommend that USOE consider modifying the distribution formula to ensure that school districts receive an equitable portion of the Adult Education funds. USOE should also develop a formula to provide some of the Corrections Education funds to jail programs with students who are prison inmates housed in jails on a contractual basis. Inmates Achieve Academic Benefits. In 2011, the 5,268 inmates enrolled in adult education were awarded 853 diplomas and 330 GEDs, while achieving 12,003 high school credits and 2,143 level gains. On average, these outcomes per student were equivalent for both jail and prison programs but prison programs chose to focus mostly on issuing diplomas instead of GEDs. Comparisons show that inmate programs achieved significantly more than students in traditional adult education programs. Impact of High School Education on Employment Is Unclear. The primary purpose of educating inmates is to enhance their opportunities for employment upon release, which in turn makes it less likely they will return to jail. However, employment rates are not effectively evaluated. One factor impacting employment rates is identifying the incarceration status of former students. Our limited evaluation shows that many former students are still incarcerated and not available to work. Since education is beneficial only when inmates will soon be available for employment, we recommend that inmate programs give priority to students who are likely to leave the correctional facility within five years of participating in the education program. We also recommend that USOE and the Utah Department of Corrections partner to further evaluate the employment benefits of inmate education. Monitoring Is Needed to Ensure Inmate Contact Hours Are Reasonable. Comparisons of contact hours per student and per outcome revealed that some programs used an excessive amount of contact hours to educate inmates. But these students did not always demonstrate much progress toward achieving their goals. We recommend that USOE establish guidelines for the number of contact hours that are reasonable in relation to a student's accomplishments. Many Contact Hours Are Used for Students Who Already Have Diplomas. Many inmate students with diplomas continue to receive adult education services. Administrative rules state that adults with a high school diploma are eligible to receive services if tests show their functional educational level is less than a post-secondary level. Many students qualify, including students who have just been awarded a diploma. Although USOE policies require that priority be given to students lacking a diploma, some of these students continue receiving thousands of hours of services with little gain. We recommend that USOE consider placing limits on the number of contact hours used for students who already have a diploma. Details: Salt Lake City: Utah Legislative Auditor General, 2012. 45p. Source: Internet Resource: Report no. 2012-11: Accessed June 3, 2015 at: http://le.utah.gov/audit/12_11rpt.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://le.utah.gov/audit/12_11rpt.pdf Shelf Number: 129973 Keywords: Correctional EducationCorrectional ProgramsCosts of CorrectionsEducational ProgramsEx-Offender Employment |
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 CorrectionsCosts of Criminal JusticeCriminal Justice ReformCriminal Justice systemsJustice ReinvestmentProperty CrimesSentencing Reform |
Author: Levine, Barbara R. Title: 10,000 fewer Michigan prisoners:Strategies to reach the goal Summary: Michigan's prisoner population has grown from fewer than 7,900 in 1973 to over 43,000. Corrections has gone from 1.6 percent of General Fund spending to nearly 20 percent. Today the budget of the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) is roughly $2 billion. This growth is not the inevitable product of increases in the size of the general population or of increased crime. On the contrary, Michigan's population growth has been modest and index crime rates have been declining steadily for the last three decades. Prison expansion resulted from specific changes in law, policy and practice that caused the state's incarceration rate to rise from 160 per 100,000 residents in 1983 to 442 today. Reexamining policies in light of current research could allow Michigan, in the next five years, to: Have 10,000 fewer prisoners. Reduce the prisoner population to 33,704 (about the same amount as in 1990 and 35 percent below the high point in 2006). Close seven entire prisons and six additional housing units. Avoid the need to train 2,000 new corrections officers to replace retirees. Save nearly $250 million annually. Details: Lansing, MI: Citizens Alliance on Prisons and Public Spending, 2015. 94p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 17, 2015 at: http://media.mlive.com/lansing-news/other/CAPPS%20Report.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://media.mlive.com/lansing-news/other/CAPPS%20Report.pdf Shelf Number: 136092 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCosts of CorrectionsPrison PopulationPrison ReformPrisoners |
Author: Ortiz, Natalie Rose Title: County Jails at a Crossroads: An Examination of the Jail Population and Pretrial Release Summary: County governments provide essential services to create healthy, safe, vibrant and economically resilient communities. Maintaining safe and secure communities is one of the most important functions of county governments. Most counties are involved in almost every aspect of law enforcement and crime prevention, including policing, judicial and legal services and corrections. Counties own 87 percent of all jails in the United States through which they provide supervision, detention and other correctional services to more than 700,000 persons in an effort to protect public safety and reduce recidivism. Effective jail management along with fair justice system policies and practices results in strategic management of the jail population and prudent county spending on the corrections system. One way to effectively manage the jail population is to improve the pretrial release process. Pretrial policies and practices involve defendants awaiting resolution to their case. Using the results of a 2015 NACo survey of county jails, an examination of the pretrial population in jail and policies impacting pretrial release in county jails finds: THE MAJORITY OF THE CONFINED COUNTY JAIL POPULATION IS PRETRIAL AND LOW RISK. Two-thirds of the confined population in county jails is pretrial and the proportion reaches three-quarters in almost half of county jails. This trend is more pronounced in jails located in small counties - with less than 50,000 residents - and medium-sized counties - with populations between 50,000 and 250,000 residents. Forty (40) percent of responding county jails use a validated risk assessment at booking. Most often, these jails identify a majority of their confined jail population as low risk. Because these tools are used at booking, when defendants are admitted to jail after arrest, jails are identifying most of their pretrial population as low risk. COUNTY JAILS ARE CAUGHT BETWEEN COURTS' DECISION-MAKING AND INCREASES IN THE JAIL POPULATION AND JAIL COSTS. Pretrial release decision-making is a product of the court. Understanding the impact of courts' decision-making, especially during pretrial, on the jail population is important for counties with rapidly rising jail populations and costs. According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, the jail population increased by 20 percent between 2000 and 2012 with the pretrial population comprising a rising share, while county corrections costs soared by 74 percent. Forty-four (44) percent of responding county jails to the 2015 NACo survey report that managing jail costs is one of their top challenges. Reducing the jail population - especially the number of people with mental illnesses - is a priority for almost three quarters of responding jails. More than 65 percent of county jails report that their county boards are willing to collaborate on reducing the jail population and jail costs. Counties can act as conveners, bringing together the court and jail to discuss and implement strategies that may effectively address the pretrial population in jail. SOME COUNTY JAILS SUPERVISE PRETRIAL DETAINEES OUTSIDE OF CONFINEMENT. A third of responding county jails to the 2015 NACo survey release pretrial detainees from custody and supervise them in the community through different types of community based programs, depending on the needs of the detainees. These programs may be focused specifically on pretrial supervision - where the type of supervision used varies on a case-by-case basis - or deal with both pretrial and convicted populations through health treatment, electronic monitoring, home arrest and work release. Most county jails have more than one type of program. Pretrial supervision programs focus overwhelmingly on the pretrial population (95 percent of their population), followed by physical health care and behavioral health treatment programs in which close to half of the supervised population is pretrial. Overall, few pretrial detainees are placed in these programs. Only 28 percent of the detainees released by respondent jails in 2014 were pretrial. The county jail programs that supervise pretrial persons are just one part of the larger county pretrial system that includes formal pretrial services agencies that provide information on defendants to judges for the pretrial release decision; policies that force release pretrial detainees when the jail population reaches a certain capacity; and bond review practices. County jails are at a crossroads, confronting increasing pressure on their physical capacity and rising jail costs, while lacking the decision-making for pretrial release. The courts decide who is released pretrial, affecting the size of county jail population and, consequently, jail costs. Reducing the jail population and costs is a priority for jail administrators and county boards. Some counties fund programs that would release pretrial detainees from confinement and supervise them in the community, but the pretrial population accounts for a small share of who is released and supervised in the community. Through coordination and collaboration across the county justice system, counties are in a strong position to lead the way in pretrial release, developing strategies and leveraging resources that assist in managing the county jail population and safeguarding public safety. Details: Washington, DC: National Association of Counties, 2015. 23p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 23, 2015 at: http://www.naco.org/resources/county-jails-crossroads Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.naco.org/resources/county-jails-crossroads Shelf Number: 136139 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationCosts of CorrectionsJail AdministrationJail PopulationJailsOffender SupervisionPretrial DetentionPretrial Release |
Author: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, Evaluation and Inspections Division Title: The Impact of an Aging Inmate Population on the Federal Bureau of Prisons Summary: In September 2013, the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) incarcerated 164,566 federal inmates in 119 BOP-managed institutions.1 According to BOP data, inmates age 50 and older were the fastest growing segment of its inmate population, increasing 25 percent from 24,857 in fiscal year (FY) 2009 to 30,962 in FY 2013.2 By contrast, during the same period, the population of inmates 49 and younger decreased approximately 1 percent, including an even larger decrease of 29 percent in the youngest inmates (age 29 and younger). Based on BOP cost data, we estimate that the BOP spent approximately $881 million, or 19 percent of its total budget, to incarcerate aging inmates in FY 2013.3 The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) conducted this review to assess the aging inmate population's impact on the BOP's inmate management, including costs, health services, staffing, housing, and programming. We also assessed the recidivism of inmates who were age 50 and older at the time of their release. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, 2015. 72p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 13, 2015 at: https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2015/e1505.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2015/e1505.pdf Shelf Number: 136389 Keywords: Costs of CorrectionsElderly InmatesPrisoners |
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 CorrectionsCosts of Criminal JusticeCriminal Justice ReformJustice ReinvestmentSentencing |
Author: Western Australia. Office of the Auditor General Title: Implementing and Managing Community Based Sentences Summary: Background Community Based Orders and Intensive Supervision Orders are available to the courts for sentencing convicted off enders and are served in the community. They were established as part of a sentencing hierarchy by the Sentencing Act 1995. They are a low cost sentencing option, currently costing the State $12 per day per off ender as compared to $180 per day for imprisonment. They were expected to contribute to reducing imprisonment rates and to enable the punitive and rehabilitative aspects of sentences to be more effective. In 2000 nearly 4000 such sentences were issued to both first time offenders and repeat offenders who had been convicted of a variety of offences from robbery to drink driving offences. What the examination found... Western Australia's imprisonment rate continues to be higher than that of most States and Territories. About 60 per cent of Community Based Orders and about 50 per cent of Intensive Supervision Orders issued each year are completed. These completion rates are lower than those for most other states and territories. Off enders assessed as having a high risk of re-off ending have a lower completion rate (42 per cent) than other off enders (70 per cent). The Ministry of Justice does not have a comprehensive strategy for rehabilitating off enders and the rehabilitative effects of the sentences are not known. The management of treatment programs, the main ingredient for rehabilitating off enders is ad hoc and inconsistent with little or no coordination of the internal and external program providers. Case management is not achieving its objective of being an integrated process for managing offenders. Although the Ministry collects a variety of information about offenders this information is not always analysed and utilized in planning services to enable more targeted service provision. Both the overall number of offenders on these orders, as well as the proportion of high-risk offenders, has increased since the Sentencing Act was implemented without any review of resourcing. Managing offenders is a specialised function that requires considerable experience for effective service provision. Many Community Corrections Officers employed on short-term contracts, are inexperienced and carry heavy caseloads. There is a risk that inexperienced staff can make poor judgements, which could impact negatively on the off ender and the community. While there are a plethora of processes, practices and programs in the management of offenders, the Ministry does not regularly evaluate them. Therefore, it is not known whether these processes, practices and programs benefit or hinder their management. What the examination recommended... Major recommendations made in the report are that: The Ministry of Justice should: Systematically collect and evaluate information about the characteristics of offenders to enable more informed planning. Develop a comprehensive rehabilitation strategy for offenders in the community. Define the aims of rehabilitation and develop and implement appropriate performance indicators to assess the rehabilitative benefits of orders. Regularly review resource allocations in relation to the demands presented by the changing characteristics of offenders. Evaluate their services regularly with a view to ensuring their appropriateness and effectiveness. -- Develop and implement a human resource management plan that ensures a stable and well-trained workforce. Identify and endorse appropriate benchmarks for the workloads of Community Correction Officers and other staff to enable meaningful development performance measures for their work. Details: Perth: Western Australia Auditor General, 2001. 56p. Source: Internet Resource: Report No. 3: Accessed August 26, 2015 at: https://audit.wa.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/report2001_03.pdf Year: 2001 Country: Australia URL: https://audit.wa.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/report2001_03.pdf Shelf Number: 136591 Keywords: Community Based CorrectionsCommunity CorrectionsCosts of CorrectionsIntensive SupervisionOffender ManagementOffender Supervision |
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 CorrectionsCosts of Criminal JusticeDrug OffendersDrug TraffickingRecidivismSentencing |
Author: Justice Policy Institute Title: Parole Perspectives in Maryland: A Survey of People Who Returned to Prison from Parole and Community Supervision Agents Summary: A new analysis from the Justice Policy Institute (JPI) shows the connection between efforts to reduce prison populations, connect people to work, and address the challenges of Baltimore's distressed communities. In Parole Perspectives in Maryland: A survey of people who returned to prison from parole and community supervision agents, JPI heard from the people most directly impacted by and involved with Maryland's parole practices. JPI surveyed people who returned to prison from parole and their community supervision agents to get a clearer picture of the barriers to successfully transitioning to the community from prison. About half of the people surveyed were from Baltimore City and most of the parole agents surveyed were responsible for a caseload that includes people from Baltimore City. Forty-six percent of the people who left prison and were on parole that were surveyed were from Baltimore City, and 12 percent were from Baltimore County. Details: Washington, DC: Justice Policy Institute, 2015. 23p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 24, 2015 at: http://www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/justicepolicy/documents/paroleperspectivesinmaryland.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/justicepolicy/documents/paroleperspectivesinmaryland.pdf Shelf Number: 136854 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity-Based CorrectionsCosts of CorrectionsOffender SupervisionParoleParole RevocationsParolees |
Author: Lofstrom, Magnus Title: Public Safety Realignment: Impacts So Far Summary: Prompted by a federal court order to reduce prison overcrowding, California's 2011 historic public safety realignment shifted many correctional responsibilities for lower-level felons from the state to counties. The reform was premised on the idea that locals can do a better job, and it was hoped that incarceration rates and corrections costs would fall. At the same time, critics predicted crime would rise. Four years since its implementation, realignment has made several important impacts: Realignment significantly reduced the prison population, but the state did not reach the court-mandated population target until after the passage of Proposition 47 in November 2014, which reduced penalties for many property and drug offenses. The reform challenged county jails and probation departments by making them responsible for a greater number of offenders with a broader range of backgrounds and needs. The county jail population did not rise nearly as much as the prison population fell, reducing the total number of people incarcerated in California. Realignment did not increase violent crime, but auto thefts rose. Research so far shows no dramatic change in recidivism rates. State corrections spending remains high, but there is reason to believe expenditures could drop in the future. Realignment has largely been successful, but the state and county correctional systems face significant challenges. The state needs to regain control of prison medical care, which is now in the hands of a federal receiver. And the state and counties together must make progress in reducing stubbornly high recidivism rates. Details: San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California, 2015. 10p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 30, 2015 at: http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_915MLR.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_915MLR.pdf Shelf Number: 136925 Keywords: Costs of CorrectionsCrime RatesCriminal Justice Policy Criminal Justice Reform Jails Prison Overcrowding Public Safety Realignment Recidivism |
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 CorrectionsCosts of Criminal JusticeCriminal Justice ReformMass IncarcerationPrison PopulationPrisoners |
Author: Stanford Justice Advocacy Project Title: Proposition 47 Progress Report: Year One Implementation Summary: Since the enactment of Proposition 47 on November 14, 2014, the number of people incarcerated in California[s prisons and jails has decreased by approximately 13,000 inmates, helping alleviate crowding conditions in those institutions. Proposition 47 has also reduced the number of jail inmates released from custody early due to overcrowding and should generate over $150 million in state savings this fiscal year. County governments stand to save even more money: over $200 million annually, in aggregate. Details: Stanford, CA: Stanford Justice Advocacy Project, Stanford Law School, 2015. 11p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 16, 2015 at: https://2pe0o743k0s82lo5l6trs9j1-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Prop-47-report.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: https://2pe0o743k0s82lo5l6trs9j1-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Prop-47-report.pdf Shelf Number: 137299 Keywords: Costs of CorrectionsEarly ReleasePrison OvercrowdingPrison PopulationPrisonersProposition 47 |
Author: American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio Title: In Jail & In Debt: Ohio's Pay-to-Stay Fees Summary: The ACLU of Ohio is the first to collect and analyze pay-to-stay policies statewide with the report In Jail & In Debt: Ohio's Pay-to-Stay Fees. Pay-to-stay jail fees are the fees charged by local jails to people while they are incarcerated. This report takes a comprehensive look at jails across the state, compares policies, documents impact, and proposes new recommendations to stop locking people in cycles of incarceration and debt. Our statewide investigation analyzes policies at 75 facilities representing 74 counties across Ohio. More than half of jails, 40 of the 75, charge people for their incarceration through a booking fee, a daily fee, or both. Ohioans are getting billed up to $66.09 a day to be in jail. It is a follow up to the 2013 report Adding It Up: The Financial Realities of Ohio's Pay-To-Stay Policies, which explored the financial impacts of pay-to-stay policies in Ohio. This report analyzed how local governments were trying to generate revenue from people in jail, but pay-to-stay fees created more problems than they solved. We suggested counties follow the law and assess for indigence, eliminate costly collections agency contracts, and consider the impact on families. Details: Cleveland, OH: ACLU of Ohio, 2015. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 24, 2015 at: http://www.acluohio.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/InJailInDebt.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.acluohio.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/InJailInDebt.pdf Shelf Number: 137326 Keywords: Costs of CorrectionsCriminal Fees Criminal FinesCriminal Justice Debt Financial SanctionsJail FeesJail Inmates |
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 CorrectionsCosts of Criminal JusticeCriminal Justice ReformProposition 47 |
Author: Alaska Criminal Justice Commission Title: Justice Reinvestment Report Summary: Alaska's prison population has grown by 27 percent in the last decade, almost three times faster than the resident population. This rapid growth spurred the opening of the state's newest correctional facility - Goose Creek Correctional Center - in 2012, costing the state $240 million in construction funds. On July 1, 2014, Alaska's correctional facilities housed 5,267 inmates, and the Department of Corrections ("DOC") had a fiscal year operating budget of $327 million. Absent reform, these trends are projected to continue: Alaska will need to house an additional 1,416 inmates by 2024, surpassing the state's current prison bed capacity by 2017. This growth is estimated to cost the state at least $169 million in new corrections spending over the next 10 years. The rising cost of Alaska's prison population coupled with the state's high recidivism rate - almost two-thirds of inmates released from the state's facilities return within three years - have led policymakers to consider whether the state is achieving the best public safety return on its corrections spending. Seeking a comprehensive review of the state's corrections and criminal justice systems, the 2014 Alaska Legislature established the bi-partisan, interbranch Alaska Criminal Justice Commission ("Commission"). In April of the following year, state leaders from all three branches of government joined together to request technical assistance from the Public Safety Performance Project of The Pew Charitable Trusts and the U.S. Department of Justice as part of the Justice Reinvestment Initiative. Governor Bill Walker, former Chief Justice Dana Fabe, Senate President Kevin Meyer, House Speaker Mike Chenault, Attorney General Craig Richards, former Commissioner of the Alaska DOC Ron Taylor, and former Chair of the Commission Alexander O. Bryner tasked the Commission with "develop[ing] recommendations aimed at safely controlling prison and jail growth and recalibrating our correctional investments to ensure that we are achieving the best possible public safety return on our state dollars." In addition, Senate President Meyer and Speaker Chenault requested that, because the state's difficult budget situation rendered reinvestment in evidence-based programs and treatment possible only with significant reforms, the Commission forward policy options that would not only avert future prison growth, but would also reduce the prison population between 15 and 25 percent below current levels. Over a seven-month period, the Commission analyzed the state's criminal justice system, including a comprehensive review of sentencing, corrections, and community supervision data. Key findings include: - Alaska's pretrial population has grown by 81 percent over the past decade, driven primarily by longer lengths of stay for both felony and misdemeanor defendants. - Three-quarters of offenders entering prison post-conviction in 2014 were convicted of a nonviolent offense. - Length of stay for sentenced felony offenders is up 31 percent over the past decade. - In 2014, 47 percent of post-revocation supervision violators - who are incarcerated primarily for non-criminal violations of probation and parole conditions - stayed more than 30 days, and 28 percent stayed longer than 3 months behind bars. Based on this analysis, and the directive from legislative leadership, the Commission developed a comprehensive, evidence-based package of 21 consensus policy recommendations that would protect public safety, hold offenders accountable, and reduce the state's average daily prison population by 21 percent, netting estimated savings of $424 million over the next decade. Details: Juneau: Alaska Criminal Justice Commission, 2015. 38p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 8, 2016 at: http://www.ajc.state.ak.us/sites/default/files/imported/acjc/AJRI/ak_jri_report_final12-15.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.ajc.state.ak.us/sites/default/files/imported/acjc/AJRI/ak_jri_report_final12-15.pdf Shelf Number: 137792 Keywords: Costs of CorrectionsCriminal Justice ReformCriminal Justice SystemsJustice ReinvestmentPrison PopulationPrisons |
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 IncarcerationCosts of CorrectionsCosts of Criminal Justice |
Author: San Mateo County (California) Title: Can an Electronic Monitoring Program for Pre-Trial Detainees Help to Reduce Jail Overcrowding? Summary: The Maguire Correctional Facility (men's jail) located in Redwood City is populated beyond its State-rated capacity, and has been for many years. Since it appears that the jail facilities will continue to be overcrowded for the foreseeable future, the Grand Jury questioned whether electronic monitoring devices are being used for pre-trial detainees (PTDs) and if electronic monitoring devices can be used to alleviate overcrowding in our jail. From 2002 to 2007 approximately 50 percent of the male jail population consisted of pre-trial detainees. The other 50 percent were individuals who had received a trial or pled guilty and were serving a prescribed sentence. Since 2008, this ratio has steadily changed, with pre-trial detainees reaching about 76% of the jail population in 2011. The Grand Jury looked at the alternatives offered to this growing population of untried, unsentenced individuals to determine if there were opportunities to reduce the number of inmates awaiting trial. A potential alternative to serving time in jail awaiting trial is to release carefully selected persons into an Electronic Monitoring Program (EMP). The Grand Jury found that utilizing electronic monitoring devices for pre-trial detainees is not part of the current classification process in San Mateo County, no EMP exists for pre-trial detainees, and consequently no persons awaiting trial wear an electronic monitoring device. Several of those interviewed acknowledge that electronic monitoring devices for specific individuals could be a useful tool in reducing jail populations. Expanding EMP efforts to the pre-trial detainee population would require some investment in staff and training, as well as modification of eligibility guidelines. This investment could be partially or wholly offset by cost savings in reducing jail headcount. The Grand Jury found that significant daily cost savings of approximately $100 per inmate/per day are available if selected pre-trial detainees are released into an EMP. The Grand Jury recommends that the Sheriff's Office do the following: 1) conduct an objective analysis and issue a report regarding the feasibility of an EMP for selected pre-trial detainees; 2) should the objective analysis and the results of the report indicate that an EMP for selected pre-trial detainees be feasible, prepare an implementation plan to expand EMP for pre-trial detainees for full implementation within 12 months. The objective analysis would include a review of best-practices in adjoining counties and statewide to evaluate the impact and usefulness of electronic monitoring and its effect on the jail population. It would also include the introduction of a risk assessment tool, such as the Virginia Risk Assessment, for determining defendant eligibility for EMP for pre-trial detainees. Implementing a non-jail confinement program for some classes of pre-trial detainees could be an important contribution to addressing overcrowded conditions in the men's jail in San Mateo County at a cost savings to the taxpayer. Details: San Mateo, CA: San Mateo County, 2012. 23p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 22, 2016 at: https://www.sanmateocourt.org/documents/grand_jury/2011/emp.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: https://www.sanmateocourt.org/documents/grand_jury/2011/emp.pdf Shelf Number: 137927 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCosts of CorrectionsElectronic MonitoringJailsPretrial DetentionPrison Overcrowding |
Author: Rios, Nestor Title: Reducing Recidivism: A Review of Effective State Initiatives Summary: The Colorado Criminal Justice Reform Coalition commissioned this report that documents how retraining staff in behavioral intervention methods, implementing system-wide organizational improvements, and restructuring probation and parole supervision around the crime related behaviors allowed Maryland's PCS program to achieve an amazing 42 percent lower rate of re-arrests for people under supervision. Crime related behaviors were described under Maryland's PCS program as violence, drug entrepreneurship, drug abuse, domestic abuse, etc. In addition, the report introduces the concept of Justice Reinvestment to Colorado policymakers, profiling efforts in Arizona, Connecticut and Kansas to improve parole and probation supervision outcomes while reducing state correctional costs. Details: New York: Justice Strategies, 2009. 52p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 23, 2016 at: http://www.justicestrategies.org/sites/default/files/publications/CO_Reducing_Recidivism_Report.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: http://www.justicestrategies.org/sites/default/files/publications/CO_Reducing_Recidivism_Report.pdf Shelf Number: 130061 Keywords: Community SupervisionCosts of CorrectionsJustice ReinvestmentParole SupervisionProbation SupervisionRecidivism |
Author: Abarbanel, Sara Title: Realigning the Revolving Door: An Analysis of California Counties' AB109 2011-2012 Implementation plans Summary: On April 5, 2011, California Governor Jerry Brown signed into law AB 109, the "2011 Realignment Legislation Addressing Public Safety" ("Realignment), which dramatically shifted responsibility from the state to the counties for tens of thousands of offenders. The state was in an unprecedented financial crisis, and recent budget deficits had forced legislators to make tough decisions that included cutting spending not only in the criminal justice system, but in education and other social services as well. Not only that, but just a few weeks before the bill's signing, the United States Supreme Court had upheld a lower court's judgment ordering California to reduce its prison population by approximately 40,000 persons within two years. California, and its prison system, had to make big changes. Details: Palo Alto, CA: Stanford Law School Criminal Justice Center, 2013. 129p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed arch 24, 2016 at: http://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/default/files/child-page/183091/doc/slspublic/Realigning%20the%20Revolving%20Door%20with%20updates%20for%2058%20counties%20080113.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/default/files/child-page/183091/doc/slspublic/Realigning%20the%20Revolving%20Door%20with%20updates%20for%2058%20counties%20080113.pdf Shelf Number: 131263 Keywords: California RealignmentCorrectional AdministrationCosts of CorrectionsCriminal Justice PolicyPrisons |
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 CorrectionsCosts of Criminal JusticeCriminal Justice ReformCriminal Justice SystemsJustice Reinvestment |
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 AnalysisCosts of CorrectionsCosts of Criminal JusticeCriminal Justice PolicyCriminal Justice ReformEconomics of CrimePrisons |
Author: Western Australia, Office of the Inspector of Custodial Services Title: Recidivism rates and the impact of treatment programs Summary: Crime costs Australia approximately $36 billion dollars per year. Government spending on the criminal justice system accounts for approximately one quarter of these costs, distributed between the police, the courts, and corrective services. National trends show an increasing expenditure on the criminal justice system and Western Australia reflects this. Over the past five years, the yearly cost of Corrective Services has increased by nearly $200 million (34%), with an additional $655 million used on capital expenditure. This review has found that the Department is missing opportunities in reducing reoffending among those most likely to return to prison. Many factors that increase the likelihood of returning to prison are beyond the Department's control but some can be addressed by treatment in prison, education, or by support and assistance on release. It was found that prisoners released from prisons where there were identified deficiencies in service provision were more likely to reoffend. One area that has seen significant investment with the explicit aim of reducing re-offending is the provision of psychologically-based 'offender treatment programs'. These programs are also an influential factor in Prisoners Review Board decisions. Despite their importance there are inequities in their provision and individual programs are rarely subject to long term evaluation. In order to improve outcomes and reduce the rate at which people return to prison, the Department needs to adopt a holistic but carefully targeted approach. This will require clear goals, well-funded strategies for improvement, and continuous measuring of effectiveness so that alterations can be made where needed. Cost increases in the Western Australian correctives services system coincide with an unprecedented increase in prisoner population. The number of prisoners in adult prisons has increased from approximately 3000 in 2004 to over 5000 in 2014. Not only has the population risen but the cost per prisoner is also rising. In Western Australia, five years ago the cost per prisoner each day was $303.62. Now it is $341.64. For 5000 prisoners that is a rise of over $190,000 per day. These cost and population pressures underline the importance of an effective corrective services system. In an effective system, imprisonment will positively influence a prisoner's life by making them less likely to reoffend in the future. Every 10 less prisoners in the system represents an annual saving of one million dollars. Research has shown that a prison sentence increases the likelihood of reoffending; however, reoffending is less likely if a person undertakes a relevant treatment program (e.g. drug treatment, sexual offender treatment). Other effectively proven rehabilitative measures for reducing reoffending include: - Prison-based educational and vocational training programs; - Prison-based employment programs; - Post-release services that aid community re-integration; - Drug courts; and - Mental health diversionary programs. Recently, the Commissioner for Corrective Services announced an intention to reduce reoffending by five to six per cent per year Details: Perth: Office of the Inspector of Custodial Services, 2014. 54p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 5, 2016 at: http://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/publications/tabledpapers.nsf/displaypaper/3912295a35b28230ed9c541e48257d730008d551/$file/2295.pdf Year: 2014 Country: Australia URL: http://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/publications/tabledpapers.nsf/displaypaper/3912295a35b28230ed9c541e48257d730008d551/$file/2295.pdf Shelf Number: 138937 Keywords: Correctional ProgramsCosts of CorrectionsPrisoner RehabilitationRe-offendingRecidivism |
Author: Osborne Association Title: The High Costs of Low Risk: The Crisis of America's Aging Prison Population Summary: For the past four decades, we have witnessed the most sustained and widespread imprisonment binge known throughout recorded human history. The facts are all too familiar: the United States has roughly 5 percent of the world's population, yet is responsible for 25 percent of the world's incarcerated population. With an estimated 2.3 million adults in jail or prison and 1 out of every 32 adults under correctional or community supervision, the U.S. surpasses all other countries in sheer numbers and per capita incarceration rates. The immense costs of incarceration have increasingly framed the conversation around reducing the prison population as a matter of fiscal responsibility and budgetary necessity. This discussion is often centered around reducing the arrest and prosecution of so-called "non-violent drug offenders." But these issues belie a much more pressing human and economic concern: the aging prison population, whose costs for incarceration and care will soon prove unsustainable if meaningful action is not taken. And though prison is expensive, cost is far from the only justification to move away from our reliance on incarceration, as the continued long-term incarceration of aging citizens has serious moral, ethical, public health, and public safety implications. This paper aims to provide a brief contextual framework of the issues affecting elders in prison; to illuminate the ongoing efforts being undertaken to improve conditions within correctional facilities, increase mechanisms for release, and develop robust post-release services specifically targeting the unique needs of the aging population in reentry; and to sketch out preliminary recommendations to serve as a basis for further work to be done throughout several key sectors. Despite their apparent interrelated interests in the aging prison population, the fields of gerontology, medical and mental health, philanthropy, and corrections have only sporadically interacted around this issue, and never as a unified voice. Thus, a primary objective of this work is to encourage multi-sector dialogue, cross-pollination of ideas, and a shared foundational knowledge that will strengthen the connections among these fields and form a basis for unifying action. We believe such a partnership will be well equipped to identify and engage in appropriate measures that will immediately impact the aging prison population, while also developing and implementing the necessary socio-structural architecture to effectively address long-term mechanisms of diversion, release, and reentry. Austerity-driven approaches to shrinking budgets and increasing public discomfort with mass incarceration create an opportunity to seriously address the epidemic of America's graying prison population and to imbue our criminal justice system with values and policies that are humane, cost-effective, and socially responsible. Details: New York: Osborne Association, 2014. 20p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 18, 2016 at: http://www.osborneny.org/images/uploads/printMedia/Osborne_Aging_WhitePaper.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.osborneny.org/images/uploads/printMedia/Osborne_Aging_WhitePaper.pdf Shelf Number: 139071 Keywords: Costs of CorrectionsElderly InmatesElderly Offenders |
Author: U.S. Government Accountability Office Title: Prisoner Operations: United States Marshals Service Could Better Estimate Cost Savings and Monitor Efforts to Increase Efficiencies Summary: The Department of Justice's (DOJ) USMS is responsible for managing more than 50,000 federal prisoners during criminal proceedings until their acquittal or their conviction and transfer to the Federal Bureau of Prisons to serve their sentence. USMS provides housing, clothing, food, transportation, and medical care. The USMS does not own or manage any of its own facilities and instead relies on a combination of federal, state, local, and privately-managed facilities to house and care for these prisoners. Senate Report 113-78 of the Continuing Appropriations Act of 2014 included a provision for GAO to assess the costs of housing federal inmates and detainees. This report (1) identifies the primary costs associated with USMS prisoner operations, and the trends in spending from fiscal years 2010 through 2015; (2) assesses recent actions USMS has taken to reduce its prisoner operations costs and how much has been saved; and (3) determines systems USMS has to identify additional opportunities to save costs. GAO analyzed USMS's financial and operational data related to its prisoner operations costs from fiscal year 2010 through 2015, analyzed USMS documentation, and interviewed USMS officials. What GAO Recommends GAO recommends that USMS develop reliable methods for estimating cost savings and validating reported savings achieved, and establish a mechanism to aggregate and analyze the results of annual district self- assessments. USMS concurred with the recommendations. Details: Washington, DC: GAO, 2016. 68p. Source: Internet Resource: GAO-16-472: Accessed May 24, 2016 at: http://www.gao.gov/assets/680/677380.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.gao.gov/assets/680/677380.pdf Shelf Number: 139148 Keywords: Costs of CorrectionsMarshals ServicePrisoners |
Author: Henneguelle, Anais Title: Better at Home than in Prison? The Effects of Electronic Monitoring on Recidivism in France Summary: Many countries have recently adopted electronic monitoring (EM) as an alternative sentence in order to reduce incarceration while maintaining public safety. However, the empirical evidence on the effects of EM on recidivism (relative to prison) is very scarce worldwide. In this paper, we adress this debated question using quasi-experimental data from France. Our empirical strategy exploits the incremental roll-in of electronic monitoring in France, which started as a local experiment in four courts in 2000- 2001, and was later adopted by more and more courts (2002-2003). Our IV estimates show that fully converting prison sentences into electronic monitoring has long-lasting beneficial effects on recidivism, with estimated reductions in probability of reconviction of 6-7 percentage points (9-11%) after five years. There is also evidence that, in case of recidivism, EM leads to less serious offenses compared to prison. These beneficial effects are particularly strong on electronically monitored offenders who received control visits at home from correctional officers, were obliged to work while under EM, and had already experienced prison before. This pattern suggests that both rehabilitation and deterrence are important factors in reducing long-term recidivism, and that electronic monitoring can be a very cost-effective alternative to short prison sentences. However, the massive development of EM in France in recent years, with shorter and less intensive supervision, may reduce its effectiveness. Details: Ecully, France: Lyon Saint-Etienne, 2016. 42p. Source: Internet Resource: Working Paper 1603: Accessed May 25, 2016 at: ftp://ftp.gate.cnrs.fr/RePEc/2016/1603.pdf Year: 2016 Country: France URL: ftp://ftp.gate.cnrs.fr/RePEc/2016/1603.pdf Shelf Number: 139154 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Costs of CorrectionsElectronic Monitoring Home Detention Recidivism Tagging |
Author: Yamatani, Hide Title: Overview Report of Allegheny County Jail Collaborative Evaluation Findings Summary: Allegheny County is a national leader in formulating and implementing a collaboration-based jail inmate reintegration program called the Allegheny County Jail Collaborative. This unique human service system is co-chaired by the Director of the Department of Human Services, the Warden of the Allegheny County Jail (ACJ), and Director of the Department of Health. Researchers from the Center on Race and Social Problems, housed in the School of Social Work University of Pittsburgh, evaluated the ACJ Collaborative. The major purpose of this study was to examine the extent to which the Collaborative achieved successful community reentry goals among released male jail inmates. On a typical day, over 700,000 individuals are incarcerated in US jails. Yet potential benefits of the investment in best practice reintegration and crime reduction interventions are relatively unknown. Evaluation Findings. The three-year evaluation study findings reflect the ACJ Collaborative's capacity to generate impressive positive results including: (a) a significantly lower recidivism rate among inmate participants; (b) similar service benefits across racial groups; and (c) successful reintegration into community life among a high majority of participants. More specifically, major outcome findings are as follows: 1. Allegheny County is saving over $5.3 million annually by the ACJ Collaborative serving 300 inmates per year; 2. The greatest cost-savings generated by ACJ Collaborative is in areas of public safety and reduced victimization among county residents; 3. Cost-savings ratio is approximately 6 to 1 (i.e., for a dollar investment to the ACJ Collaborative, the cost-savings return is approximately $6); 4. At 12 months post-release the Collaborative inmates are achieving a 50% lower recidivism rate compared to matched comparison group (i.e., 16.5% vs. 33.1%, respectively); 5. In contrast to historical trends nationally, there were no statistically significant differences in the recidivism rate between Black and White Collaborative inmate participants. The findings shown above were derived using a cost-savings analysis strategy selected by the Urban Institute (Roman & Chalfin, 2006). This strategy includes estimates of (1) cost of jail stay; (2) cost of processing offenders in the criminal justice system; (3) costs of crime victimization; (4) cost of providing services at the jail; and (5) cost savings associated with Collaborative participants' recidivism reduction. The differential recidivism rate was derived based on a stratified and matched sample group comparison method. During the 12 months after release from ACJ, intermediary process outcomes among Collaborative consumer inmates showed positive transitions to community life including: (a) higher enrollment in various community-based service organizations; (b) improved housing obtainment for both racial groups; and (c) increased employment rates among former White offenders. Other areas that remained relatively unchanged (but did not significantly deteriorate) included drug and alcohol usage rate, Black employment rates, and mental and physical health treatment needs. Details: Pittsburgh: Center on Race and Social Problems, School of Social Work, University of Pittsburgh, 2008. 22p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 29, 2016 at: http://www.crsp.pitt.edu/sites/default/files/ACJ_Report.pdf Year: 2008 Country: United States URL: http://www.crsp.pitt.edu/sites/default/files/ACJ_Report.pdf Shelf Number: 139535 Keywords: Cost-Benefit AnalysisCosts of CorrectionsJail InmatesJailsPrisoner ReentryRecidivism |
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 IncarcerationCost-Benefit AnalysisCosts of CorrectionsCosts of Criminal JusticeSentencing |
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 CorrectionsCosts of Criminal JusticeCriminal Justice ExpendituresEducation |
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 IncarcerationCosts of CorrectionsCosts of Criminal JusticeCriminal Justice ReformCriminal Justice Systems |
Author: McLaughlin, Michael Title: Using a Pigouvian Tax to Reduce Incarceration Summary: The incarceration rate is a function not only of criminal behavior but of decisions made by police officers, prosecutors, and judges. These local actors have considerable discretion whether to conduct a search, make an arrest, charge a person with a crime, classify a crime as a misdemeanor or felony, or issue a lengthy prison sentence. While these local-level decisions affect the number of people sent to prison, the cost of prison is borne primarily at the state level. This could result in a higher rate of incarceration than is socially optimal if local actors derive benefit from incarceration yet only consider their private cost, ignoring costs to the state. One way to correct this negative externality is with a Pigouvian tax. Charging local governments on a per-prisoner basis for the cost of incarceration could induce local actors to internalize the externality and reduce the number of prison admissions. This study uses a two-agent, partial equilibrium model to illustrate how a Pigouvian tax could achieve the socially optimal level of incarceration. Details: St. Louis: Concordance Institute for Advancing Social Justice, George Warren Brown School of Social Work, Washington University in St. Louis, 2016. 22p. Source: Internet Resource: Working Paper #CI081116: Accessed September 17, 2016 at: https://concordanceinstitute.wustl.edu/SiteCollectionDocuments/Using%20a%20Pigouvian%20Tax%20to%20Reduce%20Incarceration.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://concordanceinstitute.wustl.edu/SiteCollectionDocuments/Using%20a%20Pigouvian%20Tax%20to%20Reduce%20Incarceration.pdf Shelf Number: 140335 Keywords: Costs of CorrectionsImprisonment Rates Prisoners Taxes |
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 CorrectionsCosts of Criminal JusticeCriminal Justice PolicyEconomic Conditions and CrimeEconomics and CrimeRecession |
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 CorrectionsCosts of Criminal JusticeCriminal Justice PolicyCriminal Justice ReformPublic 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 CorrectionsCosts of Criminal JusticeJustice ReinvestmentSentencing Reform |
Author: Clifton, Jonathan Title: Prisons and Prevention: Giving Local Areas the Power to Reduce Offending Summary: Devolving responsibility and funding for the management of low-level offenders could empower local services and agencies to work more effectively to prevent crime and develop alternatives to prison that do more to rehabilitate offenders. This briefing describes how this can be achieved. England and Wales’s prison system could do better at reducing crime and rehabilitating offenders: it is currently a hugely expensive and highly inefficient arm of the public sector. As the number of prisoners continues to rise, and as the Ministry of Justice budget is faces further cuts, this is clearly unsustainable. This paper argues that reform is needed to address the inherent flaw in our criminal justice system: that the bodies that could take action to reduce offending have neither the financial power nor the incentive to do so. This is because many of the services and agencies that could act to reduce offending are organised and controlled at the local level, whereas the budget for prison places is held by central government. The challenge, therefore, is to ‘unfreeze’ the resources that are locked up in the prison system, and ensure that local services and agencies are enabled and incentivised to use those resources to both prevent crime and develop alternatives to custody. At the moment, incentives work in precisely the wrong direction: if a local authority invests in high-quality services that keep people out of prison, the financial benefits accrue to the Ministry of Justice (as it spends less on prisons as a result) rather than the local authority, which ends up meeting the costs of ever more people using their community services The recent drive to devolve power and resources to groups of local authorities and city mayors could hold the answer to this problem. The government has already successfully experimented with devolving elements of the youth justice system to local authorities, as well as granting greater powers over transport, skills and health services to some of England’s major cities and counties. In this report We propose that this approach be extended to the management of low-level adult offenders, who make up the bulk of ‘churn’ within the prison system. This would involve giving city mayors or combined authorities a budget to cover the costs of these offenders, but charging them for each night that an offender from their area is held in prison. This would give local authorities resources to invest in preventative services and alternatives to custody, and give them a strong financial incentive to ensure that these investments deliver results, while also ensuring that money and responsibility for the reduction of reoffending is located where it can best be exercised. This report presents case studies of a number of youth justice programmes in the US and England that have proven effective at reducing pressure on prisons and reoffending, drawing from them eight principles that should underpin the reform and devolution of the adult offenders budget. Bearing these principles in mind, it sets out detailed recommendations for the timings and mechanisms by which the government should pursue these reforms – which bodies should be allowed to bid for control of the custody budget, how targets should be set and oversight and accountability ensured, how funding and savings should be managed and how, in time, funding for probation services for low-level offenders should also be devolved. Details: London: Institute for Public Policy Research, 2016. 30p. Source: Internet Resource: Briefing: Accessed December 15, 2016 at: http://www.ippr.org/files/publications/pdf/prisons-and-prevention_Jan2016.pdf?noredirect=1 Year: 2016 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.ippr.org/files/publications/pdf/prisons-and-prevention_Jan2016.pdf?noredirect=1 Shelf Number: 146165 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCosts of CorrectionsCriminal Justice ReformRe-offendingRecidivism |
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 CorrectionsCosts of Criminal JusticeCosts of PrisonsJustice Reinvestment |
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 CorrectionsCosts of Criminal JusticeCriminal Justice PolicyCriminal Justice ReformJustice 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 SupervisionCosts of CorrectionsCosts of Criminal JusticeCriminal Justice SystemsOffender SupervisionProbation |
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 IncarcerationCosts of CorrectionsCosts of Criminal JusticeCriminal Justice ReformJustice ReinvestmentOffender 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 CorrectionsCosts of Criminal JusticeCriminal Justice ReformCriminal Justice SystemsEvidence-Based Practices |
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 CorrectionsCosts of Criminal JusticeJustice ExpendituresJustice ReinvestmentMass Incarceration |
Author: Californians for Safety and Justice Title: Second Chances and Systems Change: How Proposition 47 is Changing California Summary: Proposition 47 changes six nonviolent crimes from felonies to misdemeanors, authorizes removal of felony records for Californians with old felony convictions for these crimes, and requires the state to annually reallocate the prison costs saved from the measure to local programs. Few justice reforms have generated as much attention or activity, or had as much impact, as Proposition 47. In just two years, incarceration numbers have plummeted, local justice systems have altered and hundreds of thousands of Californians have applied to change their record under Proposition 47. Today, California stands poised to take the experiences and lessons of Proposition 47 implementation to the next level, replacing over-incarceration with a balanced approach to public safety that prioritizes prevention and community health. This report aims to paint a picture of what the last two years of Proposition 47 implementation have entailed. There are sections on criminal justice impacts and emerging opportunities for second chances, as well as the lessons learned and recommendations for moving forward. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS: BY THE NUMBERS Record Change • Total estimated number of Californians eligible for record change: More than 1 million • Total number of petitions for resentencing or record change filed so far: Almost 280,0001 • Total estimated number of eligible individuals in Los Angeles County alone: 500,000 • Top five counties with most Proposition 47 record change petitions submitted thus far: San Diego, Los Angeles, Orange, Ventura, Riverside Incarceration and Criminal Justice System Impacts, 2014 versus 20152 • 15,000 fewer incarcerated in California prisons and jails3 • 119,000 fewer felony arrests in the first year • 55,000 fewer felony convictions in the first year • As much as 33% fewer felony cases in county courthouses Budget Reallocation • Total overall state savings achieved in the first year of reallocation calculations: $68 million • Total estimated savings in Los Angeles County criminal justice system so far: $9.2 million SUMMARY OF IMPACTS: COUNTY PRACTICES AND COMMUNITY LEADERSHIP • Number of community and labor groups engaged in Proposition 47 implementation: More than 75 • Community events held in the last two years about Proposition 47 and reclassifying prior criminal records: More than 150 • Local resources invested in reaching eligible Californians: Tens of millions • Local jurisdictions with Proposition 47 task forces: More than 10 • Percentage of drug courts in the state that have changed or expanded their eligibility criteria in response to Proposition 47: 59% SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS: TOWARD A BALANCED APPROACH TO PUBLIC SAFETY 1. Reach more Californians: Streamline outreach and simplify the application process to connect hundreds of thousands more eligible Californians to record change. 2. Build off record change to increase stability and empowerment: Turn the Proposition 47 application process into an access point for other opportunities for stability. 3. Adapt local practices: Scale up new local strategies to combat low-level crime problems and stop the cycle of crime. 4. Expand reallocation from prison waste to local safety solutions: Improve the state reallocation process from prisons to prevention, and open up reallocation strategies locally to improve balanced approaches to public safety. 5. Second chances and new safety priorities: Beyond Proposition 47, clean up the legacy of mass incarceration to advance second chances and go deeper to invest in communities to win new safety priorities. Details: Oakland, CA: Californians for Safety and Justice, 2017. 68p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 17, 2017 at: http://www.safeandjust.org/system/storage/211/5a/d/774/P47_Report_Final.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://www.safeandjust.org/system/storage/211/5a/d/774/P47_Report_Final.pdf Shelf Number: 144478 Keywords: Costs of CorrectionsCosts of Criminal Justice Criminal Justice Reform Criminal Justice Systems Mass Incarceration Prisoners Proposition 47 |
Author: Polinsky, A. Mitchell Title: Deterrence and the Optimal Use of Prison, Parole, and Probation Summary: In this article we derive the sentence - choosing among the sanctions of prison, parole, and probation - that achieves a target level of deterrence at least cost. Potential offenders discount the future disutility of sanctions and the state discounts the future costs of sanctions. Prison has higher disutility and higher cost per unit time than parole and probation, but the cost of prison per unit of disutility can be lower or higher than the cost of parole and probation per unit of disutility. The optimal order of sanctions depends on the relative discount rates of potential offenders and the state, and the optimal duration of sanctions depends on the relative costs per unit of disutility among the sanctions and on the target level of deterrence. We focus on the case in which potential offenders discount the disutility of sanctions at a higher rate than the state discounts the costs of sanctions. In this case, if prison is more cost-effective than parole and probation - that is, has a lower cost per unit of disutility - prison should be used exclusively. If prison is less cost-effective than parole and probation, probation should be used if the deterrence target is low enough, and prison followed by parole should be used if the deterrence target is relatively high. Notably, it may be optimal to employ a prison term even if prison is less cost-effective than parole and probation and even if prison is not needed to achieve the target level of deterrence, because of what we refer to as the front-loading advantage of imprisonment. Details: Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2017. 50p. Source: Internet Resource: NBER Working paper No. 23436: Stanford Law and Economics Olin Working Paper No. 507: Accessed May 22, 2017 at: Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 145662 Keywords: Costs of CorrectionsDeterrenceImprisonmentParolePrisonProbationPunishmentSentencing |
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 CorrectionsCosts of Criminal JusticeCriminal Justice ExpendituresMass IncarcerationPrisons |
Author: Goldstein, Brian Title: The Effect of Immigration Detainers in a Post-Relignment California Summary: On October 1, 2011, California implemented AB 109 Public Safety Realignment, which transferred state responsibility for individuals who commit non-violent, non-serious, and non-sexual offenses to the 58 counties and their local jurisdictions. Since then, each county has responded differently to Realignment, with some seizing on this unique opportunity to adopt innovative community corrections programming and rehabilitative services. Other counties continue to depend on the state system to manage individuals who have committed low-level offenses (CJCJ, 2013). Some counties struggle with jail capacity issues while failing to adopt necessary alternative sentencing practices (PPIC, 2013). On August 2, 2013, the United States Supreme Court denied Governor Jerry Brown's attempt to delay reducing the state prison system by approximately 10,000 individuals, as required by federal litigation that resulted in AB 109. The state must now work diligently to deemphasize the unnecessary use of incarceration in order to preserve resources for more crucial priorities. Amid varying county responses to Realignment, fiscal constraints, and capacity issues, county jail facilities also hold significant numbers of undocumented immigrants who do not have serious criminal histories, other than potentially violating federal civil immigration laws. For ease of reference, these individuals are here termed "non-criminal ICE holds" given that they have no recorded criminal history. These non-criminal ICE holds are held under ICE Agreements of Cooperation in Communities to Enhance Safety and Security (ACCESS), an umbrella encompassing enforcement programs that specifically target immigrants who make contact with the criminal justice system including the Secure Communities and Criminal Alien Program (ICE, 2008). After identifying individuals under ACCESS, ICE can issue an immigration detainer to law enforcement agencies, which is a non-binding request that an immigrant of interest be detained for up to 48 hours, excluding weekends and federal holidays, so that ICE can assume federal custody to initiate deportation proceedings. This publication studies the impact of non-criminal ICE holds on California's criminal justice system, specifically the effect on county jail capacity, including the significant fiscal cost. It concludes that 89 percent of said detentions in California are held in local jails and facilities. These detentions cost taxpayers approximately $16.3 million for local jail holds during the 30-month period studied. Details: San Francisco: Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, 2013. 6p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 2, 2017 at: http://www.cjcj.org/uploads/cjcj/documents/immigrant_detainers_in_a_post_realignment_ca.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.cjcj.org/uploads/cjcj/documents/immigrant_detainers_in_a_post_realignment_ca.pdf Shelf Number: 130014 Keywords: Costs of CorrectionsImmigrant DetentionImmigration EnforcementJail InmatesPublic Safety AlignmentUndocumented Immigrants |
Author: Knight, Peter Title: Prison Service Pay Review Body. Sixteenth Report on England and Wales, 2017. Summary: Her Majesty's Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) is responsible for adult and young offender management services for England and Wales within the framework set by the government. It is an Executive Agency of the Ministry of Justice. The agency currently manages Her Majesty's Prison Service and the National Probation Service. In addition, it oversees privately run prisons and Community Rehabilitation Companies. Its role is to commission and provide offender management services in the community and in custody, ensuring best value for money from public resources. It works to protect the public and reduce reoffending by delivering the punishments and orders of the courts, and supporting rehabilitation by helping offenders to reform their lives. On 31 March 2017, the prisoner population across both the public and private sector estates was 85,513, 0.2 per cent higher than a year earlier. HMPPS paybill costs relating to the remit group in 2015-16 were approximately $1 billion (including social security and other pension costs). At the end of March 2017, there were 23,865 full-time equivalent staff in our remit down from 24,034 a year earlier (a decrease of 0.7 per cent). Our recommendations for 2017 are: Recommendation 1: We recommend that from 1 April 2017 the Fair and Sustainable National Bands 2 to 5 base pay points and all their closed grade equivalents be raised by 400 as set out in Appendix D. This award would be consolidated and pensionable for all staff on these scales. Recommendation 2: We recommend that from 1 April 2017 the Fair and Sustainable National Band 2 be changed to be a two point pay scale with the maximum set at $400 above the 1 April 2016 base pay level and the new minimum set at a level where staff will receive a fve per cent increment when moving to the maximum, as set out in Appendix D. Recommendation 3: We recommend that all staff in Fair and Sustainable Bands 2 to 5 who are in post on 31 March 2017 progress by one pay point effective from 1 April 2017, unless they have been placed on formal poor performance management procedures. Recommendation 4: We recommend that staff in Fair and Sustainable Band 5 who are in post on 31 March 2017 and achieve a performance marking of 'Outstanding' receive an additional one per cent non-consolidated, non-pensionable pay award based on their 31 March 2017 base pay. Recommendation 5: We recommend that the National maxima and minima of Fair and Sustainable Bands 7 to 11 be raised by one per cent from 1 April 2017, as set out in Appendix D. This change to the ranges should have no automatic effect on an individual's pay. Recommendation 6: We recommend that the closed operational manager scales (including the full range of non-Fair and Sustainable scales or spot rates equivalent to Bands 7 to 11) and the cash amount of RHA which applies are raised by one per cent from 1 April 2017, as set out in Appendix D. This will deliver an increase to consolidated, pensionable pay of one per cent. Recommendation 7: We recommend that staff in Fair and Sustainable Bands 7 to 11 who are in post on 31 March 2017 and achieve a performance marking of 'Outstanding' receive consolidated pay progression of six per cent effective from 1 April 2017, capped at the new 2017 Band maximum. In addition, we recommend that staff in Bands 7 to 11 who are within six per cent of the maximum, or at the maximum, should receive the balance of the six per cent as a non-consolidated, non-pensionable payment, capped at two per cent of base pay. Recommendation 8: We recommend that staff in Fair and Sustainable Bands 7 to 11 who are in post on 31 March 2017 and achieve a performance marking of 'Good' receive consolidated pay progression of four per cent effective from 1 April 2017, capped at the new 2017 Band maximum. Any staff who would be paid less than the minimum of their pay range after progression has taken place should be moved to the new 2017 Band minimum. Details: London: Office of Manpower Economics, 2017. 84p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 13, 2017 at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/644118/CCS207_CCS0817863080-1_Prison_Service_Pay_Review_Web_Accessible.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/644118/CCS207_CCS0817863080-1_Prison_Service_Pay_Review_Web_Accessible.pdf Shelf Number: 147237 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationCorrectional SalariesCorrections OfficersCosts of CorrectionsPrison GuardsPrisons |
Author: Andrew, Jane Title: Prison Privatisation in Australia: The State of the Nation Summary: Australia now imprisons more people than at any point in its history. As of June 2015, 36,134 people were incarcerated across eight states, and the national imprisonment rate stood at 196 prisoners per 100,000 people. The total annual net cost of Australia's prison system stands at $3.4 billion. As a result of the growth in prisoner numbers and a variety of pressures on the sector, state governments continue to look for new ways to deliver prison services that are thought to be both socially and fiscally responsible, including various forms of privatisation. Prison privatisations have been justified on a number of grounds. The first examination of prison privatisation in Australia, made through the Kennedy report of 1988, asserted that 'In some particular areas the private sector can do it cheaper and better' (Kennedy, 1988: 88). Subsequently, in 2009 the New South Wales General Purpose Standing Committee 'Inquiry into the Privatization of Prisons and Prison Related Services' concluded that' the private management of prisons will also likely produce greater cost savings and efficiencies than if they were to remain in the public system' (GPSC-NSW, 2009: 51). Similarly, in 2013 the Queensland Commission of Audit (QCA) claimed that ' greater efficiencies can be achieved by private operation of correctional facilities'. Equally, the Economic Regulation Authority (ERA), in a 2015 report on Western Australian prisons, remarked that ' private prisons are held to higher standards of accountability and transparency than public prisons'. Accordingly, privatisation has been mooted as a way of providing prison services with greater performance, lower cost, better efficiency and stronger accountability but in reality, little is known about the consequences of privatisation and whether or not they deliver these benefits to the community. Private prisons now incarcerate 18.5% of the prison population of Australia (Productivity Commission, 2014: Table 8A.1), and clearly play a large part in the functioning of the custodial system in Australia. In fact, Australia has the highest rate of private incarceration per capita of any country in the world (Mason, 2013: 2). Out of a total of 101 prisons in Australia, private contractors operate nine facilities in five different states: two prisons in Queensland, two in New South Wales, one in South Australia, two in Victoria and two in Western Australia. Tasmania, the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory do not have private prisons and are therefore outside the scope of this report. Parklea (NSW), Arthur Gorrie (QLD) and Mount Gambier (SA) prisons all deal with remand prisoners. Port Phillip (VIC) and Parklea (NSW) both take maximum security prisoners. The remaining facilities house medium- and low-security prisoners, and do not take part in remand activity. As of 2015, there are only three private contractors responsible for managing custodial services in Australia. These are GEO Group (GEO), G4S and Serco. Private prisons are now responsible for over 6,000 Australian prisoners (Productivity Commission, 2014: Table 8A.1), and absorb a considerable amount of taxpayer money nationally. Despite this, research into private prisons in Australia is extremely limited. Indeed, there has been no single publication or study in the last ten years that has covered all of Australia's private prisons in detail. The present report aims to deliver such a review and in doing so demonstrates that not only do privately managed prisons across Australia vary greatly in terms of their accountability, costs, performance and efficiency, but also that it is very difficult to assess these criteria because of a general lack of transparency. This comprehensive report of the sector seeks to address this information gap and, as a result, intends to better inform future public debate on prison privatisation. The purpose of this report is to provide a description of Australian private prisons as they have evolved across the country. Our overview of private prisons in Queensland, New South Wales, South Australia, Victoria and Western Australia will give an understanding of the 'State of the Nation' with regard to prison privatisation and its impact. As stated, our study considers private prisons in Australia against four key categories: accountability, costs, performance and efficiency. Details: Sydney: University of Sydney Business School, 2016. 73p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 11, 2017 at: https://sydney.edu.au/business/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/269972/Prison_Privatisation_in_Australia-_The_State_of_the_Nation_June_2016.pdf Year: 2016 Country: Australia URL: https://sydney.edu.au/business/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/269972/Prison_Privatisation_in_Australia-_The_State_of_the_Nation_June_2016.pdf Shelf Number: 147660 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationCosts of CorrectionsPrivate PrisonsPrivatization |
Author: Pew Charitable Trusts Title: Prison Health Care: Costs and Quality. How and why states strive for high-performing systems Summary: Prison health care sits at the intersection of pressing state priorities. From protecting public safety to fighting disease and promoting physical and behavioral health, and from fine-tuning budgets that trim waste to investing in cost-effective programming with long-term payoffs, the health care that prisons provide to incarcerated individuals and the care that prisons facilitate post-release is a critical linchpin with far-reaching implications. On a typical day, state prisons house more than a million people, many of whom have extensive and communicable health ailments. The manner in which services are provided affects state budgets because of the expensive treatments for some common conditions, the downstream costs of delayed or inadequate care, and the legal and financial consequences of being found to violate inmates' constitutional rights to "reasonably adequate" care. Moreover, with nearly all incarcerated individuals eventually returning to society, treatment and discharge planning - especially for those with a substance use disorder, mental illness, or infectious disease - play an important role in statewide anti-recidivism and public health efforts. Taken together, these realities call for the attention of policymakers and administrators. Yet these officials often lack the information they require to build and maintain high-performing prison health care systems that proactively make the most of diagnostic and treatment opportunities and avert the harmful and expensive consequences of inattention or missteps. They need to know how much money is being spent on what services and why; what benefits are achieved for those dollars; and whether these benefits are preserved post-prison through well-coordinated prison-to-community transitions. This first-of-its-kind report, using data collected from two 50-state surveys administered by The Pew Charitable Trusts and the Vera Institute of Justice, along with interviews with more than 75 state officials, updates previous Pew research on spending trends in prison health care. The report also incorporates information on the operational characteristics of states' prison health care systems; whether and how states monitor the quality of care provided - the critical counterpart to cost when assessing value; and common care continuity strategies for people leaving prison. The aim is to begin to paint a comprehensive picture for policymakers, administrators, and other stakeholders of how states fund and deliver prison health care, how they compare with one another, and some reasons for differences. These stakeholders can use such practical information and insights to help optimize policies and programs in the service of incarcerated individuals, state residents, and taxpayers. The first of the two surveys, for which every state except New Hampshire provided data, queried senior budget staff of state departments of correction on expenditures, prison population demographics, the health care delivery system employed, and staffing. The second survey, for which every state except Alabama, Kansas, and New Hampshire provided data, collected information from senior health care staff of departments of correction on efforts to monitor the quality of care provided, disease prevalence tracking, and services to facilitate care continuity at release. Details: Philadelphia: Pew Charitable Trusts, 2017. 140p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 27, 2017 at: http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/assets/2017/10/sfh_prison_health_care_costs_and_quality_final.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/assets/2017/10/sfh_prison_health_care_costs_and_quality_final.pdf Shelf Number: 147837 Keywords: Costs of CorrectionsHealth Care Prison Health Care |
Author: South Dakota Criminal Justice Initiative Work Group Title: Final Report Summary: South Dakota's prison population has grown from just a few hundred inmates in the 1970s to more than 3,600 in 2012. Absent a change in approach, South Dakota should expect to have more than 4,500 inmates by 2022. This growth is estimated to cost the state $224 million over the next 10 years, including the construction of two new prison facilities. From March until June 2012, Governor Dennis Daugaard and Chief Justice David Gilbertson sought stakeholder input regarding the state of South Dakota's criminal justice system. Over 400 stakeholders were consulted in 36 meetings across the state. Following these meetings, Governor Daugaard, Chief Justice Gilbertson, Senate Majority Leader Russell Olson, and House Majority Leader David Lust created the South Dakota Criminal Justice Initiative Work Group in order to achieve a better public safety return on the state's corrections spending. Starting in July 2012, the work group analyzed the states criminal justice system, including an exhaustive review of sentencing, corrections, probation and parole data. It has developed policy recommendations that meet the goals of improving public safety, holding offenders more accountable, and reducing corrections spending by focusing resources on violent, chronic and career criminals. The package of policy recommendations is estimated to save between $197 and $212 million in averted prison construction and operating expenses through 2022. By avoiding the expansion of between 596 and 755 prison beds, state taxpayers will avert the entire cost of construction and between 72 and 87 percent of the operating costs over the next 10 years. Details: Pierre: South Dakota Criminal Justice Initiative Work Group, 2012. 14p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 7, 2017 at: http://psia.sd.gov/PDFs/CJI%20Report%20Draft%20Nov%202012%20FINAL%2011%2027%2012.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://psia.sd.gov/PDFs/CJI%20Report%20Draft%20Nov%202012%20FINAL%2011%2027%2012.pdf Shelf Number: 148068 Keywords: Costs of CorrectionsCriminal Justice Policy Prison Population Prison Reform |
Author: Council of State Governments Justice Center Title: Montana's Justice Reinvestment Approach: Curbing State Prison Population Growth and Reinvesting in Local Public Safety Strategies Summary: Montana's prisons are at capacity due to an 11-percent increase in the prison population between FY2008 and FY2015. Without action, the prison population was projected to continue to grow 13 percent by FY2023, requiring at least $51 million in new spending for contract prison beds and hiring additional supervision offcers. Across the state, the total county jail population rose 69 percent between 2011 and 2013, and many jails are currently overcrowded. To address these challenges, in the spring of 2017 state policymakers enacted nine pieces of legislation that contain policies designed to limit the period of incarceration for people sanctioned for low-level violations of the terms of their supervision, prioritize supervision resources for people who are most likely to reoffend, and help counties reduce local jail populations. By enacting all of these bills, the state expects to avert at least $69 million in spending on contract beds and supervision staff and hundreds of millions more that would have been necessary to build new correctional facilities between FY2018 and FY2023. Montana will reinvest a portion of those savings in strategies designed to reduce recidivism and increase public safety. Details: New York: Council of State Governments, 2017. 4p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 20, 2017 at: https://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/6.6.17_Montana_Justice-Reinvestment-Approach.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/6.6.17_Montana_Justice-Reinvestment-Approach.pdf Shelf Number: 148275 Keywords: Costs of CorrectionsCriminal Justice ReformJustice ReinvestmentPrison Population |
Author: Council of State Governments Justice Center Title: Arkansas's Justice Reinvestment Approach: Enhancing Local Mental Health Services for People in the Criminal Justice System Summary: Arkansas's criminal justice system faces serious challenges. As a result of a 21-percent growth in the state's prison population between 2012 and 2015 - the highest increase in the nation during that period - Arkansas's prisons are now at capacity, and county resources are strained due to a backlog of people who are held in jail while awaiting transfer to prison after sentencing. Without action, the state's prison population is projected to increase by nearly 20 percent by 2023. To address these issues, in March 2017, Arkansas policymakers passed Act 423, which contains policies designed to make better use of state and local resources in three key ways. First, it limits the period of incarceration for people sanctioned for low-level violations of the terms of their supervision. Second, it requires training for law enforcement offcers in how to respond to people experiencing a mental health crisis. Third, it creates local crisis stabilization units that enable law enforcement offcers to divert people with mental illnesses who commit low-level offenses away from county jails to receive mental health treatment in the community. By implementing these policies, the state estimates it will avert hundreds of millions of dollars in prison construction and operating costs and will be able to reinvest savings in areas critical to improving outcomes for people on supervision and increasing public safety. Act 423 is expected to reduce the projected growth in the prison population by nearly 10 percent. This fgure represents more than 1,650 fewer people in prison by FY2023, resulting in projected averted costs of more than $288 million. Details: New York: Council of State Governments, 2017. 4p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 20, 2017 at: https://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Arkansas-JR-Approach_MAY2017.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Arkansas-JR-Approach_MAY2017.pdf Shelf Number: 148276 Keywords: Costs of CorrectionsCriminal Justice ReformJustice ReinvestmentMental Health ServicesMentally Ill OffendersPrison Population |
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 CorrectionsCosts of Criminal JusticeCosts of Juvenile JusticeCriminal Justice ExpendituresJuvenile Justice Systems |
Author: Victorian Auditor-General Title: Safety and Cost Effectiveness of Private Prisons Summary: Private prisons accommodate around one third of the state's male prison population. The safe, secure and cost effective operation of these prisons is essential for the effective functioning of Victoria's corrections system and for community safety. Like the broader prison system, private prisons face significant challenges. The male prison population has increased by approximately 50 per cent over the last seven years, primarily driven by an increase in remand prisoners. This audit examines whether two of Victoria's private prisons-Port Phillip Prison and Fulham Correctional Centre-are safe and cost effective. We looked at: private prisons' management of critical safety and security risks private prisons' performance against key service delivery measures, costs and risk transfer expectations under the original contracts the process for the recent contract extensions and whether they delivered value for money. This is the first audit in which we used our 'follow-the-dollar' powers, directly engaging the private prison operators and requesting information from them. We made six recommendations for DJR, and two for the Department of Treasury and Finance related to its role in the private prison contract extension process Details: Melbourne: Victorian Auditor-General's Office, 2018. 133p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 9, 2018 at: https://www.audit.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2018-03/20180328-Private-Prisons.pdf Year: 2018 Country: Australia URL: https://www.audit.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2018-03/20180328-Private-Prisons.pdf Shelf Number: 149742 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationCost EffectivenessCosts of CorrectionsPrison AdministrationPrisonsPrivate PrisonsPrivatizations |
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 CorrectionsCosts of Criminal JusticeCosts of PrisonFederal Bureau of Prisons |
Author: U.S. Government Accountability Office Title: Immigration Detention: Opportunities Exist to Improve Cost Estimates Summary: Why GAO Did This Study In fiscal year 2017, ICE operated on a budget of nearly $3 billion to manage the U.S. immigration detention system, which houses foreign nationals whose immigration cases are pending or who have been ordered removed from the country. In recent years, ICE has consistently had to reprogram and transfer millions of dollars into, out of, and within its account used to fund its detention system. The explanatory statement accompanying the DHS Appropriations Act, 2017, includes a provision for GAO to review ICE's methodologies for determining detention resource requirements. This report examines (1) how ICE formulates its budget request for detention resources, (2) how ICE develops bed rates and determines ADP for use in its budget process, and (3) to what extent ICE's methods for estimating detention costs follow best practices. GAO analyzed ICE's budget documents, including CBJs, for fiscal years 2014 to 2018, examined ICE's models for projecting ADP and bed rates, and evaluated ICE's cost estimating process against best practices. What GAO Recommends GAO recommends that the Director of ICE: (1) document and implement its review process to ensure accuracy in its budget documents; (2) assess ICE's adult bed rate methodology; (3) update ICE's adult bed rate methodology; (4) document the methodology and rationale behind the ADP projection used in budget requests; and (5) take steps to ensure that ICE's detention cost estimate more fully addresses best practices. DHS concurred with the recommendations. Details: Washington, DC: GAO, 2018. 49p. Source: Internet Resource: GAO-18-343: Accessed April 24, 2018 at: https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/691330.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/691330.pdf Shelf Number: 149880 Keywords: Cost AnalysisCosts of CorrectionsIllegal ImmigrantsImmigrant Detention |
Author: Morgan, Anthony Title: How much does prison really cost? Comparing the costs of imprisonment with community corrections Summary: The costs associated with managing offenders in prison and in the community can be significant. Estimated costs are usually derived from the Report on government services, which reports both the operating expenditure and capital costs for prisons and community corrections. However, research has shown that sentencing a person to a period of incarceration can have much wider implications for the individual, their family, government and the broader community. These implications may be positive or negative, and may therefore generate both costs and savings. Understanding the wider costs associated with different sentence options can be helpful in informing effective correctional policy and practice. Yet relatively few studies have attempted to estimate the wider costs or savings associated with pathways through imprisonment or community corrections. The purpose of this research was to calculate the total net cost of pathways through imprisonment and community corrections in Victoria, taking into account a range of direct and indirect costs and savings associated with a matched cohort of prisoners and offenders. This study was undertaken in two stages. The first stage estimated the costs and savings accrued during sentences that began in 2009-10 (the reference episode). The second stage estimated the wider costs and savings for both this reference episode and subsequent pathways through imprisonment and community corrections over a five year period. The methodology used to develop these estimates and the results are presented in this report. Details: Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology, 2018. 84p. Source: Internet Resource: AIC Research Report 05: Accessed April 30, 2018 at: http://apo.org.au/system/files/142801/apo-nid142801-725506.pdf Year: 2018 Country: Australia URL: http://apo.org.au/system/files/142801/apo-nid142801-725506.pdf Shelf Number: 149964 Keywords: Community CorrectionsCorrectional AdministrationCosts of CorrectionsCriminal Justice ExpendituresPrison Administration |
Author: Mitchell, Matthew Title: The Pros of Privately-Housed Cons: New Evidence on the Cost Savings of Private Prisons Summary: Three-fifths of all U.S. states contract with private corporations to house a portion of their state prisoners. A host of studies have analyzed the cost of incarceration in many of these prisons. This study takes a broader approach. It compares state per-prisoner department of corrections budgets across 46 states. Accounting for a number of cost factors, significant perprisoner savings were found in states that house a portion of their prisoners privately. All other factors being equal, states such as New Mexico with forty-five percent of their prisoners in private custody spent about $9,660 less per-prisoner in 2001 than non-privatized states. Given New Mexico's prison population of 5,300 this is an annual savings of $51 million. Forty-five percent privatization is expected to reduce the typical department of corrections budget by about one-third. The paper begins with a short history of the privatization movement and a discussion of the motivation to privatize. Details: Tijeras, NM: Rio Grande Foundations, 2003. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 4, 2018 at: https://www.heartland.org/_template-assets/documents/publications/12247.pdf Year: 2003 Country: United States URL: https://www.heartland.org/_template-assets/documents/publications/12247.pdf Shelf Number: 150057 Keywords: Costs of CorrectionsCosts of PrisonsPrivate PrisonsPrivatization |
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 AnalysisCosts of CorrectionsCosts of Criminal JusticeCriminal Justice ExpendituresEvidence-Based PracticesJustice 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 CorrectionsCosts of Criminal JusticeEarly InterventionEvidence-Based PracticesMass IncarcerationPrisons |
Author: Eisen, Lauren-Brooke Title: Charging Inmates Perpetuates Mass Incarceration Summary: The American criminal justice system is replete with fees that attempt to shift costs from the government to those accused and convicted of breaking the law. Courts impose monetary sanctions on a "substantial majority of the millions of U.S. residents convicted of felony and misdemeanor crimes each year." Every aspect of the criminal justice process has become ripe for charging a fee. In fact, an estimated 10 million people owe more than $50 billion in debt resulting from their involvement in the criminal justice system. In the last few decades, additional fees have proliferated, such as charges for police transport, case filing, felony surcharges, electronic monitoring, drug testing, and sex offender registration. Unlike fines, whose purpose is to punish, and restitution, which is intended to compensate victims of crimes for their loss, user fees are intended to raise revenue. The Justice Department's March 2015 report on practices in Ferguson, Mo. highlights the over-reliance on court fines as a primary source of revenue for the jurisdiction. The New York Times noted that the report found that "internal emails show city officials pushing for more tickets and fines." Fees and debts are increasing partially because the criminal justice system has grown bigger. With 2.2 million people behind bars, courts - and all the relevant agencies - have expanded as well. Since the 1970s, incarceration in the U.S. has risen steeply, dwarfing the incarceration rate of any other nation on Earth. The U.S. added about 1.1 million incarcerated people, almost doubling the nation's incarcerated population, in the past 20 years. The fiscal costs of corrections are high - more than $80 billion annually - about equivalent to the budget of the federal Department of Education.6 A recent report by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities finds that corrections is currently the third-largest category of spending in most states, behind education and health care. In fact, somewhat disconcertingly, 11 states spent more of their general funds on corrections than on higher education in 2013. Fees already on the books have increased. And, these fees are extending into state and local corrections. As a result of these runaway costs, counties and states continue to struggle with ways to increase revenue to pay for exorbitant incarceration bills. In 2010, the mean annual state corrections expenditure per inmate was $28,323, although a quarter of states spent $40,175 or more. Not surprisingly, departments of corrections and jails are increasingly authorized to charge inmates for the cost of their imprisonment. Although this policy is alarming, less widely understood but equally troubling is the reality that these incarceration fees perpetuate our nation's addiction to incarceration. This policy brief exposes how the widespread nature of charging fees to those who are incarcerated connects to the larger problem of mass incarceration in this country. Details: New York: Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law, 2015. 18p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 6, 2018 at: https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/blog/Charging_Inmates_Mass_Incarceration.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/blog/Charging_Inmates_Mass_Incarceration.pdf Shelf Number: 150496 Keywords: Costs of CorrectionsCourt Fines and FeesCriminal FeesCriminal FinesCriminal Justice DebtMass Incarceration |
Author: Cramer, Lindsey Title: The Justice Reinvestment Initiative: Experiences from the Local Sites Summary: State and local leaders across the country are striving to improve public safety and maximize return on corrections investments. To support this work, the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) began funding technical assistance providers and state and local jurisdictions to engage in the Justice Reinvestment Initiative (JRI) in 2010. JRI convenes justice system stakeholders and policy leaders to devise datadriven approaches to criminal justice reform, with the goal of generating cost savings that can be reinvested in high-performing public safety strategies. To date, 24 states and 17 localities have engaged in JRI, and the Urban Institute has been collecting data on and monitoring the progress of each of these sites. This brief summarizes interim findings from an assessment of the progress and activities of the 17 local sites identified in figure 1 on the following page. Details: Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 2014. 9p. Source: Internet Resource: Justice policy Center Brief: Accessed June 26, 2018 at: https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/49801/413283-The-Justice-Reinvestment-Initiative-Experiences-from-the-Local-Sites.PDF Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/49801/413283-The-Justice-Reinvestment-Initiative-Experiences-from-the-Local-Sites.PDF Shelf Number: 150702 Keywords: Costs of CorrectionsCosts of Criminal Justice Justice Reinvestment Initiative |
Author: Nevada Advisory Commission on the Administration of Justice Title: Nevada Advisory Commission on the Administration of Justice - Justice Reinvestment Initiative. Final report Summary: Over the past decade Nevada's prison population has grown significantly, resulting in higher spending on prisons and fewer resources available for recidivism reduction measures. Since 2009, Nevada's prison population has grown by seven percent, and the state's female prison population has grown at four times the pace of the overall prison population. The state currently has an imprisonment rate that is 15 percent higher than the national average. Over the same period Nevada's crime rate has fluctuated, with violent crime climbing from a 10-year low in 2011 to 2015 before experiencing a major drop in 2017. The state has the third highest murder rate and the third highest robbery rate in the nation. While many states across the nation have seen significant declines in both crime rates and prison populations, Nevada has not. Moreover, the growing population of people with behavioral health problems continues to challenge the system. Nearly 30 percent of the state's inmate population require treatment or medication for a mental health need. Growing prison costs have burdened taxpayers while gaps remain in treatment and interventions that reduce recidivism, increase public safety, and address critical behavioral health challenges. Nevada is spending over $347 million on corrections in fiscal year 2019, which has crowded out the state's ability to fund treatment and services. The prison population is projected to continue to grow, and by 2028, will increase by 1,197 beds. Fifteen percent of this overall growth will be driven by an increase in the female prison population, which is projected to grow by 14 percent over the next 10 years. The projected prison population growth is estimated to cost the state an additional $770 million in capital expenditures to build or lease new prisons and added operating costs over 10 years. In May 2018, state leaders from all three branches of government joined to request technical assistance through the Justice Reinvestment Initiative (JRI). As part of the JRI effort, state leaders charged the Advisory Commission on the Administration of Justice (ACAJ) with conducting a review of the state's criminal justice system and "us[ing] criminological research and [Nevada's] own criminal justice data to inform and motivate the development of comprehensive crime- and recidivism-reduction strategies, while shifting resources toward more cost-effective public safety strategies." Beginning in July 2018 and extending through the end of the calendar year, the ACAJ analyzed the state's sentencing, corrections, and community supervision data, and reviewed the latest research on reducing recidivism and improving public safety. The ACAJ found that, in Nevada: - Sixty-six percent of people admitted to prison in 2017 were sentenced for nonviolent crimes and four out of 10 offenders had no prior felony convictions. - Thirty-nine percent of prison admissions were the result of revocations of individuals on probation and parole supervision. Analysis of violation reports revealed that 34 percent of these violators were returned to prison for technical violations of supervision, meaning they failed to comply with a condition of supervision such as failing a drug test or not going to treatment. - The amount of time individuals spend incarcerated has increased 20 percent since 2008, and recidivism rates have increased for nearly all offense types. - The number of women admitted to prison increased 39 percent between 2008 and 2017 and the female imprisonment rate per 100,000 is now 43 percent higher than the national average. - The number of people admitted to prison with an identified mental health need has increased 35 percent over the last decade and the number of women entering prison with a mental health need has grown by 47 percent. Based on this data analysis and the directive from state leadership, the ACAJ developed a comprehensive package of 25 policy recommendations supported by a majority of ACAJ members. The recommendations are specifically designed to improve public safety by holding offenders accountable, reducing recidivism, and increasing the resources available to combat the state's behavioral health crisis. These policies, if signed into law, would avert 89 percent of the projected prison population growth, and ultimately reduce the projected 2028 prison population by more than 1,000 beds, averting $640 million in additional prison costs over the next 10 years. The money that would have been spent on new prison beds can be redirected to effective policies and practices that reduce recidivism and increase public safety including interventions to address a growing population with behavioral health needs. Details: Carson City: The Author, 2019. 41p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 14, 2019 at: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/InterimCommittee/REL/Document/13671 Year: 2019 Country: United States URL: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/InterimCommittee/REL/Document/13671 Shelf Number: 154594 Keywords: Costs of CorrectionsInmate PopulationJustice ReinvestmentPrison ReformPrisonersPrisons |