Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: November 25, 2024 Mon
Time: 9:12 pm
Time: 9:12 pm
Results for criminal justice reform
195 results foundAuthor: Giangrande, Richard Title: The Lawful Society Summary: The sterile debate on crime and police numbers has obscured a major shift in the public's response to crime. Britons have become "passive bystanders", uninformed about crime and punishment and less likely to participate in maintaining justice than people in other countries. Lacking the real facts, the public has demanded "something is done", resulting in Robocop justice, ever more centralised and technocratic. This move has made Britain the most expensive country to police in the world and has rendered citizens incapable. When violence has increased as a proportion of all recorded crime from 8 per cent in 1997 to 20 per cent in 2008, it is unsurprising that these "passive bystanders" call for action. Without the federal systems or alternative bulwarks of local power other countries have, crime has been nationalised and politicised with the Home Secretary and sometimes the Prime Minister taking responsibility for every assault. The UK spends the largest amount on law and order as a proportion of total government spending, and as a percentage of GDP, of any other country in the OECD, overtaking the US in the last decade. The failings of Robocop have been recognised by the political parties who have all attempted to spell out a localist agenda. In practice though this approach is one of the "colouring book", with national politicians dictating parameters and targets for local action with only a small amount of autonomy allowed. Radical decentralisation has been consistently blocked by politicians and police keen to maintain their national power base. A new way forward is required to transform Britons from passive bystanders to active citizens. In order to do this there must be an information revolution with details on prosecution strategies, offenders and correctional programmes available to the public on a granular level, as well as a full extension of existing crime mapping programmes. There should be locally elected Justice Commissioners, who people can hold accountable for the maintenance of order and pay for through local taxes. This must be balanced by the establishment of a National Bureau of Investigation. Maintaining lawfulness should be seen as part of the duty of every citizen, whose role should be to hold agents accountable and participate in the justice process. These radical changes would unlock long overdue innovation. Local services could evolve, pooling the resources currently divided between prevention, prosecution, policing and correction. Local areas will experiment with different styles of policing and offender management. Local people will engage in a rich debate about the appropriate policies for their areas. Eventually criminal justice policy could be subsumed within a wider quality of life and wellbeing area. Details: London: Reform, 2008. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 15, 2010 at: http://www.reform.co.uk/Research/CriminalJustice/CriminalJusticeArticles/tabid/113/smid/378/ArticleID/635/reftab/74/t/The%20lawful%20society/Default.aspx Year: 2008 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.reform.co.uk/Research/CriminalJustice/CriminalJusticeArticles/tabid/113/smid/378/ArticleID/635/reftab/74/t/The%20lawful%20society/Default.aspx Shelf Number: 120515 Keywords: Costs of Criminal JusticeCriminal Justice ReformCriminal Justice Systems (U.K.) |
Author: Fox, Aubrey Title: Daring to Fail: First-person Stories of Criminal Justice Reform Summary: Talk of “best practices” and “evidence-based programs” has dominated the field of criminal justice in recent years. By and large this has been a positive development – and a natural corrective to policymaking based on anecdote and emotion. But simply spreading evidence-based practices is not enough to solve the pressing public safety problems that continue to plague our country. For one thing, there simply aren’t enough evidence-based programs: the vast majority of the initiatives undertaken by police, courts, probation, pre-trial services and other criminal justice agencies in recent years have not been subjected to rigorous evaluation. That doesn’t mean that they don’t work, of course, just that we don’t have enough data to declare them “evidence-based.” The other problem with spreading evidence-based programs is that they are by definition today’s solutions to yesterday’s problems. New challenges are emerging all of the time within criminal justice. The context is constantly changing. If we hope to keep up, if we hope to respond quickly and effectively to tomorrow’s problems, we must continue to innovate. Recognizing this, the Center for Court Innovation and the U.S. Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Assistance have launched a multi-faceted initiative designed to promote innovation at the grassroots level by encouraging criminal justice agencies to engage in a process of trial and error – much the way a scientist would. A large part of this effort has been devoted to studying criminal justice reform efforts – both successes and failures – in an effort to identify lessons for the innovators of tomorrow. By fostering a more open and honest public discussion of failures in particular, the project seeks to encourage self-reflection, transparency and thoughtful risk-taking among criminal justice agencies. One of the hallmarks of the Trial and Error initiative has been first-person interviews with leading criminal justice scholars, practitioners and policymakers. Over the past three years, staff from the Center for Court Innovation have conducted nearly 100 such interviews with leaders in a variety of fields – prosecution, policing, community corrections, indigent defense and others. This book includes a representative sample of these interviews. While each interview is unique – questions were tailored to each individual’s expertise – in general the interviewees were asked to reflect candidly on challenges from their own professional career and lessons they have learned along the way. Taken together, the interviews offer vivid testimony that even the most successful and well-regarded leaders in the field of criminal justice have experienced their share of setbacks. Almost everyone who appears in this volume has been involved in a program that failed to achieve its stated goals or fell short of expectations in some way. While disappointing, in no case were these failures professionally fatal, in large part because the individuals involved took pains to learn from their mistakes before moving on. In addition to underlining the importance of self-reflection, the interviews that follow also make it clear just how difficult it is to achieve change within the criminal justice system. The obstacles, after all, are enormous. In many places, the volume of work is crushing. Technology is often outmoded. Facilities are often antiquated. Pertinent data is often missing. And this litany doesn’t even include the problems that arrestees, probationers, inmates and parolees bring with them to the criminal justice system, including addiction, mental illness, homelessness and histories of abuse and dysfunction. In this context, it is difficult for many judges, probation officers and prosecutors to simply get through each work day, let alone find time and space to be analytical and creative. This volume also offers clear and compelling evidence that despite long odds, frontline criminal justice practitioners over the past generation have fashioned a number of remarkable innovations that have made a significant difference on the ground and in the streets. Drug courts, CompStat, Ceasefire, problem-oriented policing… the list goes on and on. But this book is not meant to be an exhaustive review of the criminal justice reforms of the past few decades. Rather, it is an effort to tell the stories of dozens of remarkable leaders who have successfully navigated difficult challenges to make change happen within the criminal justice system. The interviews have been lightly edited for clarity and length, but otherwise are verbatim transcripts. Details: New York: Center for Court Innovation, 2010. 177p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 7, 2011 at: http://www.courtinnovation.org/_uploads/documents/Daring_2_Fail.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.courtinnovation.org/_uploads/documents/Daring_2_Fail.pdf Shelf Number: 120699 Keywords: Criminal Justice ReformCriminal Justice SystemsEvidence-Based Practices |
Author: Shaw, Margaret Title: Handbook on the Crime Prevention Guidelines: Making Them Work Summary: All countries experience crime, violence and victimization. This may lead to some of the following situations: countries with high proportions of young men who are killed before they become adults; societies with families who lose a parent or have members in prison, who are living in poverty and without access to support or legitimate sources of income; neighbourhoods experiencing gang wars or where there seems to be little public protection and security; women who are subjected to violence in their homes, or who are at risk of sexual assault in public spaces; neighbourhoods where levels of crime and insecurity have led businesses and families to cut themselves off from other citizens and public life behind gates and using private security; and migrants and minority groups living in dilapidated and isolated areas or informal settlements and subject to racial harassment and victimization. All countries strive to ensure safety and security for their citizens and to increase the quality of their lives. The guidelines on crime prevention developed by the United Nations incorporate and build on years of experience and experiments in responding to these problems. Such experience has shown that countries can build safer communities using practical, concrete approaches that are very different from, and less costly than repressive and deterrent reactions and responses. The present Handbook is one of a series of practical tools developed by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) to support countries in the implementation of the standards and norms in crime prevention and criminal justice. These standards and norms support the rule of law, human rights and a culture of lawfulness through the development of crime prevention and criminal justice reform. The Handbook can be used in a variety of contexts, including as part of UNODC technical assistance and capacity-building projects, whether as a reference document or a training tool. A number of companion projects already exist, including the Crime Prevention Assessment Tool, and the Handbook on Planning and Action for Crime Prevention in Southern Africa and the Caribbean Regions. The Handbook offers a concise overview of the main considerations to be taken into account in planning and implementing crime prevention strategies and interventions. It also recognizes that there are some major differences between regions and countries in terms of the challenges posed by crime and victimization and the importance of adapting programmes to local contexts. The main emphasis is on how crime prevention strategies based on the guidelines developed by the United Nations can be entrenched and sustained over time. Details: Vienna: UNODC, 2010. 115p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 8, 2011 at: http://www.unodc.org/documents/justice-and-prison-reform/crimeprevention/10-52410_Guidelines_eBook.pdf Year: 2010 Country: International URL: http://www.unodc.org/documents/justice-and-prison-reform/crimeprevention/10-52410_Guidelines_eBook.pdf Shelf Number: 120712 Keywords: Crime PreventionCriminal Justice Reform |
Author: Clement, Marshall Title: The National Summit on Justice Reinvestment and Public Safety: addressing Recidivism, Crime, and Corrections Spending Summary: On January 27, 2010, the first National Summit on Justice Reinvestment and Public Safety was held at the U.S. Capitol. It examined how some states and local governments are successfully changing their crime and corrections policies to be more effective and fiscally responsible through evidence-based policies and practices. Leading researchers and experts in law enforcement, courts, corrections, reentry, and other community-based services were brought together to present the latest science, statistics, and innovations on reducing recidivism and corrections costs. The summit was convened by the Pew Center on the States, the U.S. Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Public Welfare Foundation, and the Council of State Governments Justice Center. This summit report summarizes the rich information presented during the conference — highlighting the promising practices and the latest thinking on criminal justice policy. This information is meant to help spur the expansion of data-driven practices. It is our hope that this summit report will serve as a “best practices” manual for policymakers and corrections professionals around the country as we work to improve our corrections system. Details: New York: Council of State Governments Justice Center, 2011. 98p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 14, 2011 at: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/pdf/CSG_JusticeReinvestmentSummitReport.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/pdf/CSG_JusticeReinvestmentSummitReport.pdf Shelf Number: 120761 Keywords: Costs of CrimeCriminal Justice PolicyCriminal Justice ReformExpenditures in Criminal JusticeRecidivism |
Author: Vera Institute of Justice Title: Proposals for New Orleans' Criminal Justice System: Best Practices to Advance Public Safety and Justice Summary: Hurricane Katrina ravaged New Orleans, destroying not only the city’s infrastructure and the lives of many of its residents, but also its justice system. To identify practical steps New Orleans can take to make its criminal justice system more reliable, effective, and just, the Vera Institute of Justice interviewed key stakeholders—including justice system leaders, representatives of nonprofit research and advocacy groups, and several members of the city council—and reviewed data on how the system has been operating after flooding devastated the city. Specifically, Vera's investigation indicates that New Orleans can improve public safety by pursuing the following new policies or programs: early triage of cases and routine communication between police and prosecutors; a wider range of pretrial release options, community-service sentencing, and greater use of alternatives to prison; and more appropriate and cost-effective sanctions for municipal offenses. For each of these policy areas, this report identifies specific areas of need and proposes solutions that are based on effective practices used in other jurisdictions. Moreover, it focuses on practical steps that over the next six to 12 months promise the “biggest bang for the buck.” Details: New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2007. 53p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 14, 2011 at: http://www.vera.org/download?file=2849/no_proposals.pdf Year: 2007 Country: United States URL: http://www.vera.org/download?file=2849/no_proposals.pdf Shelf Number: 120922 Keywords: Criminal Justice ReformCriminal Justice SystemsDisasters (New Orleans)Hurricane Katrina |
Author: The Smart on Crime Coalition Title: Smart on Crime: Recommendations for the Administration and Congress Summary: Smart on Crime: Recommendations for the Administration and Congress provides the 112th Congress and the Administration with analysis of the problems plaguing our state and federal criminal justice systems and a series of recommendations to address these failures. It provides a comprehensive examination of the criminal justice system, from the creation of new criminal laws to ex-offenders’ reentry into communities after serving their sentences. The broad recommendations range from helping to restore and empower victims to identifying ways to protect the rights of the accused. Smart on Crime is organized into 16 chapters, each of which discusses a particular area of criminal justice policy. This report is premised on the idea that to successfully confront the crises in the criminal justice system, we must fully understand the nature of the problems, the context in which the problems arose and in which they continue to exist, and the manner in which recommendations will best address the problem. Thus, each chapter: Identifies the issue; Provides a history and summary of the problems; Proposes specific recommendations; Identifies the role of Congress, the Administration and the judiciary in implementing recommendations; Identifies experts who can provide further analysis; and Refers readers to further resources that provide additional depth and research Provides primary policy contacts available for further inquiries. Chapters include the following: Overcriminalization of Conduct, Overfederalization of Criminal Law, and Exercise of Enforcement Discretion; Asset Forfeiture; Federal Investigations; Federal Grand Juries; Forensic Science; Innocence Issues; Indigent Defense; Juvenile Justice; Federal Sentencing; Improving the Prison System; Death Penalty; Fixing Medellin: Ensuring Consular Access Through Compliance with International Law; Pardon Power and Executive Clemency; Reentry: Ensuring Successful Reintegration After Incarceration; Victims Issues & Restorative Justice; and System Change. Details: Washington, DC: The Constitution Project, 2011. 318p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 18, 2011 at: http://www.besmartoncrime.org/pdf/Complete.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.besmartoncrime.org/pdf/Complete.pdf Shelf Number: 121078 Keywords: Administration of JusticeCriminal Justice ReformCriminal Justice Systems |
Author: Greene, Judith Title: Numbers Game: The Vicious Cycle of Incarceration in Mississippi’s Criminal Justice System Summary: The people of Mississippi deserve and demand crime policies that promote public safety, treat people fairly—regardless of the size of their pocketbook or the color of their skin—and use public resources wisely. Unfair, ineffective, financially unsustainable and counterproductive — all terms that, regrettably, apply to significant aspects of Mississippi’s criminal justice policy. Mississippi’s drug law enforcement infrastructure is fundamentally flawed and in dire need of reform. This report undertakes a review and analysis of some of the most troubling aspects of the state’s criminal justice system, with a particular focus on drug law enforcement, and offers recommendations for reform. Major findings in the NUMBERS GAME report include that: •Mississippi’s regional drug task force funding, contingent on the quantity of drug arrests, encourages the indiscriminate use of confidential informants to increase arrest numbers over the quality and public safety impact of the drug cases. •Poorly-structured drug laws, limiting the judicial discretion of judges, produce extremely harsh sentences for relatively minor street-level transactions involving small amounts of drugs, coupled with police enforcement strategies focused on producing high volume low-impact arrest numbers pressure defendants to work as informers, even when drug treatment might prove a better public safety option. •Black Mississippians are three times more likely than whites to go to prison on drug charges even as drug use rates are largely identical for both groups. •The secrecy that shrouds the unchecked use of confidential informants is a practice that invites abuse, undermines the fundamental legitimacy of the criminal justice system and basic social structures in targeted communities. ACLU's two year attempt to secure basic information on the practice, acknowledged by state officials as public files under Mississippi’s Public Record Act, has gone unfulfilled. Details: Brooklyn, NY: Justice Strategies; Jackson, MS: American Civil Liberties Union of Mississippi, 2011. 78p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 7, 2011 at: http://www.justicestrategies.org/sites/default/files/publications/DLRP_MississipppiReport%20Final%20Mar%202011.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.justicestrategies.org/sites/default/files/publications/DLRP_MississipppiReport%20Final%20Mar%202011.pdf Shelf Number: 121260 Keywords: Criminal Justice ReformCriminal Justice System (Mississippi)DiscriminationDrug EnforcementDrug OffendersIncarcerationMinoritiesSentencing |
Author: Silvestri, Arianna, ed. Title: Lessons for the Coalition: An End of Term Report on New Labour and Criminal Justice Summary: In a collection of essays by leading UK thinkers and commentators, the report Lessons for the Coalition, critiques the many innovations and the numerous failings on criminal justice during Labour's period in office. It also offers pointers to the coalition government of what not to do and on what needs changing. Professor Andrew Sanders of the University of Birmingham warns that one third of the prison population is likely to be serving indefinite prison sentences by 2012. His concerns are shared by the President of the Prison Governors Association Eoin McLennan-Murray, who describes Indeterminate Sentences for Public Protection (1) as a `stain on our criminal justice system' that has left an `indelible scar on the prison service'. McLennan-Murray also critiques the original structure of Labour's National Offender Management Service (2) as `a dysfunctional duplicate of already large prison service headquarters' that has been `very successful at increasing the level of bureaucracy'. Professor Andrew Ashworth of the University of Oxford also expresses concern about Indeterminate Sentences for Public Protection, describing them as `a policy-making disaster'. He calls on the coalition to undertake some `fundamental re-thinking' on sentencing. This should include a reassessment of the roles of the police, Crown Prosecution Service and magistrates' courts; a reaffirmation of the right to a fair trial; a re-examination of justifications for the UK's high imprisonment rate and a commitment to evidence-based policy. On the coalition's plans for a `rehabilitation revolution', David Faulkner, a former senior Home Office civil servant, argues that `no connection have been made between the "rehabilitation revolution" and the social conditions... which would enable it to take place, including the consequences which might follow from the government's programmes in other areas of social policy such as employment, housing and support for families'. Faulkner goes on to argue that `one of the test for the coalition government... will be the extent to which it can bring together the political vision of a "big society" and the professional and managerial wisdom that is needed to "make things work"'. Other contributions to Lessons for the coalition include: •Professor Rod Morgan, former chair of the Youth Justice Board, predicts that `cut-backs in "law and order" expenditure during the period 2011-2014 will almost certainly see a continuation of, possibly an increase in, the policy of imposing criminal sanctions out-of-court by the police and CPS'. •Dr Annette Ballinger of Keele University concludes that Labour's initiatives on violence against women were failures `leaving women exposed to unchallenged and unchecked male violence'. •On control orders (3) Professor Andrew Sanders argues that in most cases they have been used to disrupt `groups with only the most speculative and tangential relationship with terrorism'. •Professor Tim Hope of the University of Salford argues that Labour's `achievement with the crime trend has been less to do with its efforts and more to do with its skill in rigging the examination system'. •Professor Reece Walters of The Open University argues that `the so-called environmental successes under New Labour are already threatened by the proposals of the coalition... where environmental issues, such as green house gas emissions have been overshadowed by economic recovery and fiscal restraint'. Details: London: Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, 2011. 87p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 11, 2011 at: http://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/publication_download_form_1830.html Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/publication_download_form_1830.html Shelf Number: 121296 Keywords: Criminal Justice PolicyCriminal Justice ReformCriminal Justice Systems (U.K.) |
Author: Petteruti, Amanda Title: Finding Direction: Expanding Criminal Justice Options by Considering Policies of Other Nations Summary: When it comes to criminal justice, there is much to be gleaned from the policies and practices in other democratic nations. Other nations protect public safety without imprisoning as large a percentage of their population, handle law-breaking behavior in ways less reliant on incarceration, and have different approaches to addressing complex social issues. A country’s criminal justice policies and practices do not exist within a vacuum: they are a product of the larger social systems and political realities to which they are inextricably tied. For this reason, some policymakers may think other countries are too fundamentally different than the U.S. for these policies to be adopted. This report compares and contrasts the criminal justice policies and social, economic, and governmental structures of five countries – Australia, Canada, England and Wales, Finland and Germany – to the United States. While each nation has a unique set of circumstances and realities, each has enough fundamental similarities to the U.S. that cross-national policy adoption could be considered. An evaluation of the various similarities and differences can broaden the existing dialogue and create more momentum for the types of systemic reforms that will reduce the burden of over-incarceration on communities, states, and the country as a whole. Details: Washington, DC: Justice Policy Institute, 2011. 80p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 20, 2011 at: http://www.justicepolicy.org/research/2322 Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.justicepolicy.org/research/2322 Shelf Number: 121458 Keywords: Criminal Justice PolicyCriminal Justice ReformCriminal Justice Systems |
Author: Bandyopadhyay, Siddhartha Title: An Analysis of Crime and Crime Policy Summary: Crime and crime policy are never far from the public policy domain. There is heated debate among politicians, policy makers, law enforcement officers and the general public about what is the best approach for tackling crime. Even within the same political party there is disagreement. For example, in what was his first major speech since he took office, the Justice Secretary Ken Clarke said prison was often ‘a costly and ineffectual approach that fails to turn criminals into law-abiding citizens’. He went on to talk about the need to address the underlying causes (economic and sociological) of criminal behaviour. This view was immediately contested by his fellow Conservative and former Home Secretary Michael Howard (who said he stood by his long standing view that ‘prison works’). In this note, I try to provide an analysis of some empirical findings on what deters crime based on some recent research in which I have been involved. I then go on to point out what we don’t know and point out fresh challenges that law enforcement may face from deep budget cuts and having to comply with EU legislation. In the concluding section, I summarize our findings and touch briefly on complementary methods of crime fighting such as citizen reporting which have not been rigorously examined. Although this analysis does not provide an overview of recent work in the economics of crime (that would fill an entire book!), it explains some key issues of my recent research. Details: London: CIVITAS: Institute for the Study of Civil Society, 2011. 11p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 28, 2011 at: http://www.civitas.org.uk/crime/crimepolicyMarch2011.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.civitas.org.uk/crime/crimepolicyMarch2011.pdf Shelf Number: 121566 Keywords: Crime PreventionCriminal Justice Policy (U.K.)Criminal Justice Reform |
Author: Decker, Klaus Title: Improving the Performance of Justice Institutions: Recent Experiences from Selected OECD Countries Relevant for Latin America Summary: Justice sector institutions across the world face the challenge of delivering better services to those seeking justice. The courts in a number of member countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) have undergone large scale reform programs incorporating both performance-based approaches of New Public Management (NPM), as well as private sector practices. Terms such as client satisfaction, cost-benefit analysis, total quality management and performance evaluation, which originated in the private sector, are now increasingly applied to justice institutions in more advanced OECD countries-- and other countries beginning to follow suit. For almost two decades, justice authorities in OECD countries have been trying to improve the performance of their courts. Some have had more success than others. The wealth of experience that has been generated about how (and how not) to approach court performance can be shared with others for cross-country learning. In recent years, the focus of reforms has increasingly shifted from approaches focusing on narrow quantitative efficiency to those focusing on managing quality. Radical changes have also taken place in the organizational cultures of justice institutions in order to steer them towards providing better services for the citizens and society as a whole. Justice reformers in Latin America should not be surprised to find that some OECD countries are still struggling to respond to the same issues they face. Justice institutions generally have a complex setup in which the dysfunctions of a single agency can generate externalities that quickly impact the performance of other agencies, with the latter having little or no ability to correct those externalities. However, in designing their own solutions, Latin American reformers may find the experience of OECD countries which are facing similar challenges to be a useful reference. In the same way that legal reforms cannot simply be transplanted from one country into another, any lessons learned from OECD countries should be carefully adapted to the particularities of Latin American justice institutions which have a different history and reflect different social and economic contexts. Perhaps the most important lessons to be learned from OECD countries are those that may help avoid generating unmanageable expectations or raising the bar too high. This paper presents a selection of experiences from OECD countries in managing justice institutions which are the most relevant for performance improvement of their counterparts in Latin America. The scope of the paper is mostly limited to the courts, but comprises all types of courts: specialized courts as well as courts of general jurisdiction, civil as well as criminal and administrative courts, first instance as well as appellate and supreme courts. Issues of legal reform, judicial training, alternative dispute resolution or access for the poor are not considered in this paper. Details: Washington, DC: The World Bank, 2011. 146p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 29, 2011 at: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTECA/Resources/librojusticiaING-cian.pdf Year: 2011 Country: International URL: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTECA/Resources/librojusticiaING-cian.pdf Shelf Number: 121950 Keywords: Court Reform (Europe and Latin America)CourtsCriminal Justice Reform |
Author: Amnesty International Title: The Time for Justice is Now: New Strategy Needed in the Democratic Republic of the Congo Summary: The people of the Democratic Republic of the Congo have been beset by violence and human rights abuses for two decades. Crimes under international law – including mass rape, torture and murder – have been committed in almost every corner of the country and are still being committed with alarming frequency. Impunity remains pervasive: while millions of men, women and children have suffered as a result of the violence, only a handful of perpetrators have ever been brought to justice. After decades of neglect, mismanagement and poor governance, the Congolese justice system is largely unable to deliver accountability, address impunity and secure reparation. Its credibility is low because of political and military interference, endemic corruption, lack of personnel, training and resources and its failure to protect victims and witnesses, provide legal aid, enforce its own rulings or even keep convicted prisoners behind bars. Despite some efforts at reform, the government has not shown the clear political and financial commitment necessary to respond to the Congolese population’s need for justice. This report identifies fundamental flaws within the criminal justice system that are more often than not overlooked by current policy and programmes. It examines the complementary role that some proposed transitional justice mechanisms could play. Amnesty International calls for the development of a comprehensive justice strategy that can deliver long-term and sustainable reform of the Congolese justice system in order to overcome impunity. Details: London: Amnesty International, 2011. 88p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 11, 2011 at: http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/AFR62/006/2011/en/6cd862df-be60-418e-b70d-7d2d53a0a2d4/afr620062011en.pdf Year: 2011 Country: Congo, Democratic Republic URL: http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/AFR62/006/2011/en/6cd862df-be60-418e-b70d-7d2d53a0a2d4/afr620062011en.pdf Shelf Number: 122373 Keywords: Criminal Justice ReformCriminal Justice SystemsCriminal Justice, Administration of (Democratic ReCriminal ViolenceHomicidesRape |
Author: R.A. Malatest & Associates Ltd. Title: Evaluation of the Bail Reform Pilot Project: Peace Region and Surrey. Final Evaluation Report Summary: In the fall of 2006, the Provincial Court of British Columbia proposed a number of justice system reforms in an effort to address time delays in the criminal justice system. One of these reforms concerned the bail process, which included changes to bail determination and redefined roles for judicial officers. The Bail Reform Project is jointly sponsored by the Provincial Court and the Ministry of Attorney General, and led by the Criminal Justice Reform Secretariat (CJRS). An important component of the Bail Reform Project was a comprehensive evaluation of the program design, delivery and impacts. R.A. Malatest & Associates Ltd. was commissioned to complete the Evaluation of the Bail Reform Project. This report contains the key findings from this evaluation. Details: Victoria, BC: R.A. Malatest & Associates, Ltd., 2010. 48p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 17, 2011 at: http://www.criminaljusticereform.gov.bc.ca/en/justice_reform_projects/bail_reform/docs/brp_evaluation.pdf Year: 2010 Country: Canada URL: http://www.criminaljusticereform.gov.bc.ca/en/justice_reform_projects/bail_reform/docs/brp_evaluation.pdf Shelf Number: 122769 Keywords: Bail (Canada)Bail ReformCriminal Justice ReformPretrial Release |
Author: Pew Center on the States Title: 2011 Kentucky Reforms Cut Recidivism, Costs Broad Bill Enacts Evidence-Based Strategies Summary: Problem: Kentucky had one of the fastest growing prison populations in the nation over the decade ending in 2009, rising by 45 percent, compared to 13 percent growth for all states. Consequences: Corrections spending jumped 214 percent over the two decades ending in FY 2010, to $440 million. Meanwhile, recidivism rates remained above levels seen in the 1990s, despite slight improvement in recent years. Drivers: Data showed an increase in overall arrests and court cases, as well as rising incarceration rates for technical parole violators. Analysis also showed offenders in Kentucky were far more likely to be sentenced to prison than the national average and an increase in the percentage of all admissions who were drug offenders. Reforms: With technical assistance from the Pew Center on the States, the Task Force on the Penal Code and Controlled Substances Act produced a set of reforms leading to the Public Safety and Offender Accountability Act of 2011. Passed unanimously in the Senate and with just one dissenting vote in the House, the law concentrates expensive prison beds on serious offenders, reduces recidivism by strengthening probation and parole, and establishes mechanisms for measuring government progress over time. Impact: The legislation is expected to enhance public safety and improve the performance of Kentucky’s correctional system on multiple levels. The state estimates the reforms will save $422 million over 10 years, allowing increased investment in programs to reduce recidivism with residual funds available for state budget relief. Details: Washington, DC: Pew Center on the States, 2011. 12p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 1, 2011 at: http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org/uploadedFiles/2011_Kentucky_Reforms_Cut_Recidivism.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org/uploadedFiles/2011_Kentucky_Reforms_Cut_Recidivism.pdf Shelf Number: 123199 Keywords: Costs of Criminal JusticeCriminal Justice ReformEvidence-Based PracticesRecidivism (Kentucky) |
Author: American Bar Association. Criminal Justice Section Title: Dialogue On Strategies to Save States Money, Reform Criminal Justice & Keep the Public Safe Summary: The American Bar Association has chosen to focus on five key issues where states can implement changes that will promote public safety, reduce recidivism, and save money. These five issues cover a range of criminal justice topics, but the goal is the same: to create an effective, low-cost system that improves our current justice system. Below is a brief description of each policy. PRE-TRIAL RELEASE REFORM According to the United States Department of Justice, over 500,000 men and women sit in jail awaiting trial. Two-thirds of these people are low bail risk, meaning they have been deemed by a magistrate to pose no significant risk to themselves or the community, as well as representing a low risk of flight. Often, these inmates will sit in jail for over a year before standing trial. While these non-violent offenders are in jail, taxpayers provide them with food, clothing, healthcare, and security – last year alone the United States spent $9 billion on services for those who could not afford bail. With the development of better tools, methods, and technologies to supervise non-violent offenders, states will be able to save money on pretrial detention and reduce risk to the community. Those who pose the lowest risk can be identified, released before trial, and then appropriately monitored and supported so they do not become a risk. Under these narrow circumstances, not only do taxpayers save money, but the community is not put in danger. DECRIMINALIZATION OF MINOR OFFENSES State budgets have very limited resources. Because of these limits, police and prosecutors simply cannot bring justice to all culprits. By declassifying certain minor crimes, law enforcement and attorneys can focus on more serious offenders. A large portion of low-level cases in this country go unsolved – declassification would not only direct more resources toward the investigation of serious crimes, but it would also provide states with a steady stream of income in from applicable civil fines. EFFECTIVE REENTRY PROGRAMS Recidivists account for a significant portion of the United States’ prison populations – it is estimated that over half of former inmates are re-arrested and incarcerated within three years following release from prison. A key component to combating these high numbers is to more effectively choose those inmates who are prepared for release and to create programs that provide those released with useful counseling and vocational training. Without guidance, former inmates are often left without necessary support and job training and quickly return to a life of crime. With the costs of incarceration skyrocketing, states simply cannot afford to repeatedly house the same prisoners. At a reduced cost, states can implement programs that provide former inmates with the tools necessary to become successful, productive members of the community. INCREASED USE OF PAROLE & PROBATION Unnecessary inctiaornce irsa a tremendous expense to the taxpayer, and can do more harm than good with regards to an offender’s rehabilitation. Lengthy periods of incarceration should therefore be reserved for offenders who commit the most serious offenses and pose the greatest danger to the community. In contrast, alternatives to incarceration should be provided for those offenders who pose minimal risk to the community and appear likely to benefit from rehabilitation efforts outside a correctional institution. Recognizing that few convicted persons require lengthy incarceration and many require none, the ABA’s Criminal Justice Standards on Sentencing call for sentencing schemes that allow administrative parole boards to decide when individuals incarcerated under inadequately determinate sentences should be released. The Standards also include probation options for the courts, substantial “good time” credit for individuals sentenced to total confinement, and the assertion that violations of parole and probation for non-violent offenders should not automatically result in incarceration. COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS PROGRAMS Community corrections consists of any number of sanctions served by an offender within the community where that offender either (a) committed an offense, or (b) currently resides. The objectives of community corrections include punishing an offender in the least restrictive setting consistent with public safety and the gravity of the crime; providing offenders with education, training, and treatment to enable an individual to become a fully functional member of the community upon release from supervision; and making offenders accountable to the community for criminal behavior. Community corrections envisions a wide-range of locally implemented, non-incarcerative sanctions such as probation, day-reporting centers, community service, home confinement with or without electronic monitoring, drug and alcohol treatment, means-based fines, and restitution to both the victim and the community. Details: Washington, DC: American Bar Association, 2011. 170p. Source: Interent Resource: Accessed November 1, 2011 at: http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/events/criminal_justice/dialogpacket.authcheckdam.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/events/criminal_justice/dialogpacket.authcheckdam.pdf Shelf Number: 123205 Keywords: BailCommunity CorrectionsCosts of Criminal JusticeCriminal Justice Policy (U.S.)Criminal Justice ReformDecriminalizationParolePretrial ReleasePrisoner ReentryProbation |
Author: Georgia. Special Council on Criminal Justice Reform for Georgians Title: Report of the Special Council on Criminal Justice Reform for Georgians Summary: Seeking new ways to protect public safety while controlling the growth of prison costs, the 2011 Georgia General Assembly passed HB 265 to establish the inter-branch Special Council on Criminal Justice Reform for Georgians (Council). Beginning in the summer of 2011, the Council members began a detailed analysis of Georgia’s sentencing and corrections data and solicited input from a wide range of stakeholders to identify ways to improve public safety for the citizens of Georgia. The Council used that information to develop tailored policy options, including proposals that would invest a portion of any savings from averted prison spending into evidence-based strategies to improve public safety by strengthening probation and parole supervision and reducing recidivism. During the past two decades, the prison population in Georgia has more than doubled to nearly 56,000 inmates. As a result, Georgia has one of the highest proportions of adult residents under correctional control. This growth has come at a substantial cost to Georgia’s taxpayers. Today the state spends more than $1 billion annually on corrections, up from $492 million in FY 1990. Yet despite this growth in prison, Georgia taxpayers haven’t received a better public safety return on their corrections dollars: the recidivism rate has remained unchanged at nearly 30 percent throughout the past decade. If current policies remain in place, analysis indicates that Georgia’s prison population will rise by another 8 percent to reach nearly 60,000 inmates by 2016, presenting the state with the need to spend an additional $264 million to expand capacity. The Council’s analysis revealed that inmate population growth is due in large part to policy decisions about who is being sent to prison and how long they stay. The data shows that drug and property offenders represent almost 60 percent of all admissions. Importantly, many of these offenders are identified as lower-risk. In 2010, Georgia courts sent more than 5,000 lower-risk drug and property offenders to prison who have never been to prison before, accounting for 25 percent of all admissions. Looking more closely at drug admissions, more than 3,200 offenders are admitted to prison each year on a drug possession conviction (as opposed to a sales or trafficking conviction), and two-thirds of these inmates are assessed as being a lower-risk to re-offend. The Council also identified several challenges to the state’s ability to effectively supervise offenders on probation and parole and provide interventions that can reduce the likelihood of reoffending. Since 2000, Georgia’s felony probation population has grown by 22 percent to 156,000 and the state’s parole population has grown by 9 percent to 22,000. Currently, probation and parole agencies operate effective programs using evidence-based tools to identify and supervise higher risk offenders. But the Council’s analysis shows that these options are limited and supervision agencies do not have the resources required to supervise offenders adequately. With greater investment in these and other programs and expansion to additional sites to serve more offenders, the state can reduce recidivism and create viable sentencing options for judges that can achieve better public safety outcomes at a lower cost. This report provides analysis and options for policymakers to consider. These policy options increase public safety and avert the growth currently projected for the state’s prison population. The Council considered these recommendations and options and, despite not reaching consensus on every one, agreed to forward the report to the legislature for consideration and action in the 2012 legislative session. The Council recommends that where potential savings are achieved, a portion should be reinvested into those options proven to reduce recidivism and improve public safety. These include expanding the availability of drug and other accountability courts and strengthening community supervision. The Council also recommends investing in effective information and performance measurement systems. Many of the policy proposals in this report focus on improving community-based supervision, sanctions and services as well as other practices proven to reduce recidivism, which are essential to improving public safety. Some of these proposals will require investment by the state. In order to allow for this reinvestment, the policy proposals in this report provide the legislature with options to avert much if not all of the projected growth in the prison population and corresponding costs over the next five years. Details: Atlanta, GA: The Special Council, 2011. 25p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 26, 2011 at: http://www.legis.ga.gov/Documents/GACouncilReport-FINALDRAFT.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.legis.ga.gov/Documents/GACouncilReport-FINALDRAFT.pdf Shelf Number: 123450 Keywords: Costs of Criminal JusticeCriminal Justice PolicyCriminal Justice ReformCriminal Justice Systems (Georgia, U.S.) |
Author: Leachman, Michael Title: Improving Budget Analysis of State Criminal Justice Reforms: A Strategy for Better Outcomes and Saving Money Summary: This report details how a change to the way states evaluate the budgetary effects of proposed laws could help states find better budget solutions while protecting public safety and decreasing our incarceration rate. According to the report, “Improving Budget Analysis of State Criminal Justice Reforms: Strategies for Improving Outcomes and Saving States Money,” poorly performed state evaluations of the budgetary consequences of criminal justice legislation are causing some states to spend unnecessarily on prisons while cutting other vital state programs. Earlier this year, for example, legislators from both sides of the political aisle in Maryland sought to pass a law that would have allowed nonprison sanctions for individuals who commit technical parole violations, such as missing a meeting with their parole officer or failing to complete community service. More than one-third of the people behind bars around our nation are there for similar technical violations, not for new crimes. This Maryland bill would have allowed the state to put a portion of the $1 billion it spends annually on corrections to better use while keeping the public safe. If implemented, this reform could have started saving the state money within three years, since that’s when most people return to prison for technical violations. But a misguided state budget estimate of the bill’s impact considered only the up-front costs, ignoring the future savings and thus incorrectly concluding that the program would cost too much. As a result, the bill was scaled back to only three counties. Now, the rest of Maryland will continue to send individuals who violate parole conditions back to prison. According to the new report released today, Maryland isn’t the only state where this is happening. Many state budget analyses tend to focus on the upfront start-up costs of a bill, but fail to examine the later savings these programs will bring—even savings that could be realized in the following year. The upshot: When states examine policies through a cost-only lens, instead of a cost-effectiveness lens, legislators and the public are more likely to reject policies that would actually save money overall. Amid this mess, however, there is hope. Bipartisan leaders in some states, among them Texas, Mississippi, and Ohio, recognized the short- and long-term benefits of cutting prison spending. Over the last few years, these states implemented reforms to cut their incarceration rates and their costs—all the while protecting public safety and reducing recidivism. Such reforms—like providing effective addiction treatment instead of prison to more people convicted of drug crimes and increasing parole eligibility for elderly prisons who no longer pose safety risks—free up precious state dollars to reallocate to other societal resources such as education, infrastructure, or returning tax dollars back to working families. Details: Washington, DC: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities; American Civil Liberties Union, 2012 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 18, 2012 at: http://www.aclu.org/files/assets/improvingbudgetanalysis_20120110.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.aclu.org/files/assets/improvingbudgetanalysis_20120110.pdf Shelf Number: 123657 Keywords: BudgetsCosts of Criminal JusticeCriminal Justice ReformCriminal Justice Systems (U.S.)Expenditures in Criminal Justice |
Author: Pennsylvania. Supreme Court. Committee on Racial and Gender Bias in the Justice System Title: Rinal Report of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court Committee on Racial and Gender Bias in the Justice System Summary: This report reviews several areas of the criminal justice system in Pennsylvania in regards to racial and gender bias. Among the areas reviewed were: litigants with limited-English proficiency, employment practices within the courtroom workgroup, perceptions of bias by the courtroom workgroup, juvenile justice, and the death penalty. Along with an indepth analysis of several areas of the system, the report provides specific recommendations for reform. Details: Harrisburg, PA: Pennsylvania Supreme Court, 2003 549p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 19, 2012 at: http://www.courts.state.pa.us/NR/rdonlyres/EC162941-F233-4FC6-9247-54BFE3D2840D/0/FinalReport.pdf Year: 2003 Country: United States URL: http://www.courts.state.pa.us/NR/rdonlyres/EC162941-F233-4FC6-9247-54BFE3D2840D/0/FinalReport.pdf Shelf Number: 123672 Keywords: BiasCourtsCriminal Justice ReformCriminal Justice Systems (Pennsylvania)DiscriminationGenderRacial Disparities |
Author: Bonora, Angela Title: Post-conflict crime prevention and justice reform Summary: The paper explores key issues concerning crime prevention and transitional justice in post-conflict societies. The need exists to develop innovative ways, within post-conflict environments, of addressing the causes and correlates of crime while rebuilding the policing and justice structures. In order to promote crime prevention, sustainable peace and conflict resolution in post-conflict settings, collaborative and integrated sector reform – both institutional and public/social – is required. This paper therefore highlights the importance of a more consolidated, integrated approach to crime prevention and reconciliation; one that expands on and moves beyond mere security sector reform initiatives, and which places greater emphasis on public sector reform and social service delivery in post-conflict settings – only in this way can functional and sustainable crime prevention and reconciliation measures be implemented. Details: Claremont, South Africa: CJCP - Centre for Justice and Crime Prevention, 2006. 8p. Source: CJCP Issue Paper No. 2: Internet Resource: Accessed on February 3, 2012 at Year: 2006 Country: South Africa URL: Shelf Number: 123935 Keywords: Crime PreventionCriminal Justice ReformTransitional Justice (South Africa) |
Author: Omar, Bilkis Title: Enforcement or development? Positioning government's National Crime Prevention Strategy Summary: After falling from favour under Mbeki’s government, the National Crime Prevention Strategy (NCPS) is being reinvigorated under the new Minister of Police. The institution tasked with reviving the NCPS is the Secretariat of Safety and Security or the Secretariat of Police as it has been renamed – the body responsible for civilian oversight over the South African Police Service. The secretariat too has seen its fortunes wane over the past decade, but is undergoing a turnaround with the appointment of a new secretary, new legislation and institutional reform. This paper asks two questions: what will prevent the NCPS from suffering the same fate as before; and is the Secretariat of Police the most suitable home for the NCPS or should it be located elsewhere? The paper argues that the NCPS can be revived to great effect, but only if it is located elsewhere within government. Details: Claremont, South Africa: CJCP - Centre for Justice and Crime Prevention, 2010. 16p. Source: CJCP Issue Paper No. 9: Internet Resource: Accessed February 3, 2012 at http://www.cjcp.org.za/admin/uploads/Issue%20Paper%209-final.pdf Year: 2010 Country: South Africa URL: http://www.cjcp.org.za/admin/uploads/Issue%20Paper%209-final.pdf Shelf Number: 123944 Keywords: Crime Prevention (South Africa)Criminal Justice ReformLegislation |
Author: Arthur, Pat Title: Arkansas Youth Justice: The Architecture of Reform Summary: This report is offered to shine a light on the collective efforts underway in Arkansas to transform the state's juvenile justice system. It describes the work that has been done to build reform over the past four years under the steady and skilled stewardship of Ron Angel, Director of the Division of Youth Services (DYS). It also suggests additional changes in policy and practices that might further "revolutionize" youth services, as is called for in the division's strategic reform plan. The first section of the report discusses the state of juvenile justice in Arkansas prior to the start of reform efforts. The second section describes the building blocks of reform, including the architecture of the reform process and the essential elements of specific reform initiatives. The last section provides hypothetical scenarios that suggest some of the ways current practices could be changed in order to further DYS' efforts to safely reduce the number of youth held in secure custody. These scenarios are offered to aid the discussions among Arkansas policymakers and stakeholders about ways to further the goals of reform in the future. Details: Oakland, CA: National Center for Youth Law and National Council on Crime and Delinquency, 2012. 47p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 18, 2012 at http://nccd-crc.issuelab.org/sd_clicks/download2/arkansas_youth_justice_the_architecture_of_reform Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://nccd-crc.issuelab.org/sd_clicks/download2/arkansas_youth_justice_the_architecture_of_reform Shelf Number: 124174 Keywords: Criminal Justice ReformJuvenile Justice (Arkansas) |
Author: Nicholson, Linda Title: Keeping Scotland Safe and Strong - A Consultation on Reforming Police and Fire and Rescue Services in Scotland: Analysis of Consultation Responses Summary: The Scottish Government is committed to ensuring that the police and fire and rescue services in Scotland deliver against several of the National Outcomes by focusing on the frontline. Progress has been good in recent years with recorded crime at its lowest level in 35 years and the number of fire related deaths and injuries steadily reducing. Severe financial challenges facing the public sector along with new threats to safety have led to debate over how to secure such frontline policing and fire and rescue services in a financially sustainable way. Two written consultation exercises were run by the Scottish Government between February and May 2011 which proposed options for reform. These were followed by extensive engagement with stakeholders across Scotland about the future of the Scottish Police and Fire and Rescue Services. The Government has introduced legislation which will create a single Scottish Police Service and a single Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. To inform the development of the legislation, a further written consultation paper, “Keeping Scotland Safe and Strong: A Consultation on Reforming Police and Fire and Rescue Services in Scotland”, was published on 8 September 2011 which set out proposals for how best to establish these single services. Comments were invited by 2 November 2011 to help shape the final proposals and related legislation. 145 written responses to the consultation were submitted. These responses have been made publicly available on the Scottish Government website unless the respondent has specifically requested otherwise. The consultation document was divided into 2 parts. Part 1 focused on police service reform and posed 12 questions on this topic; Part 2 focused on fire and rescue service reform, asking another 14 questions. Views were also invited on the partial Equality Impact Assessment (EQIA) and the partial Business and Regulatory Impact Assessment (BRIA) undertaken as part of the proposals for reform. 145 responses to the consultation were submitted and analysed. Whilst responses from police bodies (e.g. police forces, Police Authorities/Joint Boards) and fire bodies (e.g. Fire and Rescue Services, Fire and Rescue Authorities/Joint Boards) tended to address the questions relating to police or fire respectively, local authorities and many individual respondents addressed topics on both police and fire and rescue issues. The presentation of the analysis of the comments submitted to the consultation follows the order of the questions set out in the consultation document. Details: Scotland: Scottish Government Social Research, 2012. 71p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 19, 2012 at http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0038/00387506.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0038/00387506.pdf Shelf Number: 124207 Keywords: Criminal Justice AdministrationCriminal Justice ReformEmergency Services (Scotland) |
Author: Galev, Todor Title: Crime and Punishment: Studying Justice System for Shaping Criminal Policy Summary: The current publication analyses the findings of the survey on public trust in Bulgarian police and courts, including personal assessments about the level of corruption in these institutions and the subjective perceptions of fear of crime. Two main factors are moulding the public trust: the state institutions’ effectiveness, their procedural justice and their distributive fairness towards citizens, as well as institutions’ legitimacy, the legality of their actions and the shared moral principles, which build up the obligation to respect the rules and the decisions of these institutions. The publication suggests that Bulgaria should introduce a system of indicators for assessing the public trust in the criminal justice system. These indicators would be instrumental for the more comprehensive definition of the problems, which criminal justice institutions face, and for more effective monitoring of public opinion fluctuations. Details: Sofia, Bulgaria: Center for the Study of Democracy, 2011. 91p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 28, 2012 at: http://www.csd.bg/artShow.php?id=15927 Year: 2011 Country: Bulgaria URL: http://www.csd.bg/artShow.php?id=15927 Shelf Number: 124300 Keywords: Criminal Justice PolicyCriminal Justice ReformCriminal Justice Systems (Bulgaria)Public Opinion |
Author: Mauer, Marc Title: To Build a Better Criminal Justice System: 25 Experts Envision the Next 25 Years of Reform Summary: In a new publication of The Sentencing Project 25 leading scholars and practitioners have contributed essays on their strategic vision for the next 25 years of criminal justice reform. Issues addressed in the collection include racial justice strategies, linking public health and criminal justice reform, challenging the war on drugs, and the viability of fiscal pressures as a focus for reform. Details: Washington, D.C.: The Sentencing Project, 2012. 68p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 21, 2012 at http://sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/sen_25_eassys.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/sen_25_eassys.pdf Shelf Number: 124637 Keywords: Administration of JusticeCriminal Justice ReformCriminal Justice SystemsDrug PolicyIncarcerationJuvenile JusticeRacial DisparitySentencing ReformVoting Rights |
Author: Baxter, David Title: Innovation in Justice: New Delivery Models and Better Outcomes Summary: Continued budgetary pressure and associated austerity measures are forcing a rethink of how justice services are delivered in the UK. Police forces, courts, probation trusts, prisons and community organisations must continually reduce their spending in the coming years. In this environment, innovation can and should play a major role in driving efficiency, meeting cost targets and developing new and better ways of delivering justice services. While these organisations are required to cut back, the social impact of austerity brings further challenges. New and quite different forms of criminal activity are emerging, from the riots this summer to developments in cyber-crime. Innovation has thus now become absolutely essential if organisations are to ‘square the circle’ and rise to the challenge of delivering more, lowering costs and ensuring criminal justice services can continue to protect the values and integrity of society. It is not enough to simply recognise that innovation is important, a number of hurdles must be overcome to implement new ideas in justice organisations. It is widely recognised that successful innovation in the public sector is difficult. However, the barriers to innovation are all the more acute in justice. Public protection by its nature obviously prefers to avoid taking risks that might lead to high profile failures endangering citizens and communities. Given its increasing importance, and appreciating the challenges and barriers, we undertook a major study to investigate the key success factors for effective innovation in criminal justice services. Twenty eight senior leaders were surveyed in diverse justice organisations across the UK, Netherlands and Czech Republic, and four detailed case studies of successful justice innovation were undertaken: Warwickshire Justice Centres, Restorative Justice in the Greater Manchester Police, Detention Centre Rotterdam and the Roma Mentoring Programme in the Czech Republic. Important insights from the research •Breakthrough improvements are possible by taking innovative approaches, in particular by engaging offenders, communities and the private sector in new forms of service delivery: new processes, new services and new business models. In the current climate, successful innovation will involve combinations of these three. •Although there are significant examples of innovation in the justice sector, it appears that innovation is not systemic, ie there are no innovation frameworks that exist from a justice perspective and as a result it is not visibly and deliberately managed. Innovation needs to become integral to service delivery. Policy makers and managers need to be more proactive in creating formal mechanisms for stimulating, managing and implementing ideas. There are significant lessons to be learned from the commercial sector’s approach to managing innovation but these ideas will need to be adapted to make them effective in the justice sector. •Acute barriers to innovation exist in the justice sector. Innovators have to contend with organisational silo structures, a reluctance to deviate from established performance targets and a general culture of risk aversion. These barriers call for an approach that challenges existing ways of working. •Effective leadership is important at all stages in the innovation process. At the early stages, senior managers must be seen to be open to new ideas and thinking, and demonstrate that new ideas will be considered. During development, leaders play a key role in defining how new ideas relate to existing performance measures and governance structures. During implementation, sponsorship and continued support of the project team is critical. The willingness of senior leaders to fight for local initiatives in a national setting also emerged as a key success factor. Wide Range of Successful Innovations The published literature does not reflect the true breadth of innovation currently taking place in justice. The authors have discovered a wide range of successful innovations and yet awareness of these across the sector seems limited. Innovators in the justice sector need to publicise initiatives more effectively and this includes clear articulation of the benefits achieved. Publicising success will allow other organisations to consider adopting similar initiatives. Central departments and policy makers should reward innovation that addresses local challenges in addition to the development and assessment of national targets. However, ‘bottom-up’ innovation is only part of the solution. The centre also needs to find a way to effectively promote and scale up innovation without being overly prescriptive. Funding mechanisms are an area for improvement because they can hinder innovation that works across traditional boundaries. It is recommended that the way justice services are funded should be reviewed, better value for money could be achieved by starting with locally relevant outcomes and allocating funding accordingly. In conclusion Innovation is now critically important in ensuring that criminal justice services can meet new and increasing demands, and protect the values and integrity of society. Successful innovation in criminal justice appears to be more about effective leadership and creating the right environment for new ideas to be developed and adopted, and less about the centre dictating ‘best practice’ and demanding adherence to performance metrics. The challenge is about maintaining the space for ideas to be developed, accepting and learning from failure and encouraging organisations to adopt new approaches. This can be achieved by developing an innovation strategy supported by systematic methods to identify, assess and implement new ideas. Details: Bedfordshire, UK: School of Management, Cranfield University, 2011. 44p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 6, 2012 at: http://www.steria.com/uk/fileadmin/assets/yourBusiness/homelandSecurity/files/Innovation_in_Justice.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.steria.com/uk/fileadmin/assets/yourBusiness/homelandSecurity/files/Innovation_in_Justice.pdf Shelf Number: 124882 Keywords: Costs of Criminal JusticeCriminal Justice ReformCriminal Justice Systems (U.K.) |
Author: Legal Action Center Title: Behind Closed Doors: An Overview of DHS Restrictions on Access to Counsel Summary: While many people have heard of immigration courts, few understand that immigration judges make only a small percentage of the decisions about immigration status. Most determinations are made by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) adjudicators, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) inspectors, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers, and other government officials empowered to decide an individual’s fate. These decisions might result in lengthy imprisonment and expulsion from the country and often are made without affording the affected individuals access to legal counsel at their own expense. The right to competent legal representation is a constitutional mandate in criminal law. It is also a well‐recognized right in immigration court, although—by contrast with criminal proceedings—the government does not appoint lawyers for indigent noncitizens. Individuals in many types of administrative proceedings before the immigration agencies similarly have a right to legal representation. However, in this obscure world of decision‐making outside the courtroom, the right is often unrecognized or denied. Even when officials provide some access to counsel, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), particularly ICE and CBP, have discouraged or prevented counsel from meaningfully participating in their clients’ cases. The American Immigration Council (Immigration Council), the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA), and the Center for Immigrants’ Rights at Pennsylvania State University’s Dickinson School of Law began a project over two years ago to uncover the scope of these limitations on access to counsel. Using a variety of tools—including surveys and in‐depth interviews, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, and extensive policy and legal analysis—we discovered that limitations on access to counsel were prevalent throughout DHS. Prior to issuing this report, the Immigration Council sought to bring these problems to the attention of the individual agencies. Only USCIS was responsive. In fact, USCIS has made significant revisions to its policies regarding access to counsel in response, at least in part, to the concerns we identified. With respect to ICE and CBP, however, the urgent need for reform remains. Details: Washington, DC: Legal Action Center, American Immigration Council, 2012. 26p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 7, 2012 at http://www.legalactioncenter.org/sites/default/files/docs/lac/Behind_Closed_Doors_5-31-12.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.legalactioncenter.org/sites/default/files/docs/lac/Behind_Closed_Doors_5-31-12.pdf Shelf Number: 125344 Keywords: Criminal Justice ReformCustoms EnforcementDefense Attorneys, AccessImmigrants |
Author: Drinan, Cara H. Title: Clemency in a Time of Crisis Summary: At the state level, the power to pardon or commute a criminal sentence — that is, to grant clemency — is vested in either the Governor, an executive clemency board, or some combination thereof. Until very recently, clemency grants were a consistent feature of our criminal justice system. In the last four decades, though, state clemency grants have declined significantly; in some states, clemency seems to have disappeared altogether. In this Article, I contend that executive clemency should be revived at the state level in response to ongoing systemic criminal justice failings. Part I of this Article describes clemency at the state level today. Despite judicial and scholarly support for the role of clemency in our criminal justice system, state clemency practice fails to live up to its theoretical justifications. Part II of this Article makes the case for a policy of vigorous clemency on both theoretical and practical grounds. Not only was clemency designed, at least in part, to serve an error-correcting function, but also, today, there are several reasons why state executive actors may be able to use their clemency power robustly without suffering politically. In Part III, I address questions of implementation. If state executive actors are to pursue commutations of sentences or pardons, which inmates should be the subject of such pursuits? How can those executive actors best be insulated from political pressure? In sum, this Article argues that revitalizing state clemency is a valuable and viable component of broader criminal justice reform. Details: Atlanta, GA: 28 Georgia State Law Review 1123, Forthcoming. 38p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 20, 2012 at http://ssrn.com/abstract=2079812 Year: 1123 Country: United States URL: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2079812 Shelf Number: 125386 Keywords: Administration of JusticeClemencyCriminal Justice ReformPardons |
Author: Ram, Christopher D. Title: Meeting the Challenge of Crime in the Global Village: An Assessment of the Role and Future of the United Nations Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Summary: This book examines recent developments in the evolution of crime at the domestic and transnational level, the pressures that these have exerted on domestic law and policy and national sovereignty, and the effectiveness of the United Nations Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice as a collective response to those pressures. At the time of writing (April - December of 2011) the Commission, which was established in 1992, is in its 20th year, and a re-assessment is in order. In order to evaluate the effectiveness of the Commission, it is necessary to first assess the various functions it performs, whether by design or not, and the value of these functions to the Member States individually and the international community as a whole. This is more complex than it may seem, because effectiveness is largely in the eye of the beholder and must inevitably be assessed as against the expectations of the many different constituencies it serves, which are defined not only by national or regional economic, political or other substantive interests but also in terms of the diplomatic, criminological, security, development and intergovernmental, governmental or non-governmental lenses through which various participants perceive the Commission and its work. In this context, the book then considers developments of the past two decades and the perspectives of various constituencies on what has worked and what has not. It concludes that the benefits of the Commission and the work it mandates are, while often abstract, long-term and difficult to quantify, substantial when compared with the relatively small investment it demands from the Member States. At the 20th session, held in April 2011, the frustrations of many delegations appeared to crystallise in a new will to adopt procedural reforms, which bodes well for the future, but the Commission was also advised of major resource limits that will reduce the documentation by the Commission of its work, which bodes ill. These and other recent developments will be considered with a view to developing ideas and proposals for the future. Details: Helsinki: European Institute for Crime Prevention and Control, affiliated with the United Nations (HEUNI), 2012. 144p. Source: Internet Resource: Publication Series No. 73: Accessed July 5, 2012 at: http://www.heuni.fi/Satellite?blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobcol=urldata&SSURIapptype=BlobServer&SSURIcontainer=Default&SSURIsession=false&blobkey=id&blobheadervalue1=inline;%20filename=HEUNI%20report%2073%20final%2028022012.pdf&SSURIsscontext=Satellite%20Server&blobwhere=1331736235201&blobheadername1=Content-Disposition&ssbinary=true&blobheader=application/pdf Year: 2012 Country: International URL: http://www.heuni.fi/Satellite?blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobcol=urldata&SSURIapptype=BlobServer&SSURIcontainer=Default&SSURIsession=false&blobkey=id&blobheadervalue1=inline;%20filename=HEUNI%20report%2073%20final%2028022012.pdf&SS Shelf Number: 125477 Keywords: Crime PreventionCriminal Justice PoliciesCriminal Justice ReformUnited Nations |
Author: Karabec, Zdenek Title: Criminal Justice System in the Czech Republic Summary: For several years, the European Institute for Crime Prevention and Control, affiliated with the United Nations (HEUNI) has carried out an ambitious project of providing comparative information on criminal justice systems in various countries. Within this project, HEUNI has published, for instance, studies on criminal justice in Italy, France, Finland, the Netherlands, Sweden, Ireland, England and Wales, Canada, Spain, Bulgaria, and Greece. As part of the aforementioned project, the Institute of Criminology and Social Prevention also produced such a study on the criminal justice system in the Czech Republic. In order to retain the comparative value of information drawn from various countries, it was necessary, when producing the study, to follow the outline and content delimited by HEUNI. This, of course, predetermined the way the authors approached the study, as well as the aspects of Czech criminal justice they focused on. Since the first publication of this study, almost ten years have passed, marked by the recodification process which is still going on as part of the reform of Czech justice. Several important changes have taken place in the area of criminal justice, too. Especially the adoption of the new Criminal Code can be seen as a major event reflecting the development of the theory and practice of criminal law. Therefore some passages of the original study have been revised or supplemented wherever it was necessary with regard to the changes in legislation, development of statistical data or outcomes of criminological research. Details: Prague: Institute of Criminology and Social Prevention, 2011. 109p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 16, 2012 at: http://www.ok.cz/iksp/docs/386.pdf Year: 2011 Country: Czech Republic URL: http://www.ok.cz/iksp/docs/386.pdf Shelf Number: 125622 Keywords: Criminal Justice ReformCriminal Justice Systems (Czech Republic) |
Author: Great Britain. Ministry of Justice Title: Swift and Sure Justice: The Government’s Plans for Reform of the Criminal Justice System Summary: This White Paper sets out the Government’s programme of reforms to the criminal justice system in England and Wales. It is in part a response to the commitment given by the Prime Minister to learn the lessons from the highly effective and rapid reaction of the criminal justice agencies to last summer’s disturbances. The Paper sets out reform programmes already in train across the criminal justice services to tackle delay and waste, increase accountability and transparency and improve public confidence. The public has a right to expect the justice system to be swift and sure: swift: so that the low-level, straightforward and uncontested cases, where a quick response is appropriate, are dealt with promptly and efficiently; and sure: so that the system can be relied upon to deliver punishment and redress fairly and in accordance with the law and public expectation. A criminal justice system which fails to command public confidence in this way has fallen at the first hurdle. Too often the public view the criminal justice system as complex and remote, with processes that seem obscure. Target chasing has replaced professional discretion and diverted practitioners’ focus from delivering the best outcomes using their skill and experience. The system is in need of modernisation, with old fashioned and outdated infrastructures and ways of working that suit the system rather than the public it serves. The wheels of justice grind too slowly. Too often the system tolerates unnecessary work and hearings which do not go ahead on time. This comes at a great cost to the taxpayer: over £20 billion each year. A large proportion of this is spent processing offenders, rather than on early, targeted interventions which help to prevent problems escalating. Many of those working in or around the criminal justice system will recognise these problems and there is a real appetite for improvement. The response to last year’s disturbances showed what was possible: a quick and flexible response, dispensing justice in some cases in a matter of hours and days, rather than weeks and months. In this White Paper we set out how we intend to reform criminal justice by: creating a swift and sure system of justice; and making it more transparent, accountable and responsive to local needs. In this way, we will transform criminal justice from an uncoordinated and fragmented system into a seamless and efficient service. Details: London: The Stationery Office Limited, 2012. 64p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 17, 2012 at: http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/policy/moj/swift-and-sure-justice.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/policy/moj/swift-and-sure-justice.pdf Shelf Number: 125650 Keywords: Criminal Justice ReformCriminal Justice Systems (U.K.) |
Author: Berk, Seda Kalem Title: “Access to Justice” in Turkey: Indicators and Recommendations Summary: The concept of “access to justice” started to become popular in the literature of law in Turkey during the 2000s. One can argue that this might be due to different legal and political reasons and coincides with the acceptance of Turkey’s candidacy for full membership to the European Union. In this context, the justice policies that could be developed from the perspective of “access to justice” will carry importance in the purpose of ensuring that everyone in the society is able to effectively benefit from the justice services. The other front of the matter concerns more directly the legal field. The main themes in this field are defined by the constitutions under headings, such as the protection of fundamental rights and freedom and the right to legal remedy, etc. Traditionally, these headings are included under the study area of the discipline of “procedural law” in modern law systems. However, from a traditional viewpoint of law, even if the abovementioned concepts are included in constitutions, it is also possible to assert that the viewpoint focusing on the technique, style and procedure of the procedural law is always more in the foreground in applications concerning this matter. In human rights law, particularly with the developments taking place in the second half of the 20th century, it can be said that the traditional definition and implementation framework of procedural law has broken with the acknowledgement of the right to fair trial and other related rights, and the efforts for the protection of these rights. Within the context of human rights law, it is essential that a right is granted, protected and exercised, and its development is monitored. This axis, which expresses different functional phases, can be explained with one concept: empowerment. Of course, this is a concept that expresses the empowerment of the subject of the right. In other words, this situation expresses the logic in protecting the rights of a legal person (be it a real or juridical entity) through the law. Establishing the concept of “access to justice” based on the “empowerment” approach will also be one of the important legal, political and social instruments of transition from the traditional to a redefined procedural law that is under the effect of the human rights law. This study by Seda Kalem Berk, titled “Access to Justice” in Turkey: Indicators and Recommendations, can be regarded as the analysis of an impact assessment that is capable of covering all the phases of the abovementioned development and re-definition axis. With this outlook, I can even say that it is an analysis from a social sciences lens, scrutinizing the domain of exercising “the right to legal remedy” and other factors affecting it in Turkey. On the other hand, this study is also an exemplary contribution in terms of the academic change demonstrating itself with social scientists starting to work alongside jurists in areas concerning the law. The author examines the situation of access to justice in Turkey through the cross-sections opened by the headings “Legal Aid”, “Access to Information”, “Interpretation in Courts”, and “Electronic Case Filing.” In a sense, this represents an analysis of the “right to legal remedy” in present-day Turkey and in view of the current social, economic and technological development. In other words, these four headings specify the mechanisms and instruments which should be discussed within the context of the “right to legal remedy” in Turkey and the determination and empowerment of the positions of those who will be accepted as the subjects of these and other connected rights. With this aspect, the study should be read as an analysis into one of the major structural elements of the policy area called “justice reform” or “judicial reform”, that calles for a human-focused approach. Details: Istanbul: Turkish Economic and Social Studies Foundation (TESEV), 2011. 58p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 24, 2012 at: http://www.isn.ethz.ch/isn/Digital-Library/Publications/Detail/?ots591=0c54e3b3-1e9c-be1e-2c24-a6a8c7060233&lng=en&id=135218 Year: 2011 Country: Turkey URL: http://www.isn.ethz.ch/isn/Digital-Library/Publications/Detail/?ots591=0c54e3b3-1e9c-be1e-2c24-a6a8c7060233&lng=en&id=135218 Shelf Number: 125758 Keywords: CourtsCriminal Justice ReformCriminal Justice SystemsJudicial Reform (Turkey) |
Author: Shelden, Randall G. Title: Collateral Consequences of Interstate Transfer of Prisoners Summary: In 2011, the Supreme Court ordered the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to immediately take actions to reduce its state prison overcrowding to 137% capacity. As a result California has embarked on sweeping criminal justice reforms which realign responsibility for low level offenders to the counties, through passage of Assembly Bill 109. Prior to the Supreme Court mandate, California had been addressing overcrowding concerns by utilizing out-of-state private prisons, the majority of which are operated by the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA). The temporary transfer of California inmates to other states began in late 2006, rose to a peak of 10,400 in early 2011, and declined to under 10,000 by mid-2011. Continued utilization of private out-of-state facilities is slated under the 2011-2012 budget to fall by nearly half by June 2012. In light of California’s extensive budget crisis, in early 2012, CCA offered to purchase California state prisons and operate them through a 20-year management contract. In exchange CCA requested an assurance that the prisons would remain at least 90% capacity (CCA, 2012). California not only declined the offer, but CDCR released plans in April 2012, to return out-of-state inmates to state facilities and terminate its contracts with private out-of-state facilities by FY 2015- 16. This proposal estimates savings of $318 million. In addition to cost savings, returning out-of-state inmates is a sound public policy decision. The purpose of this publication is to provide an overview of the effects of out-of-state transfers on inmates and families, to evaluate the potential public safety and policy merits of CDCR’s proposal. Details: San Francisco: Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, 2012. 9p. Source: Internet Resource: Research Brief: Accessed August 2, 2012 at: http://www.cjcj.org/files/Out_of_state_transfers.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.cjcj.org/files/Out_of_state_transfers.pdf Shelf Number: 125842 Keywords: Costs of Criminal JusticeCriminal Justice ReformPrison OvercrowdingPrisoners, Interstate Transfer (California)Private Prisons |
Author: Chicago Appleseed Fund for Justice Title: Strategies to Enhance and Coordinate Cook County Diversion Programs Summary: This document proposes strategies for Cook County to employ a smarter, more effective, cost efficient system of administering justice for the people. These are neither radical ideas nor unrealistic aspirations. Every recommendation is based on the documented successes of other jurisdictions in grappling with the issues that we address: how do we make our criminal justice system more efficient, decrease government costs, and improve the quality of life for the citizens of Cook County? Improving the criminal justice system in Cook County is not as difficult as it may appear. Making the system more efficient need not come at the cost of decreasing services or reducing public safety. To the contrary, the strategies proposed will decrease crime rates while increasing cost savings. There is plenty of opportunity for diversion. This is because Cook County expends tremendous resources sending people to jail on charges that are later dismissed. Other offenders are put on probation and released after spending time in jail. The County does not benefit from paying the jail costs in these cases, and jailing these people does not make the County safer. Nonviolent cases and cases with a low likelihood of successful prosecution present ideal opportunities for diversion. In 2010, the Cook County Jail admitted 78,534 individuals, seventy percent of whom – 55,000 people – were held on the basis of nonviolent charges. Also in 2010, 12,446 Cook County prisoners were released because the charges against them were dismissed entirely. On average, these detainees spent 25 days in jail before release. The County estimates the total cost of operating the jail to be $229,449,000 per year. This breaks down to a cost of about $142.60 per inmate per day. Even if we just improve the system so that we jail 10% fewer of the defendants whose cases are ultimately dismissed, we save the County over $4,000,000 a year. And we think that Cook County can do better than a 10% improvement. Not diverting is no longer an option. Our institutions and justice personnel are stretched beyond their limits. In order to allow them to address the most serious and strongest cases, we must divert nonviolent and weak cases. To reduce reliance upon incarceration safely and cost-effectively, we offer the following strategies, divided into three categories: 1. Centralize & Coordinate Diversion Court Efforts We suggest that the existing diversion courts, also known as specialty courts, remain in place. The County should convene a blue ribbon task force, a coalition, to help create a diversion system and centralize these diversion efforts in two dedicated courtrooms in the Criminal Division. Judges and staff would focus on the issues that overburden the criminal justice system: people suffering from addiction and mental health problems. These courts would also handle cases of many first time offenders who are suitable to be diverted from the traditional court system. 2. Improve Access Points We recommend three key stages after arrest where defendants may be identified for formal diversion programs and recommended for release from jail: Stationhouse Felony Drug Review, Enhanced Pretrial Services, and Bond Court. These stages are opportunities to improve the administration of justice and create savings. We propose strategies for limiting involvement in the criminal justice system through optimizing efficiency at each stage. 3. Collect Data on Performance and Use It Perhaps the most common sense strategy is that the County should be collecting data on program performance and using that data to monitor and evaluate progress. Currently, data is collected piecemeal, and often only by the people responsible for program management: not surprisingly, each program reports excellent performance. We suggest that the County create an independent data collection group to ensure that the County is using methods that objectively analyze performance. The real question is: if we are not using objectively collected data to gauge performance now, do we even know how we are doing? Details: Chicago: Chicago Appleseed Fund for Justice, 2012. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 8, 2012 at: http://chicagoappleseed.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/chicago-appleseed-diversion-strategies-for-cook-county1.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://chicagoappleseed.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/chicago-appleseed-diversion-strategies-for-cook-county1.pdf Shelf Number: 125906 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration (Chicago)Costs of Criminal JusticeCriminal Justice ReformCriminal Justice SystemsDiversion |
Author: British Columbia. Ministry of Finance. Internal Audit & Advisory Services Title: Review of the Provincial Justice System in British Columbia Summary: The provincial justice system in British Columbia is jointly administered by the Ministry of Attorney General (MAG) and the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General (PSSG). MAG is responsible for law reform, for the administration of justice and for seeing that public affairs are administered in accordance with the law, while PSSG works to maintain and enhance public safety in every community across the province. Combined, the ministries are responsible for the provision of an effective and efficient justice system, including: police services; prosecutorial services; court services, including family, civil and criminal courts; the funding of the judiciary; and corrections services. The justice system has faced increasing demands and related costs resulting in increases in the time a case takes to get to trial, growing number of cases being stayed and unscheduled courtroom closures due to lack of availability of sheriffs and/or court clerks. Further, the size of the judiciary has been a concern in that the number of judge sitting hours may not adequately ensure timely access to justice. In addition, the justice sector is facing significant systemic challenges which serve to drive up costs. As examples, the complexity of crime continues to increase, along with increasing complexity in the legal system and in managing offenders. Organized crime has expanded, and both trafficking in persons and domestic violence require increasingly specialized responses. In order to respond to accelerating demand, delays and resource shortfalls, the ministries continue to rethink and reshape the delivery of justice services. A key goal is to enhance efficiencies and reduce costs by reducing the volume of cases going into the courts, and for more than a decade MAG has devised and implemented a number of justice reform initiatives. Likewise PSSG has implemented a number of initiatives intended to reduce operational costs and eliminate discretionary spending, including risk-based approaches to treating offenders and those under bail supervision and streamlining of services such as health care, food and community corrections. As a result of the increasing pressures on the system, Internal Audit & Advisory Services (IAAS) was requested to conduct a broad review of the Ministries of AG and PSSG. Details: Vancouver, BC: British Columbia Ministry of Finance, 2012(?). 34p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 21, 2012 at: http://www.ag.gov.bc.ca/public/JusticeSystemReview.pdf Year: 2012 Country: Canada URL: http://www.ag.gov.bc.ca/public/JusticeSystemReview.pdf Shelf Number: 126390 Keywords: Criminal Justice ReformCriminal Justice Systems (British Columbia, Canada |
Author: British Columbia. Minister of Justice Title: Modernizing British Columbia's Justice System Summary: This Green Paper is intended to highlight several key issues within the justice system of British Columbia. These issues include the way independence is preserved, the way information and processes are managed, and the way change is implemented. While significant progress has been made within the justice system in recent years, problems of cost and delay are appearing to a degree which is increasingly unacceptable. Action is required due to the reliance of British Columbians, their families and our economy on a sound system of justice. While the system’s basics – its integrity, its personnel and its ability to innovate – remain strong, indicators of the system’s performance and current health give a mixed and confusing message, particularly in the area of criminal justice. “Inputs” into the system such as the rate of crime and the number of new cases are down. But the length of time spent by people remanded in custody or on bail awaiting trial is increasing, as is the total number of people being managed by the Corrections system. Costs, too, are increasing in real terms. The system is complex and challenging to reform. While it is possible to point to areas where a discussion of reform is warranted, it is also true that there are significant issues of culture and tradition within the system that may impede real understanding and change. Standing above this is the issue of independence of decision-making within the system. It is vital for our democracy that the exercise of judgment in criminal and civil cases – by police, by counsel, by judges and others in the system – be free of interference or influence. At the same time, the close linkage between the different parts of the justice system in managing case files, and our need to explain what is happening within the system, means we must administer the justice system as a system. In doing so, we must remain on strong constitutional grounds. These complexities were before Deputy Ministers during a review of the Ministries of Attorney General and Public Safety and Solicitor General throughout the autumn of 2011. They considered evidence showing that inputs to the system were in decline, as well as the measures currently being implemented across the ministries that are meant to increase efficiencies and reduce future pressures. Considering the counter-intuitive results of the ministries’ work – that resource demands continue – Deputies engaged Internal Audit to look more closely at immediate funding pressures and future costs. A number of areas of possible reform have been identified, and many more remain to be discovered. However, two important steps are required before further conclusions about next steps are drawn. First, an immediate review by an external observer is sought by government, focused on those areas considered within the realm of judicial independence and including the delivery of concrete recommendations for action. Second, input on this Green Paper will be sought from participants in the system as well as the citizens of British Columbia, who are the system’s ultimate stakeholders. The review and consultations will continue at the same time as ongoing administrative reform initiatives are being undertaken in the ministries. In July, government will issue the results of the review and consultations, along with an update on the ongoing administrative reforms, and will develop a plan of action to be outlined in a White Paper on Justice Reform in September 2012. Details: Vancouver, British Columbia: Minister of Justice, 2012. 32p. Source: Green Paper: Internet Resource: Accessed September 23, 2012 at http://www.ag.gov.bc.ca/public/JusticeSystemReviewGreenPaper.pdf Year: 2012 Country: Canada URL: http://www.ag.gov.bc.ca/public/JusticeSystemReviewGreenPaper.pdf Shelf Number: 126402 Keywords: Administration of JusticeCriminal Justice ReformCriminal Justice System (British Columbia) |
Author: Ball, Nicole Title: From Quick Wins to Long-Term Profits? Developing Better Approaches to Support Security and Justice Engagements in Fragile States: Burundi Case Study Summary: As part of its ongoing work on developing better approaches to support security and justice engagements in fragile states, INCAF commissioned a study of security and justice programming in Burundi. The overall program of work seeks to develop operational advice on how four key challenges can be addressed by incorporating key elements of process into programming: 1) getting to grips with the politics of ownership, 2) identifying results that matter, 3) establishing monitoring mechanisms that drive real-time program development and resource allocation and 4) ensuring that suitable management structures drive programs. The program also seeks to demonstrate to senior international decision makers how “domestic” imperatives (political and organizational) can be combined with the requirements for effective engagement in long and uncertain transformational security and justice change processes. Details: Washington, DC: Center for International Policy, 2012. 76p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 15, 2012 at: http://www.ciponline.org/images/uploads/publications/290312_Report_SJ_Burundi_final.pdf Year: 2012 Country: Burundi URL: http://www.ciponline.org/images/uploads/publications/290312_Report_SJ_Burundi_final.pdf Shelf Number: 126735 Keywords: Criminal Justice ReformPolice ReformPolicing and Security (Burundi) |
Author: Haldenby, Andrew Title: Doing It Justice: Integrating Criminal Justice and Emergency Services Through Police and Crime Commissioners Summary: As new Reform research shows, the most successful criminal justice organisations integrate services to deliver a better service to communities and end-to-end rehabilitation for offenders. In Glasgow, joint working between police, local government and health services within the Violence Reduction Unit has transformed a city previously blighted by violent gang crime. By working together to target gang members, agencies have reduced violent crime by 38 per cent since 2006 and improved police detection rates by a fifth. Serious assaults have fallen by 42 per cent and murders have fallen by nearly a third. In Warwickshire, a similar approach has been used to improve services for victims and the community. The creation of two Justice Centres has brought police, prisons, courts, youth offending teams and victim support under the same roof, delivering a more coordinated service and higher satisfaction for users. Police and Crime Commissioners, as a single point of accountability and budgetary control, offer a vehicle to make this type of approach the rule, rather than the exception. There is another, even more pressing, imperative for the criminal justice system: austerity. Police and justice services are currently halfway through one of the most stringent Spending Reviews in their history, in which the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice must reduce real terms spending by 23 per cent each by 2014-15. Yet even as they reduce spending by a fifth by 2015, services are facing up to the prospect of further cuts thereafter. If healthcare spending is protected in line with GDP, as seems likely, criminal justice spending will fall by a further 3.4 per cent a year between 2014-15 and 2016-17. As Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and the National Audit Office have shown, the “burning platform” of cuts is already driving innovation and better value for money, but efficiencies are time-limited and new models of delivery will be needed to ensure the fiscal sustainability in the future. With wider powers, PCCs would be well placed to achieve such sustainability. Already joint emergency control centres, such as the Tri-Service centre in Gloucestershire, are reducing costs while improving responsiveness. Leading fire services such as Greater Manchester have shown how to reduce costs and make communities safer at the same time, by shifting their resources into fire prevention. The achievement of lower crime and greater safety will enable sustainable reductions in spending, in particular on costly prison places. Commissioners would have a clear incentive to save money since they will be able to pass on savings to their electorates through reductions in the precept portion of local council tax. Such integrated models could be complimented by more creative commissioning and greater use of alternative providers, including private companies. The success of private provision in prisons and police support should give candidates confidence to extend competition elsewhere, for example to fire and rescue, ambulance services and probation. In the UK, private companies already provide fire and rescue services, for example at airports. Privately managed prisons, such as HMP Parc and HMP Doncaster, have shown the value of private sector expertise in integrating through-the-gate services to improve prisoner resettlement and reduce reoffending. Those PCC candidates who have rejected the use of the private sector before they even take office may find themselves unable to effect real change when they are elected. Police and Crime Commissioners are a significant step in the right direction, but they risk losing the confidence of the public if they do not have the tools to effectively address the causes of crime. Of the 43 force areas, more than half have similar boundaries to local probation and fire and rescue authorities, meaning there is already a ready-made framework for integration and local accountability that could be extended to remaining areas with minimal restructuring. If the Government is serious about criminal justice reform, it should take this flagship reform to its logical, local conclusion and devolve power and budgets for all criminal justice and emergency services to PCCs. Details: London: Reform, 2012. 73p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 24, 2012 at: http://www.reform.co.uk/resources/0000/0498/DoingItJustice.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.reform.co.uk/resources/0000/0498/DoingItJustice.pdf Shelf Number: 126790 Keywords: ConsolidationCosts of Criminal JusticeCriminal Justice Partnerships (U.K.)Criminal Justice ReformEmergency Services |
Author: United Nations. General Assembly. Human Rights Council Title: Report of the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions Summary: In States in which the death penalty continues to be used, international law imposes stringent requirements that must be met for it not to be regarded as unlawful. In the present report, the Special Rapporteur considers the problem of error and the use of military tribunals in the context of fair trial requirements. He also examines the constraint that the death penalty may be imposed only for the most serious crimes: those involving intentional killing. Lastly, he considers the issues of collaboration and complicity, in addition to transparency in respect of the use of the death penalty. Details: Vienna: United Nations, 2012. 25p. Source: United Nations Report A/67/275: Internet Resource: Accessed November 3, 2012 at http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N12/457/80/PDF/N1245780.pdf?OpenElement Year: 2012 Country: International URL: http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N12/457/80/PDF/N1245780.pdf?OpenElement Shelf Number: 126861 Keywords: Administration of JusticeCapital PunishmentCriminal Justice ReformDeath PenaltyExtrajudicial ExecutionsHuman Rights |
Author: Bernhardt, Rebecca Title: Harris County Communities: A Call for True Collaboration Restoring Community Trust and Improving Public Safety Summary: This report addresses the negative impact of the Harris County criminal justice system on black and brown communites. The data and analysis in this report paint a picture of Harris County that reveals some disturbing truths. First, Harris County’s criminal justice system is committed to policies that racially target blacks and Hispanics. Second, these policies cannot be justified by public safety goals; on the contrary, they harm public safety. These harms reinforce negative stereotypes of minorities and negative attitudes toward police in these same communities. There is a lot of pain and frustration resulting from racially targeted criminal justice policies in Harris County. In this shared outrage, there is also an opportunity for the black and Hispanic communities of Harris County to build stronger bonds and work together to make positive changes in local government and law enforcement – with county-wide benefits. Details: Austin, TX: Texas Criminal Justice Coalition, 2013. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 14, 2013 at: http://www.texascjc.org/sites/default/files/uploads/Harris%20County%20Communities%20A%20Call%20for%20True%20Collaboration.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.texascjc.org/sites/default/files/uploads/Harris%20County%20Communities%20A%20Call%20for%20True%20Collaboration.pdf Shelf Number: 127940 Keywords: Criminal Justice ReformCriminal Justice Systems (Texas, U.S.)DiscriminationMinority GroupsRacial Disparities |
Author: Seelke, Clare Ribando Title: Supporting Criminal Justice System Reform in Mexico: The U.S. Role Summary: Fostering security, stability, and democracy in neighboring Mexico is seen by analysts to be in the U.S. national security and economic interest. Reforming Mexico’s often corrupt and inefficient criminal justice system is widely regarded as crucial for combating criminality, strengthening the rule of law, and better protecting citizen security and human rights in the country. Congress has provided significant support to help Mexico reform its justice system in order to make current anticrime efforts more effective and to strengthen the system over the long term. U.S. and Mexican officials assert that fully implementing judicial reforms enacted through constitutional changes in June 2008 is a key goal. Under the reforms, Mexico has until 2016 to replace its trial procedures at the federal and state level, moving from a closed-door process based on written arguments presented to a judge to an adversarial public trial system with oral arguments and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. These changes are expected to help make the system less prone to corruption and more transparent and impartial. In addition to oral trials, judicial systems are expected to adopt means of alternative dispute resolution, which should help them be more flexible and efficient, thereby ensuring that cases that go to trial involve serious crimes. More than halfway into the reform process, judicial reform efforts in Mexico are at a critical juncture. As of December 2012, 22 of Mexico’s 32 states had enacted new criminal procedure codes (67%), but only 12 states (36%) had begun operating at least partially under the new system. Reform states have seen positive initial results as compared to non-reform states: faster case resolution times, less pre-trial detention, and tougher sentences for cases that go to trial. Daunting challenges remain, however, including counter-reform efforts and opposition from some key justice sector operators (including judges). Although reform efforts have lagged at the federal level, President Enrique Peña Nieto, inaugurated in December 2012 to a six-year term, has said that advancing judicial reform will be a top priority. U.S. policymakers are likely to follow how the Peña Nieto government moves to enact a unified penal code and code of criminal procedure to hasten reform at the federal level and to increase support to states transitioning to the new system. The United States has been supporting judicial reform efforts in Mexico since the late 1990s, with assistance accelerating since the implementation of the Mérida Initiative in FY2008, an anticrime assistance program for which Congress has provided $1.9 billion. While the Mérida Initiative initially focused on training and equipping Mexican security forces, it now emphasizes providing training and technical assistance to help reform Mexico’s justice sector institutions. Funding for “Institutionalizing the Rule of Law” now dwarfs other types of U.S. assistance to Mexico. This report provides an overview of Mexico’s historic 2008 judicial reforms and an assessment of how those reforms have been implemented thus far. It then analyzes U.S. support for judicial reform efforts in Mexico and raises issues for Congress to consider as it oversees current U.S. justice sector programs and considers future support to Mexico. Details: Washington, DC: Congressional Research Services, 2013. 20p. Source: Internet Resource: R43001: Accessed March 21, 2013 at: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R43001.pdf Year: 2013 Country: Mexico URL: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R43001.pdf Shelf Number: 128064 Keywords: Criminal Justice ReformCriminal Justice Systems (Mexico)Judicial Systems |
Author: Forman, Benjamin Title: Crime, Cost, and Consequences: Is it Time to Get Smart on Crime? Summary: As the title suggests, the report calls into question Massachusetts's current approach to corrections, which favors long prison stays at the expense of treatment, reentry programming, and post-release supervision. Without a change in course, the report concludes that Massachusetts will spend more than $2 billion over the next decade on corrections policies and practices that provide limited public safety benefit for the taxpayer. The report shows that models developed elsewhere, including in many “red states” that have halted prison construction, reformed sentencing practices, and invested in evidence-based programs, provide Massachusetts with sound alternatives. Instead of spending more on what doesn’t work, states like Arkansas, Georgia, South Carolina, and Texas have cut corrections budgets and increased public safety for their residents. Crime, Cost, and Consequences lays the groundwork for a multi-year campaign to make the Commonwealth a leader in the field of corrections. This effort is spearheaded by the Massachusetts Criminal Justice Coalition, committed prosecutors and corrections practitioners, defense lawyers and community organizers, and businessmen and women, working together to reform the Massachusetts criminal justice system. MassINC will support the work of the Coalition with additional research, polling, and civic events. Details: Boston: Massachusetts Institute for a New Commonwealth, 2013. 40p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 26, 2013 at: http://www.massinc.org/~/media/Files/Mass%20Inc/Research/Full%20Report%20PDF%20files/Crime_Cost_Consequences_MassINC_Final.ashx Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.massinc.org/~/media/Files/Mass%20Inc/Research/Full%20Report%20PDF%20files/Crime_Cost_Consequences_MassINC_Final.ashx Shelf Number: 128142 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCosts of Criminal Justice (Massachusetts, U.S.)Criminal Justice ReformCriminal Justice Systems |
Author: Cowper, D. Geoffrey Title: A Criminal Justice System for the 21st Century: Final Report to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General Honourable Shirley Bond Summary: review of the justice system, led by Geoffrey Cowper, QC, looked at challenges set out in the Province’s Green Paper, Modernizing British Columbia’s Justice System. Mr. Cowper was asked to identify the top issues affecting the public’s access to timely justice, and to determine what can be done to ensure efficiencies currently underway have the desired impacts, while also respecting judicial independence. Mr. Cowper provided A Criminal Justice System for the 21st Century: Final Report to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General to government in August 2012. The report was developed over six months with input from more than 100 justice system participants, stakeholders and members of the public. Details: Victoria, BC, Canada: BC Justice Reform Initiative, 2012. 288p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 5, 2013 at: http://www.ag.gov.bc.ca/public/justice-reform/CowperFinalReport.pdf Year: 2012 Country: Canada URL: http://www.ag.gov.bc.ca/public/justice-reform/CowperFinalReport.pdf Shelf Number: 128286 Keywords: Criminal Justice ReformCriminal Justice Systems (British Columbia, Canada |
Author: Males, Mike Title: Beyond Realignment: Counties’ Large Disparities in Imprisonment Underlie Ongoing Prison Crisis Summary: This publication analyzes the changes in state prison commitments by county since the implementation of the Public Safety Realignment Act of 2011 (AB 109), which redirects people convicted of low-level, non-violent crimes from state to county supervision. AB 109, commonly referred to as Realignment, is intended to reduce unconstitutional levels of prison overcrowding, save money, encourage counties to develop and implement best practices and alternatives to incarceration, and reserve state prisons for people convicted of serious offenses. However, while many counties have followed the mandate and dramatically reduced their prison commitments for low-level offenses, others continue to sentence high rates of these offenders to state prison. Details: San Francisco: Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, 2013. 8p. Source: Internet Resource: Research Brief: Accessed April 6, 2013 at: http://www.cjcj.org/files/Beyond_Realignment_March_2013.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.cjcj.org/files/Beyond_Realignment_March_2013.pdf Shelf Number: 128313 Keywords: Criminal Justice ReformPrison OvercrowdingPrison ReformPrisonersPrisons (California) |
Author: British Columbia. Ministry of Justice Title: White Paper on Justice Reform Part One: A Modern, Transparent Justice System. Part Two: A Timely, Balanced Justice System Summary: This White Paper sets out Government’s overall vision for a transparent, timely, and balanced justice system. It also provides detail on the specific steps Government will take to achieve this vision, through systems change, policy innovation and legislative reform. It represents the culmination of intensive review of the key aspects of the system, with input from different perspectives and consideration of alternative approaches. The White Paper is separated into two parts. Part One, this document, outlines the steps necessary to create a transparent system of justice. It also outlines immediate steps, using coordinated planning and decision-making, to make real headway towards eliminating the backlog of cases in the courts, and to avoid similar challenges in the future. Part Two represents the next stage with further emphasis on front-line operations and services to the public in the civil, family, administrative and criminal law settings and with respect to public safety. Part Two, completing the vision of transparent, timely and balanced justice, is also timed to allow consideration of findings and recommendations of the Missing Women Commission of Inquiry, and to address key points from the forthcoming BC Policing Plan. Details: Victoria, BC: Ministry of Justice, 2012-2013. 28p.; 40p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 18, 2013 at: http://www.justicebc.ca/shared/pdfs/WhitePaperOne.pdf Year: 2013 Country: Canada URL: http://www.justicebc.ca/shared/pdfs/WhitePaperOne.pdf Shelf Number: 128415 Keywords: Criminal Justice ReformCriminal Justice Systems (British Columbia, Canada |
Author: International Crisis Group Title: Trial by Error: Justice in Post- Qadhafi Libya Summary: There are many necessary cures to Libya’s pervasive insecurity, but few more urgent than repairing its judicial system. Qadhafi-era victims, distrusting an apparatus they view as a relic, take matters in their hands; some armed groups, sceptical of the state’s ability to carry out justice, arbitrarily detain, torture or assassinate presumed Qadhafi loyalists; others, taking advantage of disorder, do violence for political or criminal aims. All this triggers more grievances, further undermining confidence in the state. Breaking this cycle requires multi-pronged action: delivering justice to former regime victims by reforming the judiciary and kick-starting transitional justice; screening out ex-regime loyalists guilty of crimes while avoiding witch-hunts; and reining in armed groups, including those operating under a state umbrella. Unless there is a clear message – the justice system is being reformed; no violence or abuse, done in the past by Qadhafi-era officials or in the present by armed groups will be tolerated – there is a real risk of escalating targeted assassinations, urban violence and communal conflicts. It has been well over a year since Qadhafi’s regime was ousted and still there is no functioning court system in many parts of the country, while armed groups continue to run prisons and enforce their own forms of justice. The severe deficiencies of the current judicial system are rooted, first and foremost, in the failings of the one that, in principle, it has replaced. Under Qadhafi, the judiciary suffered from politicisation of appointments, rampant corruption and the use of extrajudicial means to target political opponents. Four decades of such arbitrary justice served as a burdensome backdrop to the new government’s efforts; faced with a choice between summarily dismissing judicial officers who served under Qadhafi or gradually screening them one-by-one, the new authorities so far have opted for the latter. While this was the right decision, it has contributed to public scepticism regarding the scope of change. The situation has been complicated by the proliferation of armed groups. Distrustful of the Qadhafi-era judiciary and police, frustrated by the slow pace of trials against former officials, facing state security forces in disarray and emboldened by their new power, so-called revolutionary brigades – and, at times, criminal gangs posing as such – have been operating above the law, hindering the work of investigators and judges. They all at once assume the roles of police, prosecutors, judges and jailers. Armed brigades create investigation and arrest units; draft lists of wanted individuals; set up checkpoints or force their way into people’s homes to capture presumed outlaws or people suspected of aiding the former regime; and, in some cases, run their own detention facilities in their own headquarters, isolated farms or commandeered former state buildings. Thousands of individuals are in their hands, outside the official legal framework and without benefit of judicial review or basic due process. Assassinations and growing attacks against government security forces have further darkened the picture. This has all the hallmarks of a vicious cycle: impatience with the pace of justice and overall mistrust embolden armed groups; their increased activism undermines the state’s ability to function, including on matters of law and order; and this in turn vindicates the armed groups’ claim that it is their duty to fill the vacuum. Details: Brussels: International Crisis Group, 2013. 53p. Source: Internet Resource: Middle East/North Africa Report N°140: Accessed April 18, 2013 at: http://www.crisisgroup.org/~/media/Files/Middle%20East%20North%20Africa/North%20Africa/libya/140-trial-by-error-justice-in-post-qadhafi-libya.pdf Year: 2013 Country: Libya URL: http://www.crisisgroup.org/~/media/Files/Middle%20East%20North%20Africa/North%20Africa/libya/140-trial-by-error-justice-in-post-qadhafi-libya.pdf Shelf Number: 128416 Keywords: CourtsCriminal Justice ReformCriminal Justice Systems (Libya)Judicial Systems |
Author: Rushford, Michael Title: Rationalizing Realignment; A perspective on California's return to alternative sentencing Summary: The combined impact of the national recession (which has caused a major reduction in tax revenue) and unsustainable spending policies during the earlier boom have placed unprecedented weight on state governments to significantly reduce spending. Corrections departments have become a major focus of these spending reductions for several reasons. Policies enacted over the past three decades that required longer prison sentences for violent and habitual criminals have increased prison populations in many larger states. Prominent social scientists, criminologists, and academics have criticized these “tough on crime” sentencing policies as a naive abandonment of their growing expertise at identifying low risk offenders who were unsuitable for incarceration and prescribing treatment programs to rehabilitate high risk offenders.1 The favorable publicity enjoyed by these critics and the volumes of research they have produced to support their conclusions have provided a plausible argument in the defense of states which have chosen alternative sentencing rather than to increase prison capacity to accommodate the increased inmate population. California, perhaps more than any other state, is at the center of the conflict between the “tough on crime” sentencing, which has had broad popular support, and the alternative sentencing policies advanced by social scientists and encouraged by the mainstream media. Details: Sacramento, CA: Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, 2012. 16p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 4, 2013 at: http://www.cjlf.org/publications/RationalizingRealignment2012.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.cjlf.org/publications/RationalizingRealignment2012.pdf Shelf Number: 128651 Keywords: Costs of Criminal JusticeCriminal Justice ExpendituresCriminal Justice ReformCriminal Justice Systems (California, U.S.)Sentencing |
Author: James, Juliene Title: Justice Reinvestment in Action: The Delaware Model Summary: Justice reinvestment is a data-driven approach to corrections policy that seeks to cut spending and reinvest savings in practices that have been empirically shown to improve safety and hold offenders accountable. The Vera Institute of Justice is working with Delaware to advance its efforts under the Justice Reinvestment Initiative—a project sponsored by the U.S. Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Assistance. Delaware’s work in justice reinvestment began in the summer of 2011, when Governor Jack Markell established the Delaware Justice Reinvestment Task Force through executive order to conduct a comprehensive examination of the factors contributing to the size of the corrections population, both pretrial and sentenced individuals. Vera assisted the task force in analyzing these factors and assessed the capacity and quality of institutional and community-based programs. The task force found that people awaiting trial made up a large proportion of the prison population, that supervision practices resulted in a large number of probationers spending time in prison, and that Delaware prisoners served long sentences with limited opportunity to earn reductions in their sentences—even when they had made significant steps toward rehabilitation. Based on these findings, Vera helped the task force develop a policy framework to address these drivers of the corrections population and ensure that scarce justice resources are used to reduce recidivism and enhance public safety. Legislators translated these policy recommendations into Delaware Senate Bill 226. Among other changes, the legislation requires implementation of an objective risk assessment instrument to help magistrates make informed decisions about pretrial release, makes available objective risk and needs assessment for judges’ use in sentencing, supports improved community supervision practices, and creates incentives for those who are incarcerated and under supervision to complete evidence-based programs designed to reduce recidivism. Strong bipartisan efforts led to the near-unanimous passage of the legislation, which Governor Markell signed in August 2012. As other jurisdictions consider how best to invest limited public safety dollars, Delaware’s experience offers a helpful example of what can be accomplished through a close consideration of data and social science. Because it is a unified system—one of only a handful in which the state’s Department of Correction has custody of both pretrial and sentenced populations—Delaware’s recent work is relevant not only to other states, but also to local jurisdictions, which typically are responsible for jail populations. This brief reflects on Delaware’s efforts. Details: New York: Vera Institute of Justice, Center on Sentencing and Corrections, 2013. 8p. Source: Internet Resource: Policy Brief: Accessed May 8, 2013 at: http://www.vera.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/justice-reinvestment-in-action-delaware.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.vera.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/justice-reinvestment-in-action-delaware.pdf Shelf Number: 128682 Keywords: Corrections (Delaware, U.S.)Costs of Criminal JusticeCriminal Justice ReformJustice ReinvestmentPrisoners |
Author: Great Britain. HM Inspectorate of Constabulary Title: Stop the Drift 2 – A Continuing Focus on 21st Century Criminal Justice (a joint review by HMIC and HMCPSI) Summary: Much of the debate in recent times has centred on the bureaucracy surrounding the criminal justice system. Our review in Stop the Drift: A Focus on 21st Century Criminal Justice (October 2010) revealed a number of bureaucratic processes that kept officers in police stations longer than necessary, especially when dealing with people detained at police stations and processing case files for prosecutions. Unnecessary bureaucracy should not be confused with effective management and good quality record keeping. The former has the effect of tying police officers down when they should be out, protecting the public from harm: the latter enables the police service to demonstrate compliance with the law, where the rights and interests of vulnerable people, suspects, victims and witnesses are protected and upheld. Effective management and good quality record keeping generate good quality assessments of risk, particularly when suspects are detained at police stations. The interests of justice are better served when good quality information is conveyed to other agencies in the criminal justice system so that decisions can be made about bringing criminal proceedings, supporting victims and witnesses throughout the trial, and ensuring that victims are compensated for injury and loss. Much can be done, for example, to streamline the process from arrest or detention to release from the police station or disposal at court, particularly in the area of IT, where, despite many years of effort, a citizen in possession of a smart phone is likely to have more functions at his disposal than a police officer equipped to patrol the streets. Having said that, there is no getting away from the fact that good quality policing depends on the effective management of the police contribution to the criminal justice process and good quality record keeping. Getting the right information to the right person at the right time is therefore a vital function. Enabling police officers and staff to carry out that function efficiently and effectively, however, requires more than a review of the number of forms required. A more fundamental approach must be taken if blockages are to be removed to pave the way for a more streamlined approach that removes purposeless activity but promotes the production of good quality information. This review provides, we hope, some insights on how police officer time might be freed up while improving performance within the criminal justice system. We believe the time has come to act decisively, with renewed focus and determination to streamline the process and banish the spectre of unnecessary bureaucracy that has been, for far too long, an impediment to progress. Details: London: HMIC, 2013. 33p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 6, 2013 at: http://www.hmic.gov.uk/media/stop-the-drift-2-03062013.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.hmic.gov.uk/media/stop-the-drift-2-03062013.pdf Shelf Number: 128980 Keywords: Criminal Justice Policies (U.K.)Criminal Justice ReformPolice AdministrationPolice Effectiveness |
Author: McKenzie, Jacqueline Title: Insights from the Coalface: The value of justice reinvestment for young Australians Summary: Youth Justice policy in Australia has proved to be an insufficient means to improve public safety, and to assist young people to get back on track. Not only are the rates of both the incarceration and remand of young people rising, but most young people in contact with the justice system are Australia’s most vulnerable and disadvantaged. Young people are important. Demographic trends have highlighted the unique circumstances of our time - a greater number of retired and elderly Australians, with a reduced labour force working age. The value of all young people as engaged, active and contributing members of society is immense. As evidence shows both incarceration and remand rates are on the rise. There is great understanding of the issues at hand, which are more prevalent in some communities than others, and there are appropriate measures to resolve issues in communities for young people. Action is essential to secure the wellbeing of Australia, both here and now and continuing into the future. The money spent maintaining the status quo of the criminal justice system must be reinvested into communities, with young people as the focal point. Young offenders will be tomorrow’s adult prison population, if we do not take the necessary steps now. The creation of alternative pathways through a Justice Reinvestment framework proposes the way. A Justice Reinvestment framework applies a data-driven approach to reduce incarceration spending and reinvest savings in strategies that decrease crime and strengthen communities. This is a targeted approach, requiring commonwealth leadership for consistency and support across jurisdictions. AYAC believes that young people have the right to access adequate and appropriate programs and services regardless of geographic location, race, gender, sexuality, physical ability or disability, social religious or economic circumstances. This should be especially so for our most disadvantaged and vulnerable, who are over-represented in the current youth justice system. We call for action that enables young people to fully realise their potential as positive members of society, and cease the toll on community and government that comes with current increases in both incarceration and remand of young people. Details: Surry Hills, NSW, AU: Australian Youth Affairs Coalition (AYAC), 2013. 44p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 28, 2013 at: http://www.ayac.org.au/uploads/JRinsightsfromcoalface.pdf Year: 2013 Country: Australia URL: http://www.ayac.org.au/uploads/JRinsightsfromcoalface.pdf Shelf Number: 129192 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCosts of Criminal JusticeCriminal Justice ReformJustice Reinvestment (Australia)Juvenile Justice Systems |
Author: Great Britain. Ministry of Justice Title: Transforming the CJS: A Strategy and Action Plan to Reform the Criminal Justice System Summary: There is much that we can be proud of in our criminal justice system (CJS). It is admired and emulated across the world. Its workforce is dedicated and highly skilled and has made a significant contribution to the Government’s deficit reduction programme by developing new and more efficient ways of operating, whilst at the same time delivering a 5% fall in crime in the last year alone. But there are also aspects of the CJS in which we can take rather less pride. It remains cumbersome, there are too many complex procedures and archaic working practices, its use of technology lags behind other public services, and it is still characterised by unacceptable delays, complexity which leads to blurred accountabilities, and huge amounts of time and effort unnecessarily going into straightforward cases. Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary’s (HMIC) report Stop the Drift identified 70 rubbing points for a standard domestic burglary case where it was difficult to make progress because one agency or practitioner required information from another and at least seven occasions on which data had to be transferred. For victims and witnesses, despite some improvement in recent years, the CJS can be baffling and frustrating, and their experience all too often falls below the standards they might expect from a modern public service. This Government is committed to transforming criminal justice into a modern public service that provides a swift, determined response to crime, treats victims and witnesses with the care and consideration they deserve, and provides much better value for money to the taxpayer. Details: London: Ministry of Justice, 2013. 51p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 3, 2013 at: http://www.crimeline.info/uploads/docs/digital2013.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.crimeline.info/uploads/docs/digital2013.pdf Shelf Number: 129251 Keywords: Criminal Justice ReformCriminal Justice Systems (U.K.) |
Author: Foley, Conor Title: Another Systems Is Possible: Reforming Brazilian Justice Summary: silent revolution is transforming the Brazilian justice system, challenging some of its most archaic practices through new innovations. These seek to provide a fairer, faster criminal justice service, but also to tackle the roots of violent crime. Changes are taking place at the constitutional, institutional, legislative and practical level. Many of the most creative innovations started locally before being scaled up to national projects. This book brings together some of the voices of those involved in the reform process to reflect on their own experiences and their wider applicability. The Brazilian justice system has rightly attracted international notoriety in the past because of the scale of its problems. However, the success stories contained in this book also show how reform is possible given political will. The process is ongoing and still faces enormous challenges. Brazil’s experiences of justice sector reform may be of direct relevance to other countries of similar levels of social, economic and political development and some of the projects described in this book may provide models that others can learn from. Details: London: International Bar Association, 2012. 192p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 23, 2013 at: http://www.ibanet.org/Article/Detail.aspx?ArticleUid=60ad9251-7e9a-4e19-b275-410ea7319f5c Year: 2012 Country: Brazil URL: http://www.ibanet.org/Article/Detail.aspx?ArticleUid=60ad9251-7e9a-4e19-b275-410ea7319f5c Shelf Number: 129493 Keywords: Criminal Justice ReformCriminal Justice Systems (Brazil) |
Author: International Bar Association. Human Rights Institute Title: One in Five: The crisis in Brazil’s prisons and criminal justice system Summary: The number of prisoners and pre-trial detainees in Brazil is rising rapidly and there is widespread agreement that the current criminal justice and penal system is dysfunctional. In November 2009, the National Council of Justice announced that out of the cases it has reviewed so far, one in five pre-trial detainees have been imprisoned irregularly, which suggest that the nationwide problem is extremely serious. The Brazilian criminal justice and penal system has been the subject of numerous expert reports denouncing its failings, and there have also been ad hoc attempts to deal with different aspects of its problems. The system also appears to violate Brazil’s own laws and constitutional provisions for the protection of human rights. While formally committing itself to extensive protection of the rights of its citizens, the Brazilian Government claims that hostility to the concept amongst its own officials and a large section of the public is one of the key impediments to criminal justice reform. The first section of this report provides a summary overview of numerous recent reports and studies by UN monitoring bodies as well as international and national human rights organisations into the violations of rights that are being perpetrated by and in the Brazilian penal system. The overall trend within the Brazilian criminal justice system is to sentence more defendants to prison than are being released, which has overwhelmed the capacity of the already overcrowded penal system – this looks set to continue. A huge backlog of cases has built up leading to increasing delays in the court system, and over 80 per cent of prisoners cannot afford a lawyer. Many people are imprisoned irregularly, spend years in pre-trial detention or remain in prison after the expiry of their sentence due to bureaucratic incompetence or systemic failings. Severe overcrowding, poor sanitary conditions, gang violence and riots blight the prison system, where ill-treatment, including beatings and torture, are commonplace. Although the government has announced several reforms to tackle the problems identified, in practical terms little has changed over the last decade. This suggests that the failings are deep-rooted and systemic, so need to be addressed in a holistic way. The second section of this report describes the formal protection of human rights in the Brazilian criminal justice system, but also explains why these guarantees remain largely on paper. An understanding of why the Brazilian state appears to violate so many of the human rights that its own laws and Constitution guarantee requires some description of the historical political context in which the relationship between them developed. This took on a critical importance during the transition from dictatorship to democracy and its legacy continues to strongly influence Brazilian society and politics, with many Brazilians associating the transition to democracy with the large increase in violent crime that has occurred in the country. The third section focuses on the institutions constitutionally mandated to protect human rights within the Brazilian criminal justice system. While Brazil’s current Constitution and many of its laws provide extensive protection, the institutions charged with upholding these rights often fail to do so. This may be because many of these corporatist institutions remain largely unreformed from the dictatorship era and have sought to shield themselves from democratic scrutiny and control. The final section describes some of the local initiatives that have been undertaken to bring justice closer to the people in Brazil. An effective reform strategy must deal with the issue of criminal justice reform comprehensively. The problems regarding access to justice in pre-trial detention cannot be treated in isolation from the context of the crisis in the Brazilian criminal justice system, and the broader problem of tackling crime in society. Focusing on trying to fix one specific area, through new laws or the creation of new institutions, could make the current situation worse by adding fresh layers of bureaucracy and confusion to an already dysfunctional system. This report argues that more effort needs to be put into making the existing parts of the system work better together and encouraging the development of incremental, community-led and home-grown reform. Defensoria Pública is the body constitutionally-mandated to provide free legal assistance to those who need it, and the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute strongly endorses the repeated calls that have been made for this to be strengthened. There are also a variety of other groups attempting to develop responses to the current crisis within their criminal justice system. Supporting their creative ingenuity to ‘find a way around the obstacles that exist’ (jeitinho brasileiro) should be an essential part of the reform process. Details: London: International Bar Association, 2010. 63p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 23, 2013 at: http://www.ibanet.org/Article/Detail.aspx?ArticleUid=D4CBAA59-1F9B-41B0-92CA-1B964AC29AC9 Year: 2010 Country: Brazil URL: http://www.ibanet.org/Article/Detail.aspx?ArticleUid=D4CBAA59-1F9B-41B0-92CA-1B964AC29AC9 Shelf Number: 129494 Keywords: Criminal Justice ReformCriminal Justice Systems (Brazil)Pretrial DetentionPrisonersPrisons |
Author: Labriola, Melissa Title: Innovation in the Criminal Justice System: A National Survey of Criminal Justice Leaders Summary: Innovation in the Criminal Justice System: A National Survey of Criminal Justice Leaders is part of a multi-faceted inquiry concerning innovation and criminal justice reform conducted by the Center for Court Innovation in partnership with the Bureau of Justice Assistance and the U.S. Department of Justice. The questionnaire was administered from June to August 2012 among a nationwide sample of 1,000 professionals: 300 community corrections officials; 300 leaders from prosecutors’ offices; 300 police chiefs and sheriffs; and all 102 chief judges and chief court administrators from the 50 states and the District of Columbia. There was an overall response rate of 62%, and the final sample included responses from 624 individual criminal justice leaders. On average, respondents had over 26 years of experience in the criminal justice system. Weighting techniques were utilized to assign each of the four criminal justice segments (community corrections, prosecution, law enforcement, and court administration) equal influence over the reported totals. The questionnaire was designed to provide a snapshot of the current state of innovation in the field of criminal justice: Is innovation a priority? Are criminal justice leaders aware of emerging research, and do they use research to inform policymaking? What obstacles stand in the way of innovation in the field? Details: New York: Center for Court Innovation, 2013. 34p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 6, 2013 at: https://www.bja.gov/Publications/CCI-InnovationSurveyReport.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: https://www.bja.gov/Publications/CCI-InnovationSurveyReport.pdf Shelf Number: 129552 Keywords: Criminal Justice AdministrationCriminal Justice ReformCriminal Justice Systems (U.S.) |
Author: Domingo, Pilar Title: The Political Economy of Pre-trial Detention Summary: On any given day, over 3 million people are held in pre-trial detention (PTD). On average, this represents one out of every three people detained, but this rises to one in two detainees in many countries. PTD is a relatively discrete justice issue that is clearly identifiable and can be addressed before escalation, presenting an important opportunity for policymakers (from ministries and donor agencies) to engage in reform. It is also diagnostic in relation to broader justice challenges and state–society relations, making it a useful gauge of other blockages within the justice sector. The objective of this paper is to develop an analytical framework that draws on political economy analysis (PEA) that can contribute to identifying the drivers of PTD. This can then be taken to country level to inform programming in ways that improve results. Details: London: Overseas Development Institute, 2013. 31p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 8, 2013 at: http://www.odi.org.uk/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/8257.pdf Year: 2013 Country: International URL: http://www.odi.org.uk/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/8257.pdf Shelf Number: 129594 Keywords: Criminal Justice ReformPretrial Detention (International) |
Author: Mulheirn, Ian Title: Paying for Results? Rethinking probation reform Summary: In May this year the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) produced the blueprint for its planned reforms of probation. This briefing note examines the detailed proposals for the payment by results element of the scheme. Payment by results, by which non state providers are supposed to be rewarded according to how much progress they make in cutting re-offending, is an essential part of the Ministry of Justice’s plan to improve the effectiveness of rehabilitation services as they face deep budget cuts. We use a financial simulation to examine the MoJ’s proposals as they look to an investor considering the chances that they will make a return on their investment in rehabilitation services. This demonstrates the problems posed by statistical uncertainty around measured levels of reoffending. Our results, using generous assumptions, show that: • Under the MoJ’s proposed payment structure, providers risk making losses if they spend money on rehabilitative services. • Providers can only be confident of being rewarded for their efforts if they achieve reductions in reoffending that are larger than the available evidence suggests is achievable, even with greater resources than are likely to be on offer under the new scheme. • The payment mechanism encourages providers to cut spending on services and allow reoffending to drift marginally upwards. • The proposed regime therefore creates strong perverse incentives: the opposite of how a PbR scheme should operate. • As they stand, the plans would offer poor value for money for taxpayers and should be radically revised before the scheme is rolled-out. We propose a number of solutions that would resolve the problems identified, improve incentives on providers, and offer much better value for money to the taxpayer. • The reward scheme should be simplified to pay (or penalise) on a per-person basis for any observed reduction (or increase) in re-offending below the baseline level of reoffending. This would ensure that providers have unambiguous incentives to invest in services that cut reoffending. Details: London: Social Market Foundation, 2013. 16p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 12, 2013 at: http://www.smf.co.uk/files/7413/7603/8981/20130808_PBR_paper_FINAL.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.smf.co.uk/files/7413/7603/8981/20130808_PBR_paper_FINAL.pdf Shelf Number: 129621 Keywords: Cost-Benefit AnalysisCosts of Criminal Justice (U.K.)Criminal Justice ReformProbation |
Author: Corriher, Billy Title: Criminals and Campaign Cash: The Impact of Judicial Campaign Spending on Criminal Defendants Summary: As state supreme court campaigns become more expensive and more partisan, the fear of being portrayed as "soft on crime" is leading courts to rule more often for prosecutors and against criminal defendants. That is the disturbing finding of this Center for American Progress study, which explores the impact on the criminal justice system of the explosion in judicial campaign cash and the growing use of political attack ads in state supreme court elections, which have increased pressure on elected judges to appear "tough on crime." In carrying out this study, CAP collected data on supreme courts that, between 2000 and 2007, saw their first election in which the candidates and independent spenders spent more than $3 million. This includes high courts in Illinois, Mississippi, Washington, Georgia, Wisconsin, Nevada, and West Virginia. For each of these courts, CAP examined 4,684 rulings in criminal cases for a time period starting five years before a given state's first $3 million high court election and ending five years after that election. The findings reveal a clear trend: As campaign cash increased, the courts studied began to rule more often in favor of prosecutors and against criminal defendants. - The 2004 Illinois Supreme Court race broke judicial campaign spending records. As Illinois voters were bombarded with attack ads featuring violent criminals, the high court ruled in favor of the prosecution in 69 percent of its criminal cases - an 18 percent increase over the previous year. - Some states saw a sharp increase in rulings for the state just after their first elections in which spending reached $3 million. Mississippi's high court, for example, saw its first $3 million election in 2000 and some nasty political attack ads that same year. When the next judicial election rolled around two years later, in 2002, Mississippi's justices ruled against criminal defendants in 90 percent of the high court's criminal cases - a 20 percent increase from 2000. - After two politically charged races in 2007 and 2008, the Wisconsin Supreme Court's percentage of rulings for the state shot to 90 percent during the 2009 and 2011 election years. - The correlations were strongest in years that saw more ads produced and paid for by independent groups unaffiliated with the candidates - ads that tended to be more negative than those of the candidates. The one court in the study that saw no independent spending, the Nevada Supreme Court, did not exhibit a tendency to rule for the state during big-money elections. - The Washington and Georgia high courts saw a huge spike in independent spending in 2006, followed by a sharp decline. The percentage of rulings against criminal defendants in these courts also peaked in 2006 and then dropped precipitously as the campaign cash and attack ads disappeared. These results suggest that, just as judges are more likely to rule against criminal defendants as elections approach, state supreme courts are more likely to rule for the state as the amount of money in high court elections increases. These findings have important implications for the debates over reforming our criminal justice system. In the past 50 years, the U.S. government has cracked down on drug crimes and provided financial incentives for states to do the same. The so-called War on Drugs has resulted in over-incarceration and the growth of private prisons, which has given certain companies a financial incentive in maintaining this status quo. But as the financial cost of the nation's drug war has become clear, Americans are debating whether our punitive approach is working. The federal government is scaling back the use of harsh mandatory minimums, and some states, including Georgia, are experimenting with alternative sentencing. If reformers want to stop over-incarceration and ensure that criminal defendants are treated fairly, they must also speak out about the politicization of judicial elections and the tarring of judges as being soft on crime in attack ads, a practice that compels courts to rule for the state and against defendants. The enormous sums of money spent in recent judicial elections have fueled an increase in attack ads targeting judges. State supreme court candidates raised more than $200 million between 2000 and 2009 - two and a half times more than in the 1990s. A record $28 million was spent on television ads in 2012 high court elections, with half of this money coming in the form of independent spending, according to Justice at Stake and the Brennan Center for Justice. These independent spenders are more likely than the candidates' campaigns to run attack ads. Details: Washington, DC: Center for American Progress, 2013. 112p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 7, 2013 at: http://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/CampaignCriminalCash-4.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/CampaignCriminalCash-4.pdf Shelf Number: 131575 Keywords: Campaign ContributionsCourtsCriminal Justice ReformJudges (U.S.)Judicial SystemSentencing |
Author: Chambers, Max Title: The Pioneers: Police and Crime Commissioners, one year on. A collection of essays Summary: One year ago, the first Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) were elected across England and Wales. Charged with setting strategic policing priorities, holding Chief Constables and forces to account and improving public confidence in law enforcement, the 41 new PCCs form an integral part of the Government's wideranging police reform agenda. Policy Exchange has consistently argued that single, democratically-elected figures have the potential for renewing the police governance model and revitalising the relationship between the public and the police. As these important reforms continue to bed in and the pioneers get to grips with their new roles, we asked a cross-party group of PCCs to share their perspectives on their first year in office, highlight the key initiatives they are leading, outline the challenges and opportunities facing policing, and describe how their new leadership can help the service to succeed. Details: London: Policy Exchange, 2013. 89p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 11, 2013 at: http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/images/publications/the%20pioneers.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/images/publications/the%20pioneers.pdf Shelf Number: 131632 Keywords: Criminal Justice ReformPolice LegitimacyPolice ReformPolice-Citizen InteractionsPolice-Community RelationsPolicing (U.K.) |
Author: Abramsky, Sasha Title: A Second Chance: Charting a New Course for Re-Entry and Criminal Justice Reform Summary: "A Second Chance" examines the impact of four barriers that make re-entry more difficult and recidivism more likely - predatory prison phone rates; inadequate access to education; restrictions on employment; and restrictions on voting. The report discusses the consequences of these practices and makes a series of policy recommendations regarding their reform. Details: Washington, DC: Leadership Conference Education Fund, 2013. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 23, 2013 at: http://civilrightsdocs.info/pdf/reports/A_Second_Chance_Re-Entry_Report.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://civilrightsdocs.info/pdf/reports/A_Second_Chance_Re-Entry_Report.pdf Shelf Number: 131680 Keywords: Criminal Justice ReformEx-Offender EmploymentFelony DisenfranchisementPrisoner ReentryPrisoners (U.S.)Vocational Education and Training |
Author: Lin, Jeffrey Title: Follow the Money: How California Counties Are Spending Their Public Safety Realignment Funds Summary: The California correctional system is undergoing a dramatic transformation under Assembly Bill 109 ("Realignment"), a law that shifted responsibility from the state to the counties for tens of thousands of offenders. To help manage this change, the state will distribute $4.4 billion to the counties by 2016-2017. While the legislation directs counties to use these funds for community-based programs, counties retain a substantial amount of spending discretion. Some are expanding offender treatment capacities, while others are shoring up enforcement and control apparatuses. In this report we examine counties' AB 109 spending reports and budgets to determine which counties emphasize enforcement and which emphasize treatment. We also identify counties that continue to emphasize prior orientations toward punishment and counties that have shifted their priorities in response to Realignment. We then apply quantitative and comparative methods to county budget data to identify political, economic, and criminal justice-related factors that may explain higher AB 109 spending on enforcement or higher spending on treatment, relative to other counties. In short, our analysis shows that counties that elect to allocate more AB 109 funds to enforcement and control generally appear to be responding to local criminal justice needs, including high crime rates, a shortage of law enforcement personnel, and a historic preference for using prison to punish drug offenders. Counties that favor a greater investment in offender treatment and services, meanwhile, are typified by strong electoral support for the Sheriff and relatively under-funded district attorneys and probation departments. Details: Stanford, CA: Stanford law School, Criminal Justice Center, 2013. 89p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 26, 2013 at: https://www.law.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/publication/443760/doc/slspublic/Money-Oct%202013.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: https://www.law.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/publication/443760/doc/slspublic/Money-Oct%202013.pdf Shelf Number: 131710 Keywords: California RealignmentCommunity-Based CorrectionsCorrectional Institutions (California)Costs of Criminal JusticeCriminal Justice PolicyCriminal Justice ReformPrisons |
Author: Justice Policy Institute Title: Billion Dollar Divide: Virginia's Sentencing, Corrections and Criminal Justice Challenge Summary: Billion Dollar Divide points to racial disparities, skewed fiscal priorities, and missed opportunities for improvements through proposed legislation, and calls for reforms to the commonwealth's sentencing, corrections and criminal justice system. While other states are successfully reforming their sentencing laws, parole policies and drug laws, Virginia is lagging behind and spending significant funds that could be used more effectively to benefit public safety in the commonwealth. Details: Washington, DC: Justice Policy Institute, 2014. 40p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 19, 2014 at: http://www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/justicepolicy/documents/billiondollardivide.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/justicepolicy/documents/billiondollardivide.pdf Shelf Number: 132068 Keywords: Correctional InstitutionsCriminal Justice ReformDrug PolicyParoleRacial DisparitiesSentencingSentencing Reform |
Author: Sentencing Project Title: The State of Sentencing 2013: Developments in Policy and Practice Summary: The United States has the highest rate of incarceration in the world and keeps 7.2 million men and women under correctional supervision. More than 2.2 million are in prison or jail while nearly five million are monitored in the community on probation or parole. The scale of the nation's correctional population results from a mix of crime rates and legislative and administrative policies that vary by state. Today, there is general agreement that the high rate of incarceration resulted from deliberate policy choices that impose punitive sentences which have increased both the numbers of people entering the system and how long they remain under correctional control. These policies include an expansion of life without parole as a sentencing option and lengthy terms under community supervision. Despite the nation's four-decade era of mass incarceration, the Bureau of Justice Statistics reported that the prison population dropped in 2012 for the third consecutive year. About half of the 2012 decline - 15,035 prisoners - occurred in California, which decreased its prison population in response to a 2011 Supreme Court order to relieve prison overcrowding. But eight other states - Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Maryland, New York, North Carolina, Texas, and Virginia - showed substantial decreases of more than 1,000 inmates, and more than half the states reported some drop in the number of prisoners. Previous changes in policy and practice may have contributed to the modest decline. Lawmakers have cited the growth in state corrections spending at the expense of other priorities as a reason to change sentencing policies and practices. During 2013, legislators in at least 31 states adopted 47 criminal justice policies that may help to reduce the prison population, improve juvenile justice outcomes, and eliminate the barriers that marginalize persons with prior convictions. The policy reforms outlined in this report document changes in sentencing, probation and parole, collateral consequences and juvenile justice. Highlights include: Six states - Colorado, Hawaii, New Hampshire, Oregon, South Dakota, and Vermont - expanded alternatives to incarceration for certain drug offenses. Three states - Kansas, Oregon, and South Dakota - authorized earned discharge from community supervision. Maryland abolished the death penalty as a sentencing option. Today, 18 states and the District of Columbia no longer authorize the death penalty. Oregon became the third state to authorize racial impact statements for any change to criminal laws or sentencing codes. Five states - California, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, and Rhode Island - adopted or expanded policies to address employment barriers for persons with a prior criminal history. Georgia and Nebraska enacted comprehensive juvenile justice measures that included provisions to expand alternatives to incarceration for certain youth. At least eight states - Arkansas, Delaware, Louisiana, Nebraska, South Dakota, Texas, Wyoming, and Utah - modified juvenile list without parole policies. Details: Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project, 2014. 20p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 22, 2014 at: http://sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/sen_State%20of%20Sentencing%202013.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United Arab Emirates URL: http://sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/sen_State%20of%20Sentencing%202013.pdf Shelf Number: 132114 Keywords: Criminal Justice PoliciesCriminal Justice ReformPrison SentencesPrisonersPunishmentSentencing |
Author: LaVigne, Nancy Title: Justice Reinvestment Initiative State Assessment Report Summary: Seventeen Justice Reinvestment Initiative states are projected to save as much as $4.6 billion through reforms that increase the efficiency of their criminal justice systems. Eight states that had JRI policies in effect for at least one year - Arkansas, Hawaii, Louisiana, Kentucky, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, and South Carolina - reduced their prison populations. Through the Initiative, states receive federal dollars to assess and improve their criminal justice systems while enhancing public safety. This report chronicles 17 states as they enacted comprehensive criminal justice reforms relying on bipartisan and inter-branch collaboration. The study notes common factors that drove prison growth and costs and documents how each state responded with targeted policies. Details: Washington, DC: The Urban Institute, 2014. 145p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 22, 2014 at: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412994-Justice-Reinvestment-Initiative-State-Assessment-Report.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412994-Justice-Reinvestment-Initiative-State-Assessment-Report.pdf Shelf Number: 132123 Keywords: Community JusticeCorrections ReformCosts of Criminal JusticeCriminal Justice ReformJustice Reinvestment |
Author: Council of State Governments. Justice Center Title: Justice Reinvestment in Idaho: Analyses and Policy Framework Summary: Idaho's crime rate is among the lowest in the nation. Recidivism in the state, however, is increasing, and adults sentenced to prison for nonviolent crimes do twice as much time as adults sentenced to prison for nonviolent crimes in other states. In 2012, Idaho's incarceration rate was the eighth highest in the country. Since 2008, the state's prison population has increased by 10 percent and is projected to increase another 16 percent over the next five years, from 8,076 people in FY2014 to 9,408 people by FY2019. Increasing the capacity of the prison system to absorb the growth over that time period will cost Idaho an estimated $288 million in operating and construction costs. Frustrated by rising corrections spending and a high rate of recidivism, policymakers came together to identify a more effective path forward. In June 2013, Idaho Governor C.L. "Butch" Otter, Chief Justice Roger Burdick, legislative leaders from both parties, and other state policymakers requested technical assistance from the Council of State Governments Justice Center (CSG Justice Center) to employ a data-driven "justice reinvestment" approach to develop a statewide policy framework that would decrease spending on corrections and reinvest savings in strategies to reduce recidivism and increase public safety. Assistance provided by the CSG Justice Center was made possible in partnership with The Pew Charitable Trusts and the U.S. Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Assistance. Senate Concurrent Resolution 128, enacted in March 2013, established a bipartisan Interim Legislative Committee to study Idaho's criminal justice system using the justice reinvestment approach. State leaders also established the interbranch Justice Reinvestment Working Group, which is made up of state lawmakers, corrections and court officials, and other stakeholders in the criminal justice system. Both groups were co-chaired by Senator Patti Anne Lodge (R-District 11) and Representative Richard Wills (R-District 23). The groups reviewed analyses that the CSG Justice Center conducted and discussed policy options to increase public safety and avert growth in the prison population. In preparing its analyses, the CSG Justice Center reviewed vast amounts of data, drawing on information systems maintained by the Idaho Department of Corrections (IDOC), Idaho Commission of Pardons and Parole (Parole Commission), Idaho Supreme Court, Idaho State Police, and others. In total, the CSG Justice Center analyzed over 570,000 individual records across these information systems. In addition to these quantitative analyses, the CSG Justice Center convened focus groups and meetings with prosecutors, sheriffs, victim advocates, district judges, police chiefs, and others. Between June 2013 and January 2014, the CSG Justice Center conducted more than 100 in-person meetings with nearly 250 individuals. Ultimately, the CSG Justice Center helped state leaders identify three challenges contributing to Idaho's prison growth. Details: New York: Council of State Governments Justice Center, 2014. 27p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 7, 2014 at: https://www.bja.gov/Publications/CSG-IdahoJusticeReinvestment.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: https://www.bja.gov/Publications/CSG-IdahoJusticeReinvestment.pdf Shelf Number: 132268 Keywords: Corrections ReformCosts of Criminal JusticeCriminal Justice ReformJustice Reinvestment (Idaho) |
Author: Council of State Governments Justice Center Title: Reducing Recidivism: States Deliver Results Summary: In Reducing Recidivism: States Deliver Results, the National Reentry Resource Center (NRRC) highlights eight states that have achieved reductions in statewide recidivism in recent years: Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, and Wisconsin. The report focuses on statewide recidivism data for adults released in 2007 and 2010 with a three-year follow-up period, offering a current snapshot of criminal justice outcomes in these states. The report also features examples of recidivism-reduction strategies and programs that the states have undertaken in this timeframe, as well as additional data on the state's criminal justice populations through 2013. This report follows a 2012 National Reentry Resource Center report featuring seven additional states that had lowered recidivism since 2005. Highlighting an interesting cross-section of states representing different regions of the nation, sizes in prison populations, and correctional systems, the two reports demonstrate it is possible for states to achieve significant reductions in statewide recidivism through system-level change. Details: New York: Council of State Governments Justice Center, 2014. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 17, 2014 at: http://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/ReducingRecidivism_StatesDeliverResults.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/ReducingRecidivism_StatesDeliverResults.pdf Shelf Number: 132482 Keywords: Criminal Justice ReformCriminal Justice SystemsPrisoner ReentryRecidivism |
Author: Bradford, Spike Title: Virginia's Justice System: Expensive, Ineffective and Unfair Summary: With the 8th highest jail incarceration rate in the U.S., 1 of every 214 adult Virginians is behind bars in county jails across the state; African-American youth over-represented in the juvenile justice system; and the Commonwealth's overreliance on incarceration largely as a result of arresting Virginians for drug offenses - Virginia has an over-burdened correctional system unable to consistently provide services or safety. Virginia's Justice System: Expensive, Ineffective and Unfair points to reforms that, if implemented, would result in relief for Virginians directly impacted by the justice system and taxpayers alike. The policy brief -- the first in a series of publications being released by JPI as a group of justice advocates and concerned stakeholders have been meeting in the Commonwealth to discuss pushing for reforms -- is an overview of the Commonwealth's adult and youth justice system, which identifies areas of progress - like the recent effort to re-enfranchise formerly incarcerated residents with voting rights and other civil rights - and also identifies solutions to revise ineffective policies and practices of the past that remain in place. Details: Washington, DC: Justice Policy Institute, 2013. 20p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 16, 2014 at: http://www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/justicepolicy/documents/va_justice_system_expensive_ineffective_and_unfair_final.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/justicepolicy/documents/va_justice_system_expensive_ineffective_and_unfair_final.pdf Shelf Number: 132686 Keywords: Costs of Criminal JusticeCriminal Justice ReformCriminal Justice SystemsDrug Law PolicyDrug OffendersJuvenile JusticeMinority GroupsPrisonersRacial Disparities |
Author: Lofstrom, Magnus Title: Is Public Safety Realignment Reducing Recidivism in California? Summary: California has had one of the highest recidivism rates in the nation for more than a decade. This contributed to overcrowding in the state's expensive prison system and helped to motivate wide-ranging corrections reform legislation in 2011, commonly referred to as public safety realignment. Realignment essentially halted the practice of sending parole violators back to state prison and instead made counties responsible for supervising and sanctioning most released offenders. It also cut in half the maximum sentence for a supervision violation-from one year to six months. How are these changes affecting the state's recidivism rates? We find that the post-realignment period has not seen dramatic changes in arrests or convictions of released offenders. In the context of realignment's broad reforms to the corrections system, our findings suggest that offender behavior has not changed substantially. Overall arrest rates of released offenders are down slightly, with the proportion of those arrested within a year of release declining by 2 percentage points. At the same time, the proportion of those arrested multiple times has increased noticeably, by about 7 percentage points. These higher multiple arrest rates may reflect the substantial increase in the time that released offenders spend on the streets-a result of counties' limited jail capacity (Lofstrom and Raphael 2013). Convictions among released offenders have increased, but this increase does not appear to reflect changes in offender behavior so much as changes in arrest procedures and prosecutorial approaches. The likelihood that an arrest will lead to a conviction has increased by roughly 3 percentage points. Furthermore, the proportion of released offenders who are actually convicted has increased about 1.2 percentage points-a small but statistically significant rise-and nearly all of these new convictions are for felonies. Together, these findings suggest that new offenses are increasingly being processed through the courts as formal felony charges and convictions, rather than as technical violations through the Board of Parole Hearings. Finally, our analysis shows that realignment has, as intended, led to a considerable 33 percentage point drop in the proportion of released inmates who are returned to state prison. This demonstrates that realignment has made substantial progress in one of its main goals: reducing the use of prison as a sanction for parole violations and minor criminal offenses. Taken together, our findings suggest that county efforts are at least partly offsetting the effects of increased street time among released offenders. Changes in arrest and conviction rates have been modest-but these rates remain high in the post-realignment period. State and local authorities need to develop more effective, targeted policies aimed at both deterring crime and connecting released offenders to rehabilitative services. California needs such strategies to bring recidivism rates down to levels that will relieve pressure on state prison and county jails, and help the state reach the federally mandated prison population threshold. Details: Sacramento: Public Policy Institute of California, 2014. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 17, 2014 at: http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_614MLR.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_614MLR.pdf Shelf Number: 132704 Keywords: Criminal Justice PolicyCriminal Justice ReformParole SupervisionParoleesPrison OvercrowdingPublic Safety RealignmentRecidivism |
Author: Quan, Lisa T. Title: Reallocation of Responsibility: Changes to the Correctional System in California Post-Realignment Summary: On October 1, 2011, California's long troubled correctional system began operating under a new framework created by Assembly Bill 109 (AB 109). Formally known as the 2011 Public Safety Realignment Act, AB 109 was largely a result of the state's failure to control overcrowding and its consequences for inmates in California's 33 state prisons. In 2009, a three-judge federal panel ordered the state to reduce its prison population to 137.5% of design capacity-a reduction of about 30,000 people-within two years. In mid-2011, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that order in Brown v. Plata. By signing the Realignment bill, Governor Jerry Brown put the state on the path toward compliance with the court order. More broadly, his action launched a titanic policy shift in California criminal justice, perhaps the most sweeping such change since the adoption of determinate sentencing in the 1970's. Once known as a state that relied heavily on prison to punish parole violators and other lower-level offenders, California under Realignment began shifting responsibility for most non-serious, non-violent, non-sexual (N3) felons from the state to the counties. Through the initiative's first two years, counties have received more than $2 billion to manage the new load of offenders in jails, on probation, and through evidence-based programs in the community. While several other states have also begun favoring the use of local sanctions over prison for less serious offenders, the scale of California's effort makes it an experiment of unparalleled national significance. Although it is too early to draw solid conclusions about Realignment's effects on long-term crime and recidivism, at least one outcome is clear: As the Legislature intended, AB 109 has shifted a large share of correctional control from the state to the local level. Two years after the law's implementation, the majority of California adults in the correctional system has been "realigned" and now undergoes local supervision as jail inmates and probationers. As a result, California now ranks below the national average in the proportion of adults it imprisons and places on parole. The state's probation population, meanwhile, has ballooned, with the number of probationers per 100,000 jumping 30% from 2010 to 2012. Details: Stanford, CA: Stanford Law School, Stanford Criminal Justice Center, 2014. 45p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 25, 2014 at: https://www.law.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/publication/458403/doc/slspublic/CC%20Bulletin%20Jan%2014.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: https://www.law.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/publication/458403/doc/slspublic/CC%20Bulletin%20Jan%2014.pdf Shelf Number: 132777 Keywords: Corrections (California)Criminal Justice PolicyCriminal Justice ReformPrison OvercrowdingProbationersPublic Safety Realignment Sentencing |
Author: Weisberg, Robert Title: Assessing Judicial Sentencing Preferences After Public Safety Realignment: A Survey of California Judges Summary: Public Safety Realignment ("AB 109") made drastic changes to California's criminal justice system by transferring authority for the supervision of most non-violent, nonserious, and non-sexual offenders from the state to the 58 counties. This study aims to better examine the perceived effect of AB 109 on Superior Court (trial) judges in California who sentence offenders. Through the use of a modified factorial survey, we queried judges on their sentencing choices between felony probation and new California Penal Code 1170(h) county jail sentences. We received responses from 112 judges throughout California, representing 35 counties or 96% of the state population, including the 10 most populous counties in California. The responses revealed judicial preferences that emphasize a desire to deploy sentencing to manage offenders. The preferences generally aim at a combination of a "taste of jail" and rigorous community supervision, whether that is a traditional felony probation sentence or an 1170(h) split sentence. Our study found that more than half of judges surveyed preferred to give an 1170(h) sentence over a felony probation sentence, except when the judge was aware of an offender's substance abuse problem or mental illness, or when the judge was trying to lengthen the period of incarceration or mandatory supervision. In addition, when judges chose an 1170(h) sentence, they selected a split sentence over a straight jail sentence almost half the time. However, among judges who chose split sentences, there was a tremendous variation in the chosen fraction as between jail time and supervision. Drawing from our findings, we strongly recommend that the California Legislature and/or the California judiciary clarify the relationship between traditional felony probation and an 1170(h) split sentence, and develop guidance and consensus on when and how to use split sentences. In addition, counties should enhance and increase the availability of effective community-based treatment resources, because improved treatment programs will likely increase judges' confidence in embracing these sentencing options. Details: Stanford, CA: Stanford Law School, Stanford Criminal Justice Center, 2014. 142p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 25, 2014 at: https://www.law.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/publication/443996/doc/slspublic/Judges%20Report%20Feb%2028%202014%20Final.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: https://www.law.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/publication/443996/doc/slspublic/Judges%20Report%20Feb%2028%202014%20Final.pdf Shelf Number: 132779 Keywords: CorrectionsCriminal Justice PolicyCriminal Justice ReformJudgesPrison OvercrowdingProbationPublic Safety Realignment (California)Sentencing |
Author: Petersilia, Joan Title: Voices From the Field: How California Stakeholders View Public Safety Realignment Summary: Passage of California's Public Safety Realignment Act (AB 109) initiated the most sweeping correctional experiment in recent history. Launched on October 1, 2011, Realignment shifted responsibility for most lower-level offenders from the state to California's 58 counties. By mid-2013, more than 100,000 felons had been diverted from state prison to county jail or probation. This report summarizes the results of interviews conducted with California stakeholders responsible for implementing the law. Over the past nine months, Stanford Law School researchers conducted 125 interviews in 21 counties to produce a snapshot of how California is faring under Realignment so far. We talked with police, sheriffs, judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, probation and parole agents, victim advocates, offenders, and social service representatives. Our goal was to determine how Realignment had influenced their agency's work and what changes they would make to the law. Our interviews revealed a justice system undergoing remarkable changes, arguably unprecedented in depth and scope. Stakeholders' opinions varied widely, and their comments reflected their role in the system more than the county they represented. Overall, probation officials were the most enthusiastic champions of Realignment, welcoming the momentum the legislation provided their rehabilitation focus. Probation departments have opened day reporting centers, expanded the use of risk assessment tools, and worked hard with community partners to establish quality evidence-based programs for offenders. Public defenders are also optimistic but expressed concerns about the longer county jail terms their clients face and the conditions under which they are served. Conversely, prosecuting attorneys generally gave Realignment negative reviews, lamenting their loss of discretion under the law. Judges expressed mixed opinions, although most were concerned about a loss of discretion and said AB 109 had greatly increased the courts' workload. Law enforcement-both front line police and sheriffs-varied more than any other group in their assessment of Realignment, with their opinions largely influenced by local jail capacity. While most police applauded the spirit of Realignment, including the expansion of local control and treatment options for offenders, all of those interviewed worried about declining public safety. Sheriffs were challenged by overloaded county jails, which in many counties have been strained by a flood of inmates and a tougher criminal population that has increased the likelihood of jail violence. Sheriffs also noted that longer jail stays were challenging their ability to provide adequate medical and mental health care, and that crowding was forcing them to release some offenders early. On the positive end of the spectrum, most stakeholders said Realignment had spawned increased collaboration at all levels of the criminal justice system and a more holistic view of offender management. Details: Stanford, CA: Stanford Law School, Stanford Criminal Justice Center, 2014. 244p. Source: Internet Resource: Working Paper: Accessed July 28, 2014 at: https://www.law.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/publication/443439/doc/slspublic/Petersilia%20VOICES%20no%20es%20Final%20022814.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: https://www.law.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/publication/443439/doc/slspublic/Petersilia%20VOICES%20no%20es%20Final%20022814.pdf Shelf Number: 132783 Keywords: Criminal Justice PolicyCriminal Justice ReformPrison OvercrowdingPublic Safety Realignment (California) |
Author: Vujic, Suncica Title: Structural Intervention Time Series Analysis of Crime Rates: The Impact of Sentence Reform in Virginia Summary: We adopt a structural time series analysis to investigate the impact of parole abolition and sentence reform in Virginia on reported crime rates. The Commonwealth of Virginia abolished parole and reformed sentencing for all felony offences committed on or after January 1, 1995. To examine the impact of Virginia's change in legislation on reported crime rates from 1995 onwards, we perform an intervention time series analysis based on structural time series models. We empirically find that the change in legislation has significantly reduced the burglary rates and to a lesser extent the murder rates in Virginia. For other violent crimes such as rape and aggravated assault the evidence of a significant reduction in crime rates is less evident or is not found. This empirical study for Virginia also provides an illustration of how an effective intervention time series analysis can be carried out in crime studies. Details: Amsterdam: Tinbergen Institute, 2012. 33p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 28, 2014 at: http://opus.bath.ac.uk/29051/ Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://opus.bath.ac.uk/29051/ Shelf Number: 132794 Keywords: Crime RatesCriminal Justice PolicyCriminal Justice ReformParoleSentencing Reform (Virginia) |
Author: Males, Mike Title: California's 58 Crime Rates: Realignment and Crime in 2012 Summary: California must reduce its prison population to 137.5 percent of rated capacity (approximately 110,000 individuals), due to a court-ordered mandate. One measure to achieve an institutional population reduction was the adoption of Public Safety Realignment, under Assembly Bill (AB) 109, in October 2011, whereby counties assumed responsibility for individuals convicted of low-level, nonviolent, non-sexual offenses who might have previously been sent to state prison. Counties also are responsible for managing said individuals who are released from prison on Post Release Community Supervision (PRCS). California's crime rate increased slightly in 2012. Previous CJCJ analysis found no correlation between the crime rate increase and Realignment (CJCJ, 2013a), and the purpose of this publication is to analyze newly available data for 2012. This report further addresses recent research by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC, 2013) that concluded Realignment was associated with an increase in property offenses, particularly motor vehicle theft, but not violent offenses in the first year of the policy. The present analysis finds California's 58 counties vary dramatically in their implementation of Realignment and in their respective crime rates. There are no conclusive trends demonstrating a causal relationship between Realignment and crime, even among counties in close geographic proximity. Additionally, there may be non-Realignment factors that inform an increase in certain crimes. Given this varied implementation, some counties continue as models for innovative policies worthy of recognition and replication. Details: Sacramento: Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, 2014. 9p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 31, 2014 at: http://www.cjcj.org/uploads/cjcj/documents/CJCJ_2014_Realignment_Report.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.cjcj.org/uploads/cjcj/documents/CJCJ_2014_Realignment_Report.pdf Shelf Number: 132851 Keywords: Crime RatesCrime StatisticsCriminal Justice PolicyCriminal Justice ReformPrison OvercrowdingPublic Safety Realignment (California) |
Author: British Academy Title: A Presumption Against Imprisonment: Social Order and Social Values Summary: The British Academy has today published a report, which urges that the UK stop relying so heavily on imprisonment as a form of punishment. Instead of imprisoning so many people for so long, the new report argues that in many cases, alternative measures will provide better, and more sustainable, long term outcomes. The report, titled 'A Presumption Against Imprisonment: Social Order and Social Values', was written by a group of academic experts including Professor Andrew Ashworth FBA, Professor Roger Cotterrell FBA, Professor Andrew Coyle, Professor Antony Duff FBA, Professor Nicola Lacey FBA, Professor Alison Liebling and Professor Rod Morgan. The report illustrates how changes to criminal law and policy have led to progressively harsher sentencing regimes, with longer periods of imprisonment imposed on persistent offenders and the increased use of mandatory minimum and indeterminate sentences for certain crimes. The prison population in England and Wales almost doubled between 1992 and 2011, rising from just under 45,000 to 88,000. Although it has fallen back to about 85,500 today, it is estimated that by 2018 the prison population could reach more than 90,000. (A similar increase has occurred in Scotland.) The report suggests a range of strategies to reduce our reliance on imprisonment, including reviewing sentence lengths, using diversion from the courts more extensively and promoting greater use of alternative forms of sentence. In addition to these strategies, the report recommends three 'overarching institutional proposals': - the creation of a Penal Policy Committee, accountable to Parliament, to formulate policies on the appropriate use of imprisonment; - greater attention by the Sentencing Council to the costs and effectiveness of different forms of sentence; - an urgent review of cases of Imprisonment for Public Protection in which the minimum term has been served, with a view to release. Details: London: The British Academy, 2014. 116p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 4, 2014 at: http://www.britac.ac.uk/policy/Presumption_Against_Imprisonment.cfm Year: 2014 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.britac.ac.uk/policy/Presumption_Against_Imprisonment.cfm Shelf Number: 132878 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCriminal Justice ReformPrison ReformPrisons (U.K.)Punishment |
Author: New Jersey. Joint Committee on Criminal Justice Title: Report of the Joint Committee on Criminal Justice Summary: The Supreme Court today released the report of the Joint Committee on Criminal Justice. The report calls for significant changes in the way bail is administered and for the enactment of a speedy trial law. The committee, established in June 2013 by Chief Justice Stuart Rabner, includes judges, prosecutors, public defenders, private counsel, court administrators, and staff from the Legislature and the governor's office. The committee was chaired by the chief justice and developed 27 recommendations to improve New Jersey's criminal justice system. The committee confronted some very difficult problems relating to the current bail system and delays in bringing criminal cases to trial,- said Chief Justice Rabner. It is telling that nearly all of the committee's recommendations - which include far-reaching proposals-have the unanimous support of judges, prosecutors, and defense counsel. The report's Executive Summary (pages 1 to 7) highlights the key issues and reasoning behind the committee's recommendations. A complete Table of Recommendations follows the summary (pages 8 to 10). Supervised pretrial release - New Jersey's current system of pretrial release is largely dependent upon a defendant's financial resources. Defendants who are unable to post bail are incarcerated before trial, which can have significant consequences. Poor and minority defendants are more likely to be affected. - The New Jersey Constitution guarantees all defendants the right to bail. Judges have no authority to detain even the most violent and dangerous defendants if they can afford to post the amount of bail set. - The current resource-based system presents problems at both ends of the system: some people are held on less serious crimes, with little risk of flight, only because they cannot pay relatively minor amounts of bail; others who pose a significant threat to the community and a substantial risk of flight must be released if they can afford to post bail. - The committee recommends a statutory change from the present "resource-based" system to a "risk-based" system. Under a risk-based approach, judges rely on objective factors to assess the level of risk an individual defendant poses and then impose appropriate conditions of pretrial release. - Pretrial service officers are needed to monitor compliance with nonmonetary conditions of release and supervise defendants who are released pretrial. Preventive Detention - For certain defendants, no combination of release conditions can reasonably ensure either the safety of the community or their appearance in court. A system of preventive detention would permit judges to consider those questions and decide whether to detain or release a defendant pretrial. - The recommendations for a risk-based system of bail and pretrial detention, Recommendations 1 through 9, are interdependent and should not be considered individually. The recommendations call for both constitutional and statutory amendments. Speedy Trial - The New Jersey and the U.S. Constitutions provide the right to a speedy trial. Under New Jersey law, there are no specific timeframes to determine when that right has been violated. - Defendants sometimes wait years between arrest and trial. Particularly for defendants who are incarcerated pretrial, those delays can cause serious, practical problems and affect how their cases proceed. - Incarcerated defendants are more likely to receive less attractive plea offers, to plead guilty if they have already served a significant amount of time in jail, and to receive longer sentences. - The committee recommends that the Legislature adopt a speedy trial act that sets forth specific timeframes in which defendants must be indicted and brought to trial. Recommendations 10 through 15 provide detailed proposals for incarcerated defendants and defendants who are released. Details: Trenton, NJ: Joint Committee on Criminal Justice, 2014. 120p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 11, 2014 at: http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/pressrel/2014/FinalReport_3_20_2014.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/pressrel/2014/FinalReport_3_20_2014.pdf Shelf Number: 132975 Keywords: Bail ReformCriminal Justice ReformCriminal Justice SystemPretrial Release (New Jersey)Risk AssessmentSpeedy Trial |
Author: Great Britain. Home Office Title: Transforming the Criminal Justice System. Strategy and Action Plan - Implementation Update Summary: In June 2013 we published Transforming the CJS: A Strategy and Action Plan for the Criminal Justice System. It set out a vision for a modern criminal justice system (CJS) that provides a swift and determined response to crime, treats victims and witnesses with care and consideration, and provides much better value for money to the taxpayer. We have made good progress delivering this vision. Victims have a louder voice with clearer and broader entitlements, digital working by CJS staff is increasing, and the CJS is more transparent than ever, with more information available to the public and television broadcasting available from some courts. This updated version of the plan builds on these achievements and sets out what we will do to complete this transformation. The Criminal Justice Board ("the Board"), chaired by the Criminal Justice Minister, sets priorities and provides leadership for the CJS. The Board comprises the chief executives of the criminal justice agencies and senior leaders from across the system. The Board has three main priorities in 2014/15. To create a criminal justice system that cares for, and considers the needs of victims and witnesses we will: - make the Victims' Code and Witness Charter part of normal business for everyone in the CJS; - provide a more joined-up response for victims and witnesses from criminal justice system partners; - improve the services provided to support victims and witnesses; - support victims and witnesses in the criminal justice system; and - make fair and respectful treatment for victims and witnesses the norm. Details: London: Home Office, 2014. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 14, 2014 at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/330690/cjs-strategy-action-plan.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/330690/cjs-strategy-action-plan.pdf Shelf Number: 133070 Keywords: Criminal Justice PoliciesCriminal Justice ReformCriminal Justice System (U.K.) |
Author: Rodriguez Ferreira, Octavio Title: Civic Engagement and the Judicial Reform: The role of civil society in reforming criminal justice in Mexico Summary: Mexico has historically featured a relatively weak civil society, due to the influence of corporatist structures controlled by the Mexican state. Yet, with regard to the criminal justice system, as other reports in this series have discussed, Mexican civil society has recently shown some encouraging signs of engagement and activism in response to significant rule of law and security concerns. Specifically, with regard to judicial reform, Mexican civic activists were very engaged in the historic 2008 constitutional and legal reforms that produced one of the most important changes in Mexico's contemporary history. This reform, which established the foundation for the country's New Criminal Justice System (Nuevo Sistema de Justicia Penal, NSJP), brought about significant changes to the Constitution on matters of criminal law, access to justice, alternative and restorative justice, the prison system, pre-trial detention, presumption of innocence, criminal investigation, due process, public security, asset seizure or forfeiture, special detention regimes, labor conditions in public security, and legislative faculties of Congress in public security and addressing organized crime. Through these amendments, Mexico joined a wave of progressive reforms that has spread throughout Latin America towards a more effective, democratic, and transparent criminal justice system. While the NSJP was reached by the agreement of political parties and hard negotiations in Congress, civil society played a significant role in the process, not only demanding a more just system, but also in pushing for the discussion, keeping the issue in the national agenda, and pursuing its final approval. This report focuses on the role played by organized civil society in the judicial reform process, highlighting the efforts of certain organizations that became particularly influential and emblematic of civic activism in the area of criminal justice reform. To analyze how organized civil society became such an important player in the game, the author first walks through the reform process itself, then analyzes the social dimension of the NSJP, and ends with a look at how the NSJP and society have influenced one another. Through a qualitative approach, the author obtained primary and secondary materials in an effort to analyze and measure the influence of civil society in the reform process. Specifically, the author gathered information on civil society organizations (CSO) that were considered to be amongst the most involved, visible and influential in the creation of the NSJP. Details: Washington, DC: Wilson Center, Mexico Institute; San Diego, CA: University of San Diego, Justice in Mexico Project; 2013. 44p. Source: Internet Resource: Working Paper Series on Civic Engagement and Public Security in Mexico: Accessed August 23, 2014 at: http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/rodriguez_judicial_reform.pdf Year: 2013 Country: Mexico URL: http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/rodriguez_judicial_reform.pdf Shelf Number: 129895 Keywords: Criminal Justice PolicyCriminal Justice ReformCriminal Justice SystemJudicial Reform (Mexico) |
Author: Sentencing Project Title: Fewer Prisoners, Less Crime: A Tale of Three States Summary: A new report by The Sentencing Project examines the potential for substantial prison population reductions. Fewer Prisoners, Less Crime: A Tale of Three States profiles the experiences of three states - New York, New Jersey, and California - that have reduced their prison populations by about 25% while seeing their crime rates generally decline at a faster pace than the national average. Key findings of the report include: - New York and New Jersey led the nation by reducing their prison populations by 26% between 1999 and 2012, a period in which the nationwide state prison population rose by 10%. - California experienced a 23% reduction in its prison population between 2006 and 2012, in contrast to just a 1% reduction nationally. Recent reforms have reduced the state's total incarcerated population even while diverting many individuals to county jails. - While downsizing their prisons, violent crime rates fell at a greater rate in these three states than they did nationwide. Property crime rates also decreased in New York and New Jersey more than they did nationwide, while California's reduction was slightly lower than the national average. Details: Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project, 2014. 11p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 25, 2014 at: http://sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/inc_Fewer_Prisoners_Less_Crime.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/inc_Fewer_Prisoners_Less_Crime.pdf Shelf Number: 133142 Keywords: Criminal Justice PoliciesCriminal Justice ReformPrison PopulationsSentencing Reform (U.S.) |
Author: Ghandnoosh, Nazgol Title: Race and Punishment: Racial Perceptions of Crime and Support for Punitive Policies Summary: The American criminal justice system is at a critical juncture. In recent years, federal policymakers have called for reforms, following the lead of states that have reduced prison populations without compromising public safety. Nationwide prison counts have fallen every year since 2010, and the racial gap in imprisonment rates has also begun to narrow. Yet the recent tragic events in Ferguson, Missouri - where the killing of an unarmed African American teenager has sparked outrage - highlight the ongoing relevance of race in the criminal justice system. To guide and give greater momentum to recent calls for reform, this report examines a key driving force of criminal justice outcomes: racial perceptions of crime. A complex set of factors contributes to the severity and selectivity of punishment in the United States, including public concern about crime and racial differences in crime rates. This report synthesizes two decades of research establishing that skewed racial perceptions of crime - particularly, white Americans' strong associations of crime with racial minorities - have bolstered harsh and biased criminal justice policies. Details: Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project, 2014. 44p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 10, 2014 at: http://sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/rd_Race_and_Punishment.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/rd_Race_and_Punishment.pdf Shelf Number: 133263 Keywords: Criminal Justice ReformMinorities and CrimePunishmentRace and Crime (U.S.)Racial BiasRacial Disparities |
Author: Farrall, Stephen Title: Intelligent Justice: Balancing the effects of community sentences and custody Summary: The paper draws on evidence from the United States, where research has shown that imprisoning a large number of people for longer periods causes crime to fall in the short term but rise in the long term when they are eventually released. Places where many people are jailed see a range of negative consequences, including increased rates of sexually transmitted diseases, teenage births and serious juvenile delinquency. This results in more people being imprisoned and creates a system 'that feeds upon itself', exacerbating the very social problems that led to increases in crime. The pamphlet states that prison's effect of deterring people from committing crime can be overestimated. The key factor which prevents most people from offending is how likely they are to be punished, rather than how severe the punishment is. Crime reduction caused by prison taking offenders out of the community can also be overestimated, the pamphlet adds. For example, evidence suggests that, in some cases, imprisoning one person creates a 'job vacancy' for another to take their place and commit offences. The paper illustrates that, by the Ministry of Justice's own admission, current data such as reconviction statistics do not reliably measure the true impact of probation supervision and offender management programmes. This has important ramifications for the government's desire to use payment by results in prisons and probation. Finally, the pamphlet offers suggestions on how people who have committed crime should be reintegrated into society. Emphasising the importance of redemption, the paper says that it is usually more effective - and cheaper - to get people to 'buy into' behaviour rather than compel or cajole or supervise them into it. Details: London: Howard League for Penal Reform, 2014. 22p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 27, 2014 at: https://d19ylpo4aovc7m.cloudfront.net/fileadmin/howard_league/user/online_publications/Intelligent_Justice.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://d19ylpo4aovc7m.cloudfront.net/fileadmin/howard_league/user/online_publications/Intelligent_Justice.pdf Shelf Number: 133450 Keywords: Criminal Justice ReformDeterrencePrison Construction (U.K.)Prison ReformPunishment |
Author: Gilhuly, Kim Title: Rehabilitating Corrections in California: The Health Impacts of Proposition 47 Summary: California's sentences for low-level crimes would alleviate prison and jail overcrowding, make communities safer, and strengthen families, and shift resources from imprisoning people to treating them for the addictions and mental health problems at the root of many crimes. A Health Impact Assessment of reforms proposed by a state ballot initiative predicts the changes would reduce crime, recidivism, racial inequities in sentencing, and save the state and its counties $600 million to $900 million a year - but only if treatment and rehabilitation programs are fully funded and implemented properly. Human Impact Partners conducted an in-depth assessment of the public health and equity impacts of reclassifying six non-serious offenses - crimes of drug possession and petty theft - to misdemeanors. The Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act, Proposition 47 on the November 2014 state ballot, would also allow people currently in prison for those crimes to apply for lower sentences, release, and to have their records cleared of the crime, and redirect savings from the reduction in the prison population to mental health and substance abuse programs, truancy and dropout prevention, and services for victims of violent crime. Fundamentally, prison is not a healthy environment. Every day, conditions in California's dangerously overcrowded prisons and jails causes physical and mental harm - disease, depression, violence, rape, suicide, and more - on thousands of incarcerated men and women. Many of these people were convicted of crimes that pose no serious threat to others, but can be traced to their own substance abuse and mental health problems. They need treatment, not punishment. And treatment is much less costly than punishment, returning $3.77 in benefits for every dollar spent. A shift in how we charge and sentence people who have committed non-serious, non-violent, and non-sexual crimes has far-reaching implications for the health and well-being not only of those who commit these offenses, but of their families, their communities, and the public. This Health Impact Assessment predicts that full implementation of the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act would: - Decrease state corrections spending by $200 million to $300 million a year, and county corrections spending by $400 million to $600 million a year, according to estimates by the state Legislative Analyst's Office. - Increase state funding for mental health and substance abuse programs, school truancy prevention and victim services by $200 million to $300 million a year. - Reduce the number of people convicted of felonies by more than 40,000 a year, and the number sentenced to prison by more than 3,000 a year. - Allow more than 9,000 people now in prison for felonies for low-level crimes to apply for reduced sentence and release. This includes about 1,500 people who are serving extended sentences for a second strike for one of these low-level offenses. - Reduce violent and property crime by reducing the number of people who re-offend by at least 10% a year among people who participate in treatment programs. - Reduce the rates of incarceration of African- Americans and Hispanics, who are more likely to be sentenced to prison, county jail, or probation as whites for the same low-level crimes. African- Americans are only 7% of California's population but they represent almost one-fourth of prison admissions. Hispanics are arrested and imprisoned at a slightly higher rate than their share of the population, and are 60% more likely to be jailed. Details: Oakland, CA: Human Impact Partners, 2014. 82p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 2, 2014 at: http://www.prop47impacts.org/docs/HIA_Full_Report_92314.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.prop47impacts.org/docs/HIA_Full_Report_92314.pdf Shelf Number: 133539 Keywords: Criminal Justice ReformDrug OffendersMental Health ServivcesMisdemeanorsOffender RehabilitationPetty TheftSentencing Reform (California) |
Author: Council of State Governments Justice Center Title: Justice Reinvestment in Hawaii: Analyses & Policy Options to Reduce Spending on Corrections & Reinvest in Strategies to Increase Public Safety Summary: In June 2011, Governor Neil Abercrombie and House and Senate leaders in Hawaii requested technical assistance from the Council of State Governments Justice Center (CSG Justice Center) to employ a data-driven justice reinvestment approach to develop a statewide policy framework that would reduce spending on corrections and reinvest savings in strategies that increase public safety. This report outlines the analyses conducted by the CSG Justice Center and policy options proposed to the Hawaii State Legislature as a result of the justice reinvestment process. Details: New York: Council of State Governments Justice Center, 2014). 12p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 9, 2014 at: http://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/JR-in-HI-Analyses-and-Policy-Options.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/JR-in-HI-Analyses-and-Policy-Options.pdf Shelf Number: 134219 Keywords: Community Justice (Hawaii) Corrections Reform Costs of Criminal Justice Criminal Justice Reform Justice Reinvestment |
Author: Council of State Governments Justice Center Title: Justice Reinvestment in Kansas: Analyses & Policy Options to Reduce Spending on Corrections & Reinvest in Strategies to Increase Public Safety Summary: In June 2012, Governor Sam Brownback, Chief Justice Lawton Nuss, Attorney General Derek Schmidt, Department of Corrections (DOC) Secretary Ray Roberts, and House and Senate leaders requested technical assistance from the Council of State Governments Justice Center (CSG Justice Center). They sought to employ a data-driven "justice reinvestment" approach to develop a statewide policy frame work that would reduce spending on corrections and reinvest resulting savings in strategies that increase public safety. Assistance provided by the CSG Justice Center was made possible through a partnership with and funding from the Pew Center on the States Public Safety Performance Project and the Bureau of Justice Assistance, a component of the U.S. Department of Justice. Details: New York: Council of State Governments Justice Center, 2013. 20p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 9. 2014 at: http://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Kansas-JR-Final-Report.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Kansas-JR-Final-Report.pdf Shelf Number: 134218 Keywords: Community Justice (Kansas)Corrections Reform Costs of Criminal Justice Criminal Justice Reform Justice Reinvestment |
Author: Schnacke, Timothy R. Title: Fundamentals of Bail: A Resource Guide for Pretrial Practitioners and a Framework for American Pretrial Reform Summary: Pretrial justice in America requires a common understanding and agreement on all of the component parts of bail. Those parts include the need for pretrial justice, the history of bail, the fundamental legal principles underlying bail, the pretrial research, the national standards on pretrial release and detention, and how we define our basic terms and phrases. Why Do We Need Pretrial Improvements? If we can agree on why we need pretrial improvements in America, we are halfway toward implementing those improvements. As recently as 2007, one of the most frequently heard objections to bail reform was the ubiquitous utterance, 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it.' That has changed. While various documents over the last 90 years have consistently pointed toward the need to improve the administration of bail, literature from this current generation of pretrial reform gives us powerful new information from which we can articulate exactly why we need to make changes, which, in turn, frames our vision of pretrial justice designed to fix what is most certainly broken. Knowing that our understanding of pretrial risk is flawed, we can begin to educate judges and others on how to embrace risk first and mitigate risk second so that our foundational American precept of equal justice remains strong. Knowing that the traditional money-based bail system leads both to unnecessary pretrial detention of lower risk persons and the unwise release of many higher risk persons, we can begin to craft processes that are designed to correct this illogical imbalance. Knowing and agreeing on each issue of pretrial justice, from infusing risk into police officer stops and first advisements to the need for risk-based bail statutes and constitutional right-to-bail language, allows us as a field to look at each state (or even at all states) with a discerning eye to begin crafting solutions to seemingly insoluble problems. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. National Institute of Corrections, 2014. 128p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 10, 2014 at: http://www.clebp.org/images/2014-11-05_final_bail_fundamentals_september_8,_2014.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.clebp.org/images/2014-11-05_final_bail_fundamentals_september_8,_2014.pdf Shelf Number: 134016 Keywords: Bail (U.S.)Criminal Justice ReformPretrial ReleaseRisk Assessment |
Author: Mauer, Marc Title: Incorporating Racial Equity into Criminal Justice Reform Summary: There are few areas of American society where racial disparities are as profound and as troubling as in the criminal justice system. In fact, racial perceptions of crime and race influenced policy development have been intimately tied to the development of mass incarceration. Yet there is growing evidence that the high rate of minority imprisonment is excessive for public safety goals and damaging for family and community structures in high incarceration neighborhoods. This briefing paper provides an overview of racial disparities in the criminal justice system and a framework for developing and implementing remedies for these disparities. We first describe the rationale for incorporating racial equity as a goal of an overall criminal justice reform strategy. We then document trends in racial disparity and assess the various causal factors that have produced these outcomes. Next, we identify a selection of best practices for addressing disparities, along with recommendations for implementation. Finally, we provide a guide for establishing rigorous metrics for success. Details: Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project, 2014. 22p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 10, 2014 at: http://sentencingproject.org/doc/rd_Incorporating_Racial_Equity_into_Criminal_Justice_Reform.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://sentencingproject.org/doc/rd_Incorporating_Racial_Equity_into_Criminal_Justice_Reform.pdf Shelf Number: 134017 Keywords: Criminal Justice ReformDiscriminationRacial BiasRacial Disparities (U.S.) |
Author: Great Britain. House of Commons. Justice Committee Title: Women offenders: after the Corston Report Summary: Five years after the March 2007 publication of Baroness Corston's report A review of women with particular vulnerabilities in the criminal justice system (hereafter "the Corston Report"), which made a series of recommendations to drive improvement in the women's criminal justice agenda, we decided to hold an inquiry to review progress and examine current strategy and practice with respect to female offenders and those at risk of offending. In particular we sought to explore: - The nature and effectiveness of the Ministry of Justice's strategy for women offenders and those at risk of offending; - The nature and effectiveness of Ministry of Justice governance structures for women's offending; - The extent to which work to address the multiple and complex needs of women offenders is integrated across Government; - The extent to which the gender equality duty has become a lever for mainstream service commissioners "outside of the criminal justice system" to provide services which tackle the underlying causes of female offending; - The suitability of the women's custodial estate and prison regimes; - The volume, range, quality, and sustainability of community provision for female offenders, including approved premises; - The availability of appropriate provision for different groups of women offenders, including: under 18s, women with children, foreign nationals and Black, Asian and minority ethnic women, and those with mental health problems. Details: London: The Stationery Office Limited, 2013. 229p. Source: Internet Resource: Second Report of Session 2013;V14: Accessed November 20, 2014 at: http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/Justice/Women-offenders.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/Justice/Women-offenders.pdf Shelf Number: 134164 Keywords: Corston ReportCriminal Justice ReformFemale Offenders (U.K.)Gender-Based Programs |
Author: Gachevska, Katerina Title: Building the new Europe : soft security and organised crime in EU enlargement Summary: This thesis examines the policy and politics of the fight against organised crime in the process of the European Union's enlargement to Eastern Europe and the Balkans. It covers the period between the end of the Cold War in 1989 and the second Eastern enlargement in 2007 which saw the emergence of a new normative base for international relations and the expansion of the international security agenda focusing on 'soft security' issues and threats from weak rather than powerful states. The thesis explores this new 'soft security' thinking and investigates its practical application in EU's policy of building member-states in the New Europe with a focus on the case study of the fight against organised crime in Bulgaria and its EU-guided criminal justice reform. The thesis looks at these developments from both internal and external perspective and focuses on the practicalities of the policy itself such as the development of legislative changes, institutional reform and direct transfer of Western European expertise to Bulgarian institutions. The main findings of the thesis have led to a conclusion which questions the quality and premises of these policies. The thesis argues that the Bulgarian state and the European Union institutions have subscribed to a highly problematic organised crime discourse and agenda which has negatively influenced the quality of their relationship with the Bulgarian electorate. Details: Wolverhampton, UK: University of Wolverhampton, 2009. 300p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed November 20, 2014 at: http://core.kmi.open.ac.uk/download/pdf/1932919.pdf Year: 2009 Country: Bulgaria URL: http://core.kmi.open.ac.uk/download/pdf/1932919.pdf Shelf Number: 134181 Keywords: Criminal Justice ReformOrganized Crime (Bulgaria) |
Author: Center for Prosecutor Integrity Title: Conviction Integrity Units: Vanguard of Criminal Justice Reform Summary: January 4, 1989 marked a watershed moment in the history of the American criminal justice system. On that day, Virginia governor Gerald L. Baliles issued a pardon for David Vasquez. Vasquez was released from prison that evening. Vasquez had been charged with the 1984 rape and murder of Carolyn Hamm, a 32-year-old lawyer. Vasquez's blood did not match the semen found on the victim's body and his shoes did not conform to the footprints found at the crime scene. Nonetheless, his disjointed confession sufficed to convince the jury to convict and sentence him to 35 years behind bars. But three years later another rape-murder occurred in the same suburban-Washington, D.C. community with details that were eerily similar to the Hamm case. Police began to wonder if a rash of previous rapes all shared a common perpetrator. Investigators tapped the newly developed, still controversial forensic technique of DNA analysis. The tests soon linked Timothy Spencer, not David Vasquez, to the series of rapes. Spencer was eventually convicted and sentenced in 1988. Six months after the release of David Vasquez, another man - Gary Dotson of Illinois - was exonerated of a crime that he did not commit. The following year, Edward Green became the beneficiary of a third DNA exoneration. More exonerations followed, compelling prosecutors, lawmakers, and the American public to question long-held beliefs about the infallibility of the criminal justice system. The Innocence Movement was born. As Innocence Projects were established across the country, the pace of exonerations accelerated. It soon became possible to identify patterns and pinpoint causes of the wrongful convictions. The National Registry of Exonerations reported that 47% of wrongful convictions could be attributed to misconduct by prosecutors and other officials. Calls for reform could no longer be ignored. One of the most promising corrections has been the establishment of post-conviction review programs, commonly referred to as Conviction Integrity Units (CIUs). Conviction Integrity Units are entities located within District Attorneys' offices that are designed to investigate claims of wrongful convictions. Many of these units have also developed policies designed to reduce future false convictions. This White Paper spotlights Conviction Integrity Units, providing an overview of their administrative and screening procedures, a compilation of their accomplishments, and a discussion on how they have sought to achieve the proper degree of administrative independence. Details: Rockville, MD: Center for Prosecutor Integrity, 2014. 14p. Source: Internet Resource: White Paper: Accessed January 21, 2015 at: http://www.prosecutorintegrity.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Conviction-Integrity-Units.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.prosecutorintegrity.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Conviction-Integrity-Units.pdf Shelf Number: 134425 Keywords: Criminal Justice ReformCriminal Prosecution (U.S.)Post-Conviction ReviewProsecutorsWrongful Convictions |
Author: Council of State Governments Justice Center Title: Justice Reinvestment in Nebraska: Analysis and Policy Framework Summary: This report summarizes comprehensive analyses of sentencing, corrections, probation, and parole data presented to Nebraska's Justice Reinvestment Working Group. It outlines strategies and policy options to avert prison population growth and reduce recidivism in the state by holding people convicted of the lowest-level felonies accountable with probation and treatment, reducing the number of people leaving prison unsupervised, and strengthening parole supervision. The report also offers strategies for supporting victims of crime through improved restitution collection. If implemented, the report's suggested policies would reinvest $32.8 million in recidivism reduction strategies and avert $306.4 million in prison costs Details: New York: Council of State Government, Justice Center, 2015. 30p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 28, 2015 at: http://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/JusticeReinvestmentinNebraska.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 134445 Keywords: Criminal Justice ReformCriminal Justice SystemsJustice Reinvestment (Nebraska)ParoleProbationRecidivismSentencing |
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: Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law Title: Unequal Justice: Mobilizing the Private Bar to Fight Mass Incarceration Summary: This report marks the beginning of Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law's Criminal Justice Initiative, created to mobilize the private bar in the fight against mass incarceration. Mass incarceration - a term that refers to the cluster of issues associated with the historic scale of present-day American incarceration - presents the greatest contemporary threat to civil and human rights in the United States today. Two key facts about this phenomenon gird its importance to the Lawyers' Committee's mission: (1) mass incarceration is a racially, spatially, and socioeconomically targeted phenomenon that disproportionately affects lower-class African-American and Hispanic residents of degraded urban spaces, and (2) mass incarceration results in large part from aggregate policy choices, rather than from poor personal decisions or increases in overall levels of crime, meaning solutions too will be legal and policy in nature. There is no single solution to the problem of mass incarceration. This is because there is no single cause. Many issues are subsumed under the heading of "mass incarceration," some with deep historical roots. It is the combination of various factors working in tandem that produces the result. There is consensus that the criminal justice system is broken. Or in the words of one participant at a listening session, the criminal justice system does exactly what it is designed to do: to punitively punish large swaths of society's most disadvantaged individuals. Experts, academics, practitioners, and formerly incarcerated individuals alike agreed that the criminal justice system is unnecessarily punitive, fails wholesale to rehabilitate through its method of incarceration, destroys any opportunity for success after release from incarceration due to the thousands of collateral consequences, decreases public safety, and undermines public trust in the ability of the system to deliver justice. A key fact will guide the Lawyers' Committee's work in this area: nationally, 95% of criminal cases end in guilty pleas; of cases in the federal court system, that figure is 97%. In considering how best to harness the resources of the private bar, the importance of the criminal justice system's negotiated nature cannot be overstated. Glaring racial disparities are often absent from reform discourse. There is no question that the criminal justice system treats individuals differently based on the color of their skin. This is especially true when combined with other disadvantage factors like income, education, geography, and access to healthcare. However, this fact is often absent in public discourse and almost never formally addressed in reform efforts. This is particularly troubling since racial disparities in incarceration are often the result of implicit racial bias and structural or institutionalized racial discrimination, deep-rooted species of dysfunction which can only begin to be addressed by the acknowledgement and recognition that it exists. Details: Washington, DC: The Committee, 2015. 87p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 9, 2015 at: http://www.lawyerscommittee.org/admin/site/documents/files/0553.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.lawyerscommittee.org/admin/site/documents/files/0553.pdf Shelf Number: 135537 Keywords: Criminal Justice ReformImprisonmentMass IncarcerationRacial BiasRacial Disparities |
Author: Seelke, Clare Ribando Title: U.S.-Mexican Security Cooperation:The Merida Initiative and Beyond Summary: Violence perpetrated by a range of criminal groups continues to threaten citizen security and governance in some parts of Mexico, a country with which the United States shares a nearly 2,000-mile border and more than $500 billion in annual trade. Although organized crime-related violence in Mexico has generally declined since 2011, analysts estimate that it may have claimed more than 80,000 lives between December 2006 and December 2014. Recent cases - particularly the disappearance of 43 students in Guerrero, Mexico in September 2014 - have drawn attention to the problems of corruption and impunity for human rights abuses in Mexico. Supporting Mexico's efforts to reform its criminal justice system is widely regarded as crucial for combating criminality and better protecting citizen security in the country. U.S. support for those efforts has increased significantly as a result of the development and implementation of the Merida Initiative, a bilateral partnership launched in 2007 for which Congress has appropriated some $2.5 billion. U.S. assistance focuses on (1) disrupting organized criminal groups, (2) institutionalizing the rule of law, (3) creating a 21st century border, and (4) building strong and resilient communities. Inaugurated to a six-year term in December 2012, Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto has continued U.S.-Mexican security cooperation begun during the Felipe Calderon government. Pena Nieto has requested increased assistance for judicial reform and prevention efforts, but limited U.S. involvement in some law enforcement and intelligence operations. Despite those restrictions, U.S. intelligence has helped Mexico arrest top crime leaders, including Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman - the world's most wanted drug trafficker - in February 2014.The Interior Ministry is now the primary entity through which Merida training and equipment requests are coordinated and intelligence is channeled. The 114th Congress is continuing to fund and oversee the Merida Initiative and related domestic initiatives. From FY2008 to FY2015, Congress appropriated roughly $2.5 billion in Merida Initiative assistance for Mexico, including some $194 million provided in the FY2015 Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act (P.L. 113-235). That total is $79 million above the Administration's request; it aims to support efforts to secure Mexico's southern border and justice sector programs. As of April 2015, more than $1.3 billion of Merida Initiative assistance had been delivered. The FY2016 request for the Merida Initiative is for $119 million to help advance justice sector reform, modernize Mexico's borders (north and south), and support violence prevention programs. Possible questions for oversight may include the following. 1) How is the State Department measuring the efficacy of Merida programs and improving or eliminating ineffective programs? 2) To what extent is the Mexican government moving judicial and police reform efforts forward, and how is U.S. assistance supporting those reforms? 3) Are Merida-funded programs helping the Mexican government respond to new challenges and priorities, including securing its southern border? 4) Is Mexico meeting the human rights conditions placed on Merida Initiative funding? Details: Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 2015. 31p. Source: Internet Resource: R41349: Accessed May 13, 2015 at: https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R41349.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Mexico URL: https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R41349.pdf Shelf Number: 135554 Keywords: Border SecurityCriminal Justice ReformDrug TraffickingMerida InitiativeOrganized CrimeViolence |
Author: Chettiar, Inimai M. Title: Solutions: American Leaders Speak Out on Criminal Justice Summary: In this time of increased political polarization, there is one area where we have a genuine chance at bipartisan cooperation: the over-imprisonment of people who did not commit serious crimes. The drop in violence and crime in America has been an extraordinary national achievement. But plainly, our nation has too many people in prison and for too long - we have overshot the mark. With just 5 percent of the world's population, we now have 25 percent of its prison population, and an emerging bipartisan consensus now understands the need to do better. It has been two decades since there was sustained national attention to criminal justice. By 1994, violent crime had tripled in 30 years. Our communities were under assault. We acted to address a genuine national crisis. But much has changed since then. It's time to take a clear-eyed look at what worked, what didn't, and what produced unintended, long-lasting consequences. So many of these laws worked well, especially those that put more police on the streets. But too many laws were overly broad instead of appropriately tailored. A very small number of people commit a large percentage of serious crimes - and society gains when that relatively small group is behind bars. But some are in prison who shouldn't be, others are in for too long, and without a plan to educate, train, and reintegrate them into our communities, we all suffer. The new approach has many roots and just as many advantages: a desire to save taxpayers money; the resolve to promote rehabilitation not recidivism; an obligation to honor religious values; the necessity to alleviate crushing racial imbalances. All of them strengthen this powerful new movement. Details: New York: Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law, 2015. 164p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 21, 2015 at: https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/analysis/Solutions_American_Leaders_Speak_Out_On_Criminal_Justice.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/analysis/Solutions_American_Leaders_Speak_Out_On_Criminal_Justice.pdf Shelf Number: 135751 Keywords: Criminal Justice ReformCriminal Justice SystemsRacial Disparities |
Author: Lofstrom, Magnus Title: Realignment, Incarceration, and Crime Trends in California Summary: When California's historic public safety realignment was implemented in October 2011, many were concerned about the impact it would have on crime rates. In a 2013 report, we found that realignment did not increase violent crime in its first year, but that it did lead to an increase in auto thefts. In this report, we assess whether these trends continued beyond realignment's first year. We find that both the prison and jail populations increased slightly since 2012, which means that the number of offenders on the street did not rise from the 18,000 during realignment's first year. This is likely to change with the implementation of Proposition 47, which further reduces California's reliance on incarceration. Our analysis of updated state-level crime data from the FBI confirms our previous findings. Violent crime rates remain unaffected by realignment, and although California's property crime rate decreased in 2013, it did not drop more than in comparable states-so the auto theft gap that opened up in 2012 has not closed. Research indicates that further reductions in incarceration may have a greater effect on crime trends; the state needs to implement effective crime prevention strategies-and it can learn about alternatives to incarceration successfully implemented by the counties as well as other states. Details: Sacramento: Public Policy Institute of California, 2015. 10p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 27, 2015 at: http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_515MLR.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_515MLR.pdf Shelf Number: 135791 Keywords: Crime RatesCriminal Justice Policy Criminal Justice Reform Parole SupervisionParolees Prison Overcrowding Public Safety Realignment Recidivism |
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: Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority Title: Public Safety, Crime and Justice Report Summary: Every day, thousands of dedicated men and women in blue risk their lives to keep the residents of the sprawling Chicago metropolitan region safe. Their service and sacrifice are deeply appreciated. Unfortunately, the criminal justice system in the Chicago metropolitan region and across the United States has been heavily criticized for not always meeting the "Big Three Es" Efficiency, Effectiveness, and Equity. The system is slow in administering justice and expensive to maintain. Too often the system that is supposed to rehabilitate offenders is unable to prevent them from returning to crime. And too often the system that is supposed to dispense justice is accused of enforcing laws in a manner that discriminates against persons of color and the poor. Indeed, research has documented racial bias in decisions regarding arrests, searches, prosecutions, and sentencing, thus yielding today's problem of disproportionate minority contact. Furthermore, research has documented some abusive encounters between the police and the public. This has resulted in reduced public confidence in the legitimacy of the criminal justice system. In an attempt to enhance safety in our communities, American society has become heavily reliant on punitive, zero tolerance strategies. This has resulted in the rapid growth of prison populations over the past two decades, mostly affecting persons of color with limited means, and often involving non-violent offenders. The result is that United States now has the highest rate of imprisonment per capita in the world. In addition to enhancing the existing system, this report suggests a need to seriously consider alternative models of justice, such as the Balanced and Restorative Justice (BARJ) approach - which gives balanced attention to public safety, individual accountability to victims and the community, and development of skills to help offenders live law abiding and productive lives. The report also suggests the need to create an independent system of measurement to monitor the fairness of the criminal justice system and measure public safety outcomes that are important to the community, but are not captured in current indicators. Besides crime rates, the public cares about the quality of life in their neighborhoods as measured by levels of physical and social disorder, fear of crime, and their freedom to use the local environment without concern for safety. The community also cares deeply about equity and fairness during encounters with the police and other agents of the criminal justice system. Details: Chicago: Chicago Community Trust; Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority; University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC) Center for Research in Law and Justice, 2009. 127p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 15, 2015 at: http://www.issuelab.org/resource/public_safety_crime_and_justice_report Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: http://www.issuelab.org/resource/public_safety_crime_and_justice_report Shelf Number: 136057 Keywords: Criminal Justice PolicyCriminal Justice ReformCriminal Justice SystemsPublic SafetyRacial BiasRacial Discrimination |
Author: Johnson, Calvin Title: Criminal Justice: Changing Course on Incarceration Summary: Much has changed in New Orleans' criminal justice arena in the past 10 years: two consent decrees forcing reform in the police department and at the jail, a public defender office built on national models as part of a statewide system, an Inspector General's office with a focus on holding criminal justice officials accountable, the city's first Independent Police Monitor, and an active Criminal Justice Committee of the City Council exploring policy reforms. The most ambitious set of changes has addressed the city's dramatic overuse of incarceration in the local jail. Prior to Katrina, and for most of the last 10 years, New Orleans incarcerated residents in the jail at a much higher rate than any other city in the country. In a hopeful sign going forward, the city has reduced the number of people it incarcerates on any given day by more than two-thirds. New Orleans is now at a pivotal moment. Incarceration is being challenged as the reflexive response to crime. As then-City Council President Arnie Fielkow summed up in 2011, "You cannot incarcerate yourselves into a safer city, and we have learned that over recent years." But putting that lesson into practice in a fractured criminal justice system has been, and remains, an enormous challenge. Speaking earlier this year and looking to the future, First Deputy Mayor Andy Kopplin noted, "One of the biggest challenges going forward is maintaining the philosophical shift we have achieved-to reserve the jail principally for those who are arrested for violent felonies." This essay explores these dynamics, how the profound failings of the system were laid bare as the floodwaters receded, what city officials and community groups did to reverse course, and the culture change that remains to be fully embraced. Details: s.l.: Data Center, 2015. 16p. Source: Internet Resource: New Orleans Index at Ten: Accessed July 20, 2015 at: https://s3.amazonaws.com/gnocdc/reports/The+Data+Center_NOI10_Changing+Course+on+Incarceration.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: https://s3.amazonaws.com/gnocdc/reports/The+Data+Center_NOI10_Changing+Course+on+Incarceration.pdf Shelf Number: 136105 Keywords: Criminal Justice ReformCriminal Justice SystemsPrison PopulationPrisoners |
Author: Wong, Kevin Title: Local Justice Reinvestment Pilot: Final process evaluation report Summary: The Local Justice Reinvestment (LJR) Pilot was part of the Ministry of Justice (MOJ) commitment to test new approaches to criminal justice through Payment by Results (PbR) commissioning and has informed the government's Transforming Rehabilitation (TR) reforms. Justice Reinvestment assumes that there are significant reductions in crime and offending to be made by partners working more effectively together at the local level. Cost savings, realised through lower demand on the Criminal Justice System (CJS), can then be reinvested back into the system. Six pilot sites were established - in Greater Manchester and the London boroughs of Croydon, Hackney, Lambeth, Lewisham and Southwark - covering both the adult and youth CJS in all sites except Hackney, which covered the adult CJS only. In these sites, local partners were free to target their resources on offenders in line with their local priorities and crime and/or reoffending patterns. They received a reward payment from MOJ if the cost of demand reduced by more than 5 per cent for adults and 10 per cent for youths, up to a maximum of 20 per cent, in either of the two test years (July 2011 to June 2012, July 2012 to June 2013) measured against the baseline period (July 2010 to June 2011). The value of the reward increased in line with greater reductions in the cost of demand, up to a maximum of 20 per cent. The cost of demand was based on prices set for CJS metrics which included numbers of: custodial convictions of a specified duration; custody months for those convictions; community orders and suspended sentence orders; 'other convictions'; and probation requirements. Four sites in year 1 and five sites in year 2 achieved the targets and received reward payments based on savings which were shared between the sites and MO. A process evaluation was commissioned to identify: what actions were taken by the sites; their effect on the CJS metrics indicated above, including how this affected the overall cost of demand on the CJS; perceived strengths and weaknesses in implementation; any unintended consequences on the CJS; and implications for policy and practice. This final report draws together the findings from all the phases of the evaluation. An interim report focusing on the development and implementation of the pilot in year one, including details of interventions was published in 2013. Details: London: Ministry of Justice, 2015. 66p. Source: Internet Resource: Ministry of Justice Analytical Series: Accessed July 30, 2015 at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/449630/local-justice-reinvestment-pilot-process-evaluation-report.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/449630/local-justice-reinvestment-pilot-process-evaluation-report.pdf Shelf Number: 136272 Keywords: Costs of Criminal JusticeCriminal Justice ReformJustice ReinvestmentRehabilitation |
Author: Schunemann, Julia Title: Reform Without Ownership? Dilemmas in Supporting Security and Justice Sector Reform in Honduras Summary: Honduras simultaneously faces the recovery from a severe political crisis due to a coup d'etat in June 2009 as well as a sustained crisis of security and legitimacy. Since then, society has been ever more marked by polarisation and the political equilibrium is very fragile. Levels of violence are at an all-time high and organized crime, especially drug trafficking, is threatening the bases of state institutions and people's physical security. The country's socio-economic situation is dire and the global economic crisis has fuelled increasing levels of poverty and unemployment. Honduras' security and justice sector suffers from severe deficiencies. It remains largely inefficient and unable to safeguard security and the rule of law for its citizens. Criminal investigative units are plagued with serious problems of incompetence, corruption and progressive penetration by organised crime. The judiciary lacks independence and is subject to systematic political interference. Inter-institutional coordination is poor and flawed by a climate of mutual mistrust and rivalry over competencies. This report describes and analyses the EU's contribution to strengthening security and the rule of law in Honduras through a major security sector reform (SSR) programme earmarked with a budget of L44 million. The report underlines the crucial need for increased local ownership as a sine qua non condition if the EU's endeavours are to trigger sustainable institutional change and thus further human security in Honduras. The report also examines prospects for the creation of an international commission against impunity, following the example of the International Commission against Impunity in Guatemala (CICIG). The EU's Support Programme to the Security Sector (PASS) in Honduras meets local needs, is comprehensive in its approach and targeted at the relevant institutions. However, the current political climate of polarization and a government that is weak and lacking in legitimacy seriously compromises the programme's prospects for successful implementation. A solid political, legal and budgetary framework for reform is missing, as is local ownership. The EU and other donors eager to support security and justice sector reform in Honduras should use their joint weight to ensure basic conditions are met with regards to the political, legal and budgetary framework, thus preparing the ground for reasonable prospects for successful implementation and the sustainability of their activities. Details: Madrid: Initiative for Peacebuilding, 2010. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: IFP Security Cluster: Country Case Study: Honduras: Accessed August 8, 2015 at: http://www.initiativeforpeacebuilding.eu/pdf/020711honduras.pdf Year: 2010 Country: Honduras URL: http://www.initiativeforpeacebuilding.eu/pdf/020711honduras.pdf Shelf Number: 136367 Keywords: Criminal Justice ReformDrug TraffickingOrganized CrimeSocioeconomic Conditions and CrimeViolent Crime |
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: Turner, Susan Title: Public Safety Realignment in Twelve California Counties Summary: Following long bouts of litigation among inmates, prison guards, and state officials, in May 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of a three-judge panel that imposed a cap on California's prison population and ordered the state to reduce its prison population to 137.5 percent of "design capacity" within two years. The primary basis for the court ruling was that the overcrowded prison system violated inmates' constitutional right to adequate health care. In response to the 2011 Supreme Court decision, California adopted two measures, Assembly Bill (AB) 109 and AB 117, collectively known as realignment. These measures shift responsibility for certain low-level offenders, parole violators, and parolees, previously the state's responsibility, to California counties. Realignment gives counties a great deal of flexibility in how they treat these offenders and allows them to choose alternatives to custody for realignment offenders. As time has passed since realignment began in October 2011, several studies have evaluated various aspects of the planning and implementation of realignment. The study reported here focused on the flexibility that the state granted counties in implementing realignment. In particular, the authors wanted to determine whether counties essentially continued and expanded what they were already doing in county corrections or whether they used realignment as an opportunity to change from "business as usual." Key Findings Counties Encounter Unanticipated Challenges and Find That There Are Many Unknowns About Strategies' Effects - Realignment appears to have shifted the responsibility for, but not the total numbers of, offenders in the system (at least those under the primary forms of supervision and incarceration). Many Things That Are Being Implemented Are Enhancements of Existing Programs or Policies - Both probation and sheriff's department representatives mentioned a focus on providing services and expanding evidence-based practices, although clearly sheriff's departments often focused on adding jail capacity. Every county voiced concern about realigned offenders' increased risk levels and need profiles: They required more mental and other health services, and high proportions were rated as high risk on assessment instruments. There Is Evidence of Movement Toward Co-locating Service Provision - A movement toward the delivery of services in a one-stop location was evident in both probation and sheriff's departments. Reentry units - specialized areas in the jails - are gaining momentum for inmates near the ends of their sentences in an effort to provide them with the skills, services, and connections to outside agencies. Recommendations - Longer-term follow-up will be able to provide a more comprehensive analysis of system changes. Details: Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2015. 79p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 21, 2015 at: http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR800/RR872/RAND_RR872.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR800/RR872/RAND_RR872.pdf Shelf Number: 136837 Keywords: Criminal Justice Policy Criminal Justice ReformOffender SupervisionParole Supervision Parolees Prison Overcrowding Public Safety Realignment |
Author: Council of State Governments Justice Center Title: Justice Reinvestment in Kansas: Strengthening Probation Supervision and Promoting Successful Reentry Summary: Facing a projected 23-percent growth in the state prison population by FY2021, policymakers from across the political spectrum in Kansas enacted House Bill (HB) 2170 in April 2013. The law implements policy recommendations developed through "justice reinvestment," a data-driven approach designed to reduce corrections spending and reinvest savings in strategies that can reduce recidivism and improve public safety. Throughout the process, the state received intensive technical assistance from the Council of State Governments (CSG) Justice Center, in partnership with The Pew Charitable Trusts and the U.S. Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA). With continued support, Kansas leaders have been working to implement this legislation and track the impact of the new policies. This report reflects on the progress Kansas has made to date and the continued efforts that are necessary to meet the state's goals. Details: New York: Council of State Governments Justice Center, 2015. 4p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 25, 2015 at: https://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/JusticeReinvestmentInKansas.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: https://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/JusticeReinvestmentInKansas.pdf Shelf Number: 136877 Keywords: Criminal Justice PolicyCriminal Justice ReformJustice ReinvestmentOffender SupervisionPrisoner ReentryProbationProbationers |
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: Lawrence, Sarah Title: What's Next? Priority Issues for the Next Phase of Public Safety Realignment: A Report by the Stanford Executive Session on Public Safety Realignment Summary: Since Public Safety Realignment implementation began in October 0211, California's criminal justice system has experienced remarkable change along a variety of dimensions. And it will be some time before we understand the entirety of the consequences of Realignment, both intended and unintended. We are lonely two and a half years into reforms of a criminal justice system that was decades in the making. We are only just beginning to understand the ripple effects Realignment is having on the day-to-day functioning of California's criminal justice system. We should view these early stages of major criminal justice reform as key opportunities to make continued improvements. We need to continue to learn from our mistakes and strive for a criminal justice system that is balanced, equitable, cost-effective, and just. Details: Stanford, CA: Stanford Criminal Justice Center, Stanford Law School, 2014. 18p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 26, 2015 at: https://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/ES-Consensus-Report-final-report.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: https://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/ES-Consensus-Report-final-report.pdf Shelf Number: 137059 Keywords: Criminal Justice ReformCriminal Justice SystemsPublic Safety Realignment |
Author: Lawrence, Sarah Title: Court-Ordered Population Caps in California County Jails Summary: California is in the midst of a reform era that is unprecedented both in depth and in scope. Public Safety Realignment, passed and implemented in 2011, has shifted thousands of non-violent, non-serious, non-sex offenders from state-level jurisdiction to county-level jurisdiction. Arguably, California's county jail systems have been one of the most significantly altered components of the criminal justice system and Realignment is exacerbating some of the biggest challenges facing jails prior to October 2011 when Realignment began. Since the start of Realignment county jails have experienced increased pressure to house larger populations. In the quarter preceding the start of Realignment the average daily population (ADP) for California's jails was 71,293 (see Figure 1). By the first quarter of 2014, ADP had increased to 82,527, an additional 11,234 individuals compared to pre-Realignment. The diversity of California's counties means that the way in which these increased pressures manifest in each county varies greatly and is based on a multitude of factors such as the extent to which the county previously sent people to state prison, the local jail incarceration rate, the operating capacity of the jail, and whether the county jail system is operating under a court-ordered population cap. This report focuses on court-ordered population caps. Understanding some of the history and current context of existing court-ordered population caps can be helpful as the effects of Realignment continue to unfold. First, as will be discussed below, county court-ordered population caps have generally been in place for decades, long before Plata v. Brown and the Public Safety Realignment Act. Are the population caps forcing, or perhaps even allowing, counties to with caps to respond in notably different ways than counties without caps? Second, there is concern that Plata v. Brown has the potential to lead to "county-level Platas" as a result of increased attention to jail conditions in the context of these growing populations. Some believe that Realignment has created an environment where 58 counties are at risk of developing jail conditions that are unconstitutional and lawsuits related to jail conditions and overcrowding may be on the horizon. In fact, lawsuits related to jail conditions and overcrowding have been filed in several counties since the start of Realignment: Alameda, Fresno, Monterey and Riverside. Can counties at risk of new litigation - or even at risk of a revival of "orphaned jail cases" learn from past experiences? Details: Stanford, CA: Stanford Criminal Justice Center, Stanford Law School, 2014. 20p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 26, 2015 at: https://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Jail-popn-caps-1.15.15.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: https://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Jail-popn-caps-1.15.15.pdf Shelf Number: 137060 Keywords: County JailsCriminal Justice ReformJail OvercrowdingJailsPublic Safety Realignment |
Author: Rodriguez Ferreira, Octavio Title: Criminal Procedure Reform in Mexico, 2008-2016: The Final Coundown for Implementation Summary: This is one of a series of special reports that have been published on a semi-annual basis by Justice in Mexico since 2010 on issues related to crime and violence, judicial sector reform, and human rights in Mexico. This report examines Mexico's progress toward implementation of the country's "new" criminal justice system, which introduces the use of oral, adversarial proceedings and other measures to improve the handling of criminal cases in terms of efficiency, transparency, and fairness to the parties involved. This report is based on several months of research and data analysis, field observation, and active participation by the authors in the process of training law professors, law students, and attorneys in preparation for implementation of the reforms. The report provides a general background on the 2008 judicial reform initiative, and examines Mexican government efforts to implement the reforms at the federal, state, and judicial district level, relying on a unique dataset and maps generated by the Justice in Mexico program based at the University of San Diego. As an additional resource, this report also contains a translation of the 2008 constitutional changes underlying the reforms. Ultimately, the authors find that there has been significant progress toward the implementation of the new criminal justice system, and offer recommendations to assist the Mexican government and international aid organizations to help Mexico sustain this progress in the years to come. Details: San Diego: Justice in Mexico, University of San Diego, 2015. 56p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 28, 2015 at: https://justiceinmexico.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/151008_FINALCOUNTDOWN_Full-Finallow-res.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Mexico URL: https://justiceinmexico.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/151008_FINALCOUNTDOWN_Full-Finallow-res.pdf Shelf Number: 137161 Keywords: Criminal Justice ReformCriminal LawCriminal Procedure |
Author: Binder, Alberto Title: Effective Criminal Defense in Latin America: Executive Summary and Recommendations Summary: With data from Mexico, Brazil, Guatemala, Peru, Colombia, and Argentina, this report examines not only how defense rights are framed in domestic legislation and whether standards set by the Inter-American system are met, but also how these rights are implemented in practice. The survey approaches the issue from the perspective of the suspect, examining access to effective criminal defense, and whether structures and systems exist to enable suspects to effectively exercise these rights. This assessment comes after two decades of dramatic change in criminal procedures across Latin America; in many countries the process of reform continues. Effective Criminal Defense in Latin America provides an opportunity to take stock of what is working, and what is not. Details: Bogota, Colombia: Dejusticia, 2015. 53p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 28, 2015 at: http://www.dejusticia.org/files/r2_actividades_recursos/fi_name_recurso.766.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Latin America URL: http://www.dejusticia.org/files/r2_actividades_recursos/fi_name_recurso.766.pdf Shelf Number: 137167 Keywords: Criminal Defense Criminal Justice ReformCriminal Law |
Author: Ball, W. David Title: The New Normal? Prosecutorial Charging in California After Public Safety Realignment Summary: On April 4, 2011, Governor Jerry Brown signed Assembly Bill 109, the 2011 Public Safety Realignment Act ("Realignment" or "AB 109"), into law. AB 109 was one response to the 2009 Three-Judge Court Order for California to significantly reduce its prison population to 110,000 people, or 137.5% of design capacity, by year-end 2013. Affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2011 in Brown v. Plata, the Three-Judge Court Order determined prison overcrowding to be "the primary cause of the state's unconstitutional failure to provide adequate medical and mental health care to California prisoners," concluding that population reduction was the most narrowly drawn, least intrusive remedy. Realignment shifts the responsibility of supervising, tracking and imprisoning specified non-serious, non-violent, non-sexual ("triple-nons" or "N3 felonies" or "non-non-nons") offenders previously bound for state prison to county jails and probation (see Overview of Public Safety Realignment. The law states that "the purpose of justice reinvestment is to manage and allocate criminal justice populations more cost-effectively, generating savings that can be reinvested in evidence-based strategies that increase public safety while holding offenders accountable." The implementation of Realignment in California is the largest correctional experiment of its kind. Through AB 109, the Legislature has allocated over $2 billion in the first two years of implementation to assist California's 58 counties in carrying out the legislation's provisions. In addition, more than 100,000 offenders have had their sentences altered through mid-2013. The advent of Realignment, of course, affected the decision-making of all the official actors in the criminal justice system. But the prosecutor's role is unique in one clear sense: Prosecutors have, in formal legal terms, virtually un-reviewable autonomy in the choice to charge or not charge an offender (so long as any charge matches provable facts with statutory elements). Traditionally, in deciding whether to charge as high as the provable facts allow, they consider contextual aspects of the commission of the offense itself but also any relevant background aspects and criminal record of the offender. How does this power operate in the wake of AB 109? On the one hand, AB 109 simply classified a large number of pre-existing felonies under California Penal Code S1170(h) because they were deemed "triple-nons." In that sense, prosecutors in theory might be indifferent to the change; they would continue to charge these felonies according to the same factors as they always had, and the changes in site of incarceration and possible change in de facto length of sentences would happen of their own accord. In a sense, the only mandated change in prosecutorial choice here had to do with sentence recommendation: Because judges now have the power to impose a split sentence for an AB 109 conviction - fractioning the sentence between jail time and community supervision - when prosecutors exercise their usual function of recommending sentences, they now have to build the matter of split versus straight sentences into that responsibility. Prosecutors have also always been free to consider such resource factors as their own and other agencies' budgets and crowding in jails and prisons. But many aspects of AB 109 were likely from the start to weigh significantly on the decisions made by prosecutors as they exercise their traditional charging and recommendation choices after October 2011. The most salient aspects were the change in site and de facto length of incarceration, as well as the secondary effects of new county responsibilities for post-release supervision of many prisoners returning home. In particular, in exercising discretion, prosecutors might be influenced by their views on the differences in the severity of experience of incarceration in jail as opposed to prison, or by their concerns about jail crowding or the extra costs that county jails and other county agencies might have to absorb under AB 109. Details: Stanford, CA: Stanford Criminal Justice Center, Stanford Law School, 2014. 187p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 28, 2015 at: http://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/default/files/publication/513777/doc/slspublic/DA%20report%20Feb%202014.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/default/files/publication/513777/doc/slspublic/DA%20report%20Feb%202014.pdf Shelf Number: 137169 Keywords: CorrectionsCriminal Justice ReformJustice ReinvestmentPrison OvercrowdingPrison ReformPrisonsProsecutionProsecutorial DiscretionProsecutorsPublic Safety Realignment |
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: Bunten, Alexis Title: Caning, Context and Class - Mapping the Gaps Between Expert and Public Understandings of Public Safety Summary: This particular report lays the groundwork for this larger reframing effort by comparing expert discourse on the topic with the ways that average Americans think and talk about public safety. Data from interviews with both groups are compared to locate and examine gaps in understanding surrounding issues pertaining to public safety. In addition to presenting these gaps, this report outlines their implications for communications. Future phases of this project will offer strategies to fill these gaps and address other aspects of public understanding by designing and testing tools that can be employed to effectively and efficiently translate expert and advocate information. This report begins with a summary of foundational themes and concepts experts rely upon to understand, explain and talk about the issues related to public safety. It then turns to a discussion of the research conducted with American citizens through "cultural models interviews" designed to elicit the implicit patterns of thought that Americans share and bring to bear in thinking about and making sense of issues of public safety and criminal justice. These implicit patterns of thinking are referred to here as "cultural models," in that they represent highly conventionalized, broadly shared modes of understanding shaped by Americans' experiences with media, as well as other mediums of common discourse, experience and culture. This discussion is accompanied by a presentation of the communications implications of these cultural models. The final section of this report "maps the gaps" through a comparison of the expert discourse and Americans' cultural models. This analysis reveals specific gaps and overlaps between both groups' understandings. With improved knowledge of these features, we are then able to move toward the second stage of Strategic Frame Analysis, which involves identifying communications strategies that build on these overlaps and close the gaps. In so doing, the larger goal of this research is to give Americans access to new ways of thinking about how we might improve public safety through reforming the criminal justice system. Details: Washington, DC: Frameworks Institute, 2011. 54p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 8, 2016 at: http://www.frameworksinstitute.org/assets/files/pub_safety/public_safety_mapthegaps.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.frameworksinstitute.org/assets/files/pub_safety/public_safety_mapthegaps.pdf Shelf Number: 137440 Keywords: Criminal Justice ReformPublic KnowledgePublic OpinionPublic Safety |
Author: Simon, Adam F. Title: Framing and Facts: Necessary Synergies in Communicating about Public Safety and Criminal Justice Summary: It can be argued that nothing is as emblematic of the travails of race in American life as the criminal justice system. Criminal justice advocates have long used facts about the system's racial biases to call for the need for sweeping reforms - advocating for changes to make the system more equitable, efficient and effective in improving public safety for all Americans. The following statistics, for example, have become commonplace in the advocacy discourse and in media coverage more generally: - The United States is the world's No. 1 jailer; - Black men have a 32 percent chance of spending time in prison at some point in their lives, Latino men have a 17 percent chance, and white men have a 6 percent chance of being imprisoned over their lifetime; - Blacks are 17 percent of the juvenile population but 46 percent of juvenile arrests and 41 percent of waivers to adult court. On top of these facts, evidence of the extent and costs of mass incarceration is staggering. In times of fiscal constraints, current levels of prison expenditures are clearly unsustainable. Recent public opinion research suggests that, to some extent, Americans have come to recognize problems with the criminal justice system, particularly in terms of its racial bias. For example, a recent Pew study reports that 70 percent of African Americans and almost 40 percent of whites believe that black Americans receive unequal treatment by the police. The same study also indicates that almost 70 percent of African Americans and 30 percent of whites believe that the courts do not treat black and white Americans equally. In the court of public opinion, the ground seems fertile for the reform of the criminal justice system. So, if the American public believes the system discriminates against men of color, the data underscore the significance of these racial disparities, and the price of incarceration is so clearly unsustainable, why is advocating for reform so difficult? One answer is that the advocacy community is not framing the issue in a way that allows Americans to connect understandings of the system's problems with a set of viable solutions.5 Without such a connection, we argue, momentum for reform is lost when people cannot connect their values for the society to specific system reforms and policy changes. Energy dissipates; opposition manipulates opinion and gains ground while citizens are unable to make the case for the reforms they struggle to articulate. Details: Washington, DC: Frameworks Institute, 2013. 40p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 8, 2016 at: http://www.frameworksinstitute.org/assets/files/pscj_values_and_facts.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.frameworksinstitute.org/assets/files/pscj_values_and_facts.pdf Shelf Number: 137441 Keywords: Criminal Justice ReformPublic AttitudesPublic OpinionPublic SafetyRace and CrimeRacial DiscriminationRacial Disparities |
Author: Kendall-Taylor, Nathaniel Title: Maze and Gears: Using Explanatory Metaphors to Increase Public Understanding of the Criminal Justice System and its Reform Summary: This report presents the results of metaphor research using qualitative and quantitative methods with approximately 1,300 members of the general public. This research yielded two Explanatory Metaphors - The Justice Maze and Justice Gears - that help advance public understanding of structural problems in the criminal justice system and the need for reform to address these problems. Details: Washington, DC: FrameWorks Institute, 2013. 39p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 8, 2016 at: http://www.frameworksinstitute.org/assets/files/pscj_metaphors.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.frameworksinstitute.org/assets/files/pscj_metaphors.pdf Shelf Number: 137442 Keywords: Criminal Justice ReformPublic AttitudesPublic OpinionPublic Safety |
Author: Wald, Johanna Title: Adjusting Our Focus: Current Communication Practices and Patterns in the Criminal Justice Sector Summary: This report presents results from a Field Frame Analysis of influential organizations in the criminal justice reform field. It is informed by, and a part of, a larger multi-year project being conducted by the Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for Race and Justice at Harvard Law School (CHHIRJ) and the FrameWorks Institute. The long-term goal of this project is to develop more effective ways to communicate about the challenges facing America's criminal justice system and the reforms necessary to make it more just and equitable. The project aims to provide criminal justice experts and progressive reform advocates with tools and strategic recommendations they can use to reframe their public communications for broad public understanding and support. This means moving public perceptions and policy-making away from ineffective "tough on crime" tactics that over-emphasize policing, prosecution, and prisons in favor of greater investments in programs that address the underlying social and economic issues fueling cycles of incarceration. A Field Frame Analysis captures the patterns of communications that organizations within a given sector use to frame issues. It allows researchers to map networks of influential organizations within the field and identify the ways in which these organizations publicly discuss the issues. Since influential organizations act as "gatekeepers" for the field and shape the direction of programs and policies, the ways in which they communicate - language, frames, topic priorities and word choices - have direct implications on whether and how an issue will be more widely adopted and on the solutions that are proposed. Moreover, as reframing strategies and tools emerge, the Field Frame Analysis allows us to assess how recommendations can best be aligned with existing practices and how the field's discourse and communication practices may need to change in order to accommodate the reframing process. Specifically, this study uses a Field Frame Analysis to address the following questions: Reform Agenda: What are the most prominent issues on the reform agenda of influential organizations in the criminal justice field? Conceptions of Crime and the Criminal Justice System: How do prominent and influential organizations in the criminal justice field frame crime and the criminal justice system? Implications: What are the field-level constraints and opportunities for reframing public safety and criminal justice reform? Details: Washington, DC: FrameWorks Institute, 2014. 20p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 11, 2016 at: http://www.charleshamiltonhouston.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/CHHIRJ-Report-Adjusting-Our-Focus2.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.charleshamiltonhouston.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/CHHIRJ-Report-Adjusting-Our-Focus2.pdf Shelf Number: 137443 Keywords: CommunicationsCriminal Justice PolicyCriminal Justice ReformPublic OpinionPublic Safety |
Author: Austin, James Title: Eliminating Mass Incarceration: How San Francisco Did It Summary: San Francisco has rapidly reduced its jail and prison populations with a series of "best practices" innovations that have built on California's well-publicized legislative reforms enacted since 2009. Since 2009, California has reduced the size of number of people in prison, jail, felony probation and parole by nearly 150,000. At the same time, the state's crime rate has dramatically declined and is now lower than what was in 1960. If the rest of the country could match San Francisco's rates, the number of individuals under correctional supervision would plummet from 7 million to 2 million. Details: Washington, DC: JFA Institute, 2015. 30p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 13, 2016 at: http://www.jfa-associates.com/publications/reduce/Reforming%20San%20Franciscos%20Criminal%20Justice%20System-JA4.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.jfa-associates.com/publications/reduce/Reforming%20San%20Franciscos%20Criminal%20Justice%20System-JA4.pdf Shelf Number: 137564 Keywords: Correctional InstitutionsCorrectional PoliciesCorrectional ReformCriminal Justice ReformMass IncarcerationPrison Reform |
Author: Charles Colson Taskforce on Federal Corrections Title: Transforming Prisons, Restoring Lives: Final Recommendations of the Charles Colson Task Force on Federal Corrections Summary: After decades of unbridled growth in its prison population, the United States faces a defining moment. There is broad, bipartisan agreement that the costs of incarceration have far outweighed the benefits, and that our country has largely failed to meet the goals of a well-functioning justice system: to enhance public safety, to prevent future victimization, and to rehabilitate those who have engaged in criminal acts. Indeed, a growing body of evidence suggests that our over-reliance on incarceration may in fact undermine efforts to keep the public safe. Momentum is strong for a new direction, for a criminal justice system guided by proven, cost-effective strategies that reduce crime and restore lives. But translating this impulse for reform into lasting change is no small challenge. This report provides both an urgent call to action and a roadmap for reforming the federal prison system, which, with 197,000 people behind bars, was the largest in the nation as 2015 drew to a close. By adopting the recommendations detailed here, and committing sufficient resources to ensure their effectiveness, we can reduce the federal prison population by 60,000 people over the coming years and achieve savings of over $5 billion, allowing for reinvestment in programs proven to reduce crime. Most important, these proposed reforms and savings can be achieved through evidence-based policies that protect public safety. Such savings will not only bring fiscal responsibility to a policy area long plagued by the opposite tendency, but will also free critical funds the US Department of Justice (DOJ) needs for other priorities, such as national security, state and local law enforcement, and victim assistance. And just as critically, these reforms will make our communities safer by ensuring we send the right people to prison and that they return to society with the skills, supervision, and support they need to stay crime free. While enacting these initiatives may seem daunting, doing nothing is not a sustainable option. The United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world, confining more than 2.2 million people in its jails and prisons on any given day. Sentencing reform and other policy changes will reduce our reliance on prison and cut costs as we reconsider which people truly need to be behind bars and for how long. But the country still faces the enormous challenge of reintegrating millions of formerly imprisoned people back into society, where the enduring stigma of a criminal record complicates their efforts to find housing and jobs. Fortunately, signs of meaningful progress shine brightly in the states. Lawmakers from Texas, Utah, Georgia, South Carolina, and a host of other states have re-examined government's expensive preference for incarceration and have embraced a more diversified, evidence-based approach that delivers better public safety at less cost. Reform has come much more slowly at the federal level. Despite recent reductions, the federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) has experienced a seven-fold increase in its population since 1980. Costs have spiked right along with that growth. Now almost $7.5 billion, federal prison spending has grown at more than twice the rate of the rest of the DOJ budget and accounts for about one-quarter of the total. Details: Washington, DC: The Urban Institute, 2016. 132p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 27, 2016 at: http://colsontaskforce.org/final-recommendations/Colson-Task-Force-Final-Recommendations-January-2016.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://colsontaskforce.org/final-recommendations/Colson-Task-Force-Final-Recommendations-January-2016.pdf Shelf Number: 137694 Keywords: Correctional InstitutionsCosts of PrisonsCriminal Justice ReformFederal Bureau of PrisonsPrison ReformPrisons |
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: Mizell, Jill Title: An Overview of Public Opinion and Discourse on Criminal Justice Issues Summary: This series of reports from The Opportunity Agenda describes the American public discourse on crime, the criminal justice system, and criminal justice reform. It examines years of public opinion research, mainstream media coverage, and social media content. And it incorporates the input of leaders working in the field of criminal justice reform. Taken together, this body of work is intended to help reform leaders, organizations, and allies to build public support for effective solutions. It also provides useful insights for journalists, news outlets, and commentators who cover-or could cover-this important subject. Involvement in the criminal justice system can be an opportunity-ending event in people's lives. The "tough on crime" policies of the past generation-the "war on drugs," mandatory minimum sentences, "three-strikes laws" and the like-have negatively affected millions of people. In addition to the individuals who are arrested, prosecuted, and incarcerated for long periods under harsh sentencing laws, families and whole communities face racial profiling, mass incarceration, and barriers to re-entry after release from prison. These impediments to opportunity are not spread evenly across the U.S. population. Racial and class bias infects the criminal justice system at every point, from arrest, through prosecution, sentencing, incarceration, and release. Today, the nation's experiment with mass incarceration is being scrutinized and critiqued as never before, and criminal justice reform is on the public policy agenda. Our scan of legislative activity across the country indicates that reforms are taking place in red and blue states alike. As one reform leader put it: The fiscal crisis that so many states find themselves in has created a space for dialogue about reducing the use of incarceration to solve social issues...This is a very conservative city in a conservative state, and I'm seeing opportunity after opportunity to work across the political spectrum to get criminal justice reform done. States are rethinking "zero tolerance" school discipline policies, which often are responsible for racially discriminatory suspensions and "the school to prison pipeline." Municipalities are adopting "ban the box" policies to remove barriers to the hiring and licensing of people with criminal records. States are adopting "Justice Reinvestment" strategies to reduce corrections costs and reinvest the savings in programs that improve public safety, such as education, public health and job training. At the federal level, the Justice Department has launched its "Smart on Crime" review to bring more fairness to the federal criminal justice system. And the trend towards treating drug use as a public health, rather than a criminal matter is accelerating throughout the country. Whether based on fiscal concerns about the vast public resources devoted to arresting, prosecuting, and locking up so many people or on concerns about fairness and racial equity, more and more members of the public and their political representatives are questioning whether the harsh penalties adopted at both the state and federal levels over the past 40 years are accomplishing what they were intended to accomplish: protecting the public. A growing number of Americans is realizing that the vast majority of people in prison will be released back into the community with few, if any, opportunities to change their lives for the better and that this does not bode well for the nation as a whole. In spite of these advances, however, the United States has a long way to go before its criminal justice system lives up to constitutional and human rights norms, and creating the political will to bring about real reform is a heavy lift. Elected leaders still fear being labeled "soft on crime," and the organized opposition, led by district attorney associations and the private corrections industry, is working hard to block sentencing and other reforms, arguing that public safety is at risk. Most Americans hear about crime through their local television stations, where "if it bleeds, it leads" is still the rule. Increased fear of crime can derail any progress made by the criminal justice reform movement unless the public is "inoculated" with a deeper understanding of the causes of and solutions to crime. Details: New York: The Opportunity Agenda, 2014. 124p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 24, 2016 at: http://opportunityagenda.org/files/field_file/2014.08.23-CriminalJusticeReport-FINAL_0.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://opportunityagenda.org/files/field_file/2014.08.23-CriminalJusticeReport-FINAL_0.pdf Shelf Number: 137956 Keywords: Costs of criminal JusticeCriminal Justice PolicyCriminal Justice ReformJustice ReinvestmentMedia Public AttitudesPublic Opinion |
Author: Comack, Elizabeth Title: The Impact of the Harper Government's "Tough on Crime" Strategy: Hearing from Frontline Workers Summary: Crime rates in Canada have been steadily dropping for over a decade, while prison populations have been increasing in recent years. Commentators have attributed this disconnection between falling crime rates and increasing incarceration numbers to the Harper government's "tough on crime" strategy. Since coming to power in 2006, the Harper government has implemented a host of legislative and policy changes designed to "tackle crime," "hold offenders accountable," and "make communities safer." At the same time, the government also enacted significant budget cuts that have affected the ability of the correctional system to uphold its mandate. To learn about the on-the-ground impact of these changes, we interviewed 16 frontline workers in two provinces (Manitoba and Ontario). In their capacities as correctional, parole, and probation officers, and as prisoner advocates, counsellors, and support workers in the community, these workers have a cumulative record of over 200 years of knowledge and experience to draw on. Details: Winnipeg, MB: Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives Manitoba, 2015. 44p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 21, 2016 at: https://www.policyalternatives.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/Manitoba%20Office/2015/09/Tough%20on%20Crime%20WEB.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Canada URL: https://www.policyalternatives.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/Manitoba%20Office/2015/09/Tough%20on%20Crime%20WEB.pdf Shelf Number: 138358 Keywords: Crime RatesCriminal Justice PolicyCriminal Justice Reform |
Author: Great Britain. Home Office Title: Modern Crime Prevention Strategy Summary: Crime has fallen rapidly over the last twenty years, as the graph on page 5 shows. It has done so in spite of economic shocks, changes in levels of employment, and evolving behaviours around drug and alcohol use, technology and social norms. As it has fallen, crime has changed: while traditional high volume crimes like burglary and street violence have more than halved, previously 'hidden' crimes like child sexual abuse, rape and domestic violence have all become more visible, if not more frequent, and there is growing evidence of the scale of online fraud and cyber crime. There are a variety of reasons for this sustained fall, but the reduction can be attributed in large part to better preventative action to stop crimes from happening in the first place. For example, Government efforts to rank vehicles by their susceptibility to theft allowed the public to make well informed decisions around purchasing better secured cars1; the expansion of drug treatment has helped reduce the numbers of heroin and crack cocaine users, who commit over 40% of acquisitive crimes2; and better home security has substantially reduced the number of burglaries.3 The evidence is clear: where Government, law enforcement, businesses and the public work together on prevention we can deliver significant and sustained cuts in certain crimes. That is good news for victims and communities and it makes clear economic sense too. Now, as crime changes, this strategy recognises the importance of strong evidence as the basis for a modern approach to crime prevention. It applies the lessons from past successes along with new research into the challenges we now face. It addresses what the evidence suggests "where Government, law enforcement, businesses and the public work together on prevention we can deliver significant and sustained cuts in certain crimes" are the six key drivers of crime - opportunity, character, the effectiveness of the Criminal Justice System, profit, drugs and alcohol - and a wide variety of crime types. It sets out proposals to make crime harder to commit, less appealing for criminals, and more unlikely in certain communities, situations or in relation to certain products. It brings to bear the latest techniques - from behavioural economics to data analytics - and coordinates a wide variety of partners, many outside Government's direct control. It aims to articulate, quite simply, what crime prevention means in 2016. Details: London: Home Office, 2016. 50p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 23, 2016 at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/509831/6.1770_Modern_Crime_Prevention_Strategy_final_WEB_version.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/509831/6.1770_Modern_Crime_Prevention_Strategy_final_WEB_version.pdf Shelf Number: 138387 Keywords: Crime PreventionCriminal Justice PolicyCriminal Justice Reform |
Author: Goff, Diana Title: A Crisis of Confidence, Competence and Capacity: Programming Advice for Strengthening Mali's Penal Chain Summary: This report analyses the organisation and performance of the penal process in Mali. Its aim is to provide advice on how this process could be strengthened in ways that would enable it to act as a unifying element in Mali's development by holding state and citizens accountable to the same standards of conduct. Despite the shortcomings of a number of top-down reform efforts in the past, there seems to have been little variation or innovation in how the many challenges that plague the penal chain in Mali have been addressed programmatically. It is for this reason that the report examines a number of recent innovations in development programming such as 'Thinking and Working Politically', the 'Theory of Change' concept and 'Systems Complexity', in addition to an in-depth analysis of the state of justice in Mali. It uses the resulting insights to develop elements of an innovative program to strengthen Mali's penal chain. This offers a basis for further discussions between Malian and international stakeholders. Key elements are to work on the basis of bottom-up, pilot-type programmes that enable learning and scaling, to focus on local improvements in the accessibility and quality of criminal justice, to also work collaboratively with 'customary justice' actors and civil society representatives - beyond the usual local state representatives of the penal process and to monitor programme implementation jointly on the basis of behavioural change on the part of Malian stakeholders. Details: New York: International Development Law Organization (IDLO); The Hague: Netherlands Institute of International Relations (Clingendael), 2015. 60p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 26, 2016 at: http://www.clingendael.nl/sites/default/files/IDLO%20CRU%20report%20A%20crisis%20of%20confidence%2C%20competence%20and%20capacity_0.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Mali URL: http://www.clingendael.nl/sites/default/files/IDLO%20CRU%20report%20A%20crisis%20of%20confidence%2C%20competence%20and%20capacity_0.pdf Shelf Number: 138431 Keywords: Correctional InstitutionsCriminal Justice ReformCriminal Justice SystemsPrisons |
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: Great Britain. House of Commons. Home Affairs Committee Title: Evaluating the new architecture of policing: the College of Policing and the National Crime Agency Summary: On 26 July 2010, the Home Office published Policing in the 21st Century: Reconnecting police and the people, proposing a series of structural changes to the bodies and organisations that are intended to enable the forces to function effectively. The Home Secretary said in her introduction that it heralded "the most radical change to policing in 50 years". In September 2011, we published a Report on these changes, New Landscape of Policing. Now, as we approach the end of the Parliament, we are taking this opportunity to follow up on that report by reflecting on those changes, with a particular focus on the College of Policing. The centrepiece of Policing in the 21st Century was the introduction of directly-elected Police and Crime Commissioners. However, it also proposed a number of structural changes to the landscape of policing at national level: - the replacement of the Serious Organised Crime Agency by the National Crime Agency; - the closure of the National Policing Improvement Agency, "reviewing its role and how this translates into a streamlined national landscape"; and - the repositioning of the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) as the national organisation responsible for "providing ... professional leadership for the police service", by setting standards and sharing best practice across the range of police activities. These proposals were followed, in April 2011, by the proposal to establish the College of Policing, and three months later by the proposal to establish a police ICT company. In Annex A we have produced a landscape grid, which sets out the policing landscape in 2010, and where previous organisations' functions have been transferred to new organisations under the new landscape of policing. We have also worked with the National Audit Office to produce tables showing the budgets and staffing numbers of these organisations in the five years of this Parliament. These are included in Annexes B and C. 3. Since undertaking our initial inquiry, the Committee has kept the developments and changes to the landscape of policing under ongoing scrutiny. The heads of policing organisations have appeared before us Committee regularly, and we have produced several reports on related issues, such as Leadership and standards in the police service. Details: London: The Stationery Office limited, 2015. 49p. Source: Internet Resource: Tenth Report of Session 2014-15; Accessed March 29, 2016 at: http://www.cityforum.co.uk/publications/7018/pdf/800.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.cityforum.co.uk/publications/7018/pdf/800.pdf Shelf Number: 138467 Keywords: Criminal Justice ReformPolice AdministrationPolice Education and TrainingPolice Reform |
Author: Great Britain. House of Commons. Justice Committee Title: Crime reduction policies: a co-ordinated approach? Summary: During this inquiry we wished to examine the nature and effectiveness of crime reduction policies over the four years since our predecessor Committee reported on the merits of justice reinvestment as a means of cutting crime. Since 2010, crime has been falling, but we found that the extent to which this can, in practice, be attributed to the success of national or local crime reduction policies is unclear. Re-offending rates which had been falling have stabilised over this period but remain relatively high, and it concerns us that last year there has been a fall in the proportion of local areas achieving a decrease in reoffending. We call on the Government to seek to recognise more explicitly where reoffending has fallen and seek to understand why. The prison population has remained high but its once inexorable growth seems to have calmed. All parts of the criminal justice system have had to cope with significant spending cuts, yet it appears to us that the Government has shied away from using the need to make significant cuts to re-evaluate how and where money is spent. This is in contrast to the approach that we saw in Texas (and over half of US states) where they concluded that any real effort to contain spending on corrections must have as its centrepiece a plan to limit the growth of, and ultimately reduce, the prison population. The Government's method of reform remains focused largely on the activity of the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice, which can over-emphasise the significance in attempting to reduce crime of measures taken entirely within the criminal justice system. Some cross-Government initiatives have been developed, such as the Troubled Families programme, to deal with sources of crime. We welcome these yet note that the resources attached to very early intervention schemes, like Family Nurse Partnerships, are tiny in relation to the prison budget and the staggeringly high costs of crime to society. For example, we were told that it is estimated that annually violent crime, 44% of which is alcohol related, costs almost $30 billion, crime perpetrated by people who had conduct problems in childhood costs about $60 billion, and drug-related crime costs almost $14 billion. There have been significant changes to the local partnership landscape for crime reduction since 2010, including the introduction of police and crime commissioners and the transfer of public health responsibilities to local authorities, reflecting the ongoing broader shift of power in this field from Whitehall to local communities. While this has resulted in an assortment of local accountability structures, our evidence highlights the clear benefits of collective ownership, pooled funding and joint priorities that have been facilitated by this approach, although there remains a considerable way to go before health can be considered a fully integral part of the crime reduction picture. In particular, we consider that addressing the funding of mental health services, the inadequacy of which costs the police, courts, probation, and prisons and victims of crime greatly, should be an urgent priority. Alcohol treatment similarly remains a Cinderella service. In our view, two major elements are missing from local partnership approaches to crime reduction: courts and prisons. We believe that a prison system which effectively rehabilitates a smaller number of offenders, while other offenders are rehabilitated through robust community sentences, has the potential to bring about a bigger reduction in crime. Additionally, seeing courts as purely instrumental institutions involved solely in processing and resolving cases, misses an opportunity for encouraging greater innovation, for example through the adoption of problem-solving approaches, which we saw in operation in Texas and in Stockport, and we believe has the potential to make broader systemic savings. The radical and controversial changes that have been made to the probation system with the intention of providing for supervision of short-sentenced prisoners will be commissioned centrally and must be carefully managed to ensure that local crime reduction activity continues to build in strength as the resources for all concerned are further diminished. What remains lacking also is still, as our predecessor observed, a rigorous assessment of where taxpayers' money can most effectively be spent in cutting crime, and a government-wide approach which recognises more explicitly that the criminal justice system is only one limited part of the system through which taxpayers' money is spent to keep people safe from crime. We do not have the right structures in place to provide a collective memory of research evidence, its relative weight, and its implications for policy-making, including the capacity to make decisions about the best direction of resources, and we call on the Government to create an independent and authoritative body to facilitate this. In addition, the Treasury should seriously question whether taxpayers' money is used in ways most likely to reduce future crime and victimisation, and develop a longer-term strategy for the use of resources in this manner. Details: London: The Stationery Office Limited, 2014. 211p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 30, 2016 at: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmselect/cmjust/307/307.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmselect/cmjust/307/307.pdf Shelf Number: 138482 Keywords: Crime PreventionCrime ReductionCriminal Justice PoliciesCriminal Justice ReformRe-Offending |
Author: Lawrence, Sarah Title: Managing Jail Populations to Enhance Public Safety: Assessing and Managing Risk in the Post-Realignment Era Summary: Just 20 months after Public Safety Realignment began, the effects of the legislation on California's criminal justice system are unprecedented both in depth and in scope. And they are still taking shape. Arguably, county jail systems have been one of the most significantly altered components of the criminal justice system. The management of county jail systems in California is a challenging, dynamic, and complex undertaking. Realignment is exacerbating some of the challenges and accelerating some of the changes that county jails were facing before October 2011 when Realignment began. The number of individuals in jail has been growing; the status of individuals held in jail custody has been changing; and the length of time individuals stay in jail is getting longer. In short, almost every aspect of California's jail population has been in a state of flux since Realignment was implemented. An examination of all of the contributing factors and criminal justice tools related to jail management is beyond the scope of this effort. The focus here is on a handful of selected topics that 1) are considered to play an important role in the management of jails, 2) have been directly affected by AB 109 or have newly emerged as a result of the new regime, and 3) are thought to be ripe subjects for law and policy debate and reform. We approach these topics by breaking down jail populations into two groups (non-sentenced versus sentenced) and the issue into two stages (assessment of risk and management of risk). The first section presents an overview of who is in jail in California based on the most recently available data. The second section examines how the risk profiles of defendants are assessed during the pretrial phase, and what we know from research to be the most effective approaches to addressing risk. Next, risk management options in the form of detention, bail release, own recognizance release, and pretrial services supervision are discussed. The attention then shifts to the sentenced population in California jails and some of the tools available to criminal justice practitioners to manage jail populations, including, split sentences, electronic monitoring, and early release. This paper is intended to help lay the foundation for the first meeting of the Stanford Criminal Justice Center's Executive Session on the Front-End Issues of Public Safety Realignment (see sidebar). The first of these four, day-long meetings will focus on issues related to jail management. A group of experts from across California representing a variety of perspectives will be convened to discuss some of the pressing issues related to Realignment's effect on jails. Details: Stanford, CA: Stanford Law School, Stanford Criminal Justice Center, 2013. 30p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 12, 2016 at: http://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/default/files/child-page/440504/doc/slspublic/Paper%20on%20jail%20mgmt%20July%202013.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/default/files/child-page/440504/doc/slspublic/Paper%20on%20jail%20mgmt%20July%202013.pdf Shelf Number: 138635 Keywords: County JailsCriminal Justice ReformJail PopulationPretrial ServicesPublic Safety RealignmentRisk Assessment |
Author: Schaffer, Adam Title: Between Rhetoric and Reform: Criminal Justice Reform in the United States Summary: After decades of implementing-and exporting-"tough on crime" policies that prioritize arrest and incarceration for even minor drug offenses, the United States is reconsidering its criminal justice system. These reforms should be noted in Latin America, a new report released today argues, as the region faces surging prison populations driven in part by draconian U.S.-sponsored policies. From 1973 to 2009, the total U.S. prison population increased over seven-fold as more low-level offenders were incarcerated-instead of receiving non-prison punishments-and a range of offenses garnered significantly longer sentences. Much of the change came as part of the "War on Drugs," and arrest and incarceration rates for drug offenses saw a particularly marked rise. From 1980 to 2010, the imprisonment rate for drug crimes grew from 15 per 100,000 to 143 per 100,000; a nearly ten-fold increase. Yet in recent years, the United States has begun to see a paradigm shift. Proposals are emerging to replace zero-tolerance policies, which sought to criminalize all aspects of drug-related behavior, with alternatives to incarceration and more fair sentencing policies. Calls for reform have spanned the political spectrum, as liberal groups call attention to the racial and socioeconomic disparities in the enforcement of drug laws, while conservative groups question the enormous financial costs (and questionable benefits) associated with mass incarceration. There is emerging bipartisan agreement that current drug laws-and sentencing practices more broadly-are ineffective, wasteful, and unjust. Details: Washington, DC: Washington Office of Latin America, 2016. 21p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 12, 2016 at: http://www.wola.org/sites/default/files/Between%20Rhetoric%20and%20Reform_Web.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.wola.org/sites/default/files/Between%20Rhetoric%20and%20Reform_Web.pdf Shelf Number: 138637 Keywords: Criminal Justice ReformDrug Policy ReformMass Incarceration |
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: Forman, Benjamin Title: Mounting an Evidence-Based Criminal Justice Respone to Substance Abuse and Drug Offending in Massachusetts Summary: Solutions to better treat and manage substance abuse are paramount to an effective Justice Reinvestment strategy. Too many residents suffering from substance use disorder continue to enter the criminal justice system, which struggles to help these individuals recover from a life-threatening disease. For many offenders, un- or undertreated substance abuse aggravates anti-social behavior and lengthens criminal careers. The resulting cycle of recidivism creates significant costs for communities and places a significant strain on public resources. The fourth installment in our Justice Reinvestment Policy Brief Series, this paper explores available data on substance use in Massachusetts, examines the range of evidence-based practice at each stage in the criminal justice system, and describes efforts to implement these approaches in the Commonwealth. The paper concludes with ideas for how policymakers and criminal justice and law enforcement officials can work together to lead Massachusetts into a new era of responding to substance abuse with evidence-based practice. Details: Boston: Massachusetts Criminal Justice Reform Coalition (MassINC), 2016. 20p. Source: Internet Resource: Policy Brief: Accessed April 26, 2016 at: http://massinc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Mounting-an-Evidence-Based-Criminal-Justice-Response-to-Substance-Abuse-and-Drug-Offending-in-Massachusetts.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://massinc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Mounting-an-Evidence-Based-Criminal-Justice-Response-to-Substance-Abuse-and-Drug-Offending-in-Massachusetts.pdf Shelf Number: 138820 Keywords: Criminal Justice ReformDrug Abuse and Crime Drug Offenders Evidence-Based Practices Justice Reinvestment |
Author: American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon Title: Roadblock to Reform: District Attorneys, Elections, and the Criminal Justice Status Quo Summary: District attorneys (DAs) are arguably the most powerful people in the criminal justice system, but the public doesn't know who they are. Why does this matter? In our latest report, Roadblocks to Reform, we identify district attorneys as a central barrier to criminal justice reform. There is a growing national consensus that America's criminal justice system has core problems. We lead the world in the use of incarceration, while prisons are the most expensive and least effective public safety intervention. Despite increased media coverage of deeply troubling criminal justice issues and attention from the public and other elected officials, the role of district attorneys gets little attention. Although police are responsible for arrests, prosecutors in district attorneys' offices have a tremendous amount of responsibility in determining people's fate once they enter the system. DAs determine: - whether someone gets access to drug treatment or is prosecuted - whether a young person is kept in the juvenile justice system or prosecuted in the adult system where they are much more likely to be hurt and to re-offend. - whether to seek the death penalty. DAs influence: - the extent of racial disparity in sentencing. - whether a police officer is charged in a case of misconduct. In Oregon, district attorneys are elected leaders. But over the past ten years, 78% of DAs in Oregon ran unopposed. That means nearly eight out of 10 district attorney races were over before they began. In a healthy democracy, no elected official should be guaranteed reelection. The report also examines the role gubernatorial appointments play in selecting interim DAs. Nearly half of our existing DAs initially enter office through gubernatorial appointments which have happened quietly, flying under the radar of the public. Meanwhile, Oregon's District Attorney Association has been one of the primary opponents to any progressive criminal justice reform in the state. Roadblocks to Reform examines how district attorney elections and appointments lock in the criminal justice status quo, preventing much needed progress and public engagement. The report also includes recommendations for changing these dynamics. This report is a must read for people concerned with addressing mass criminalization and over incarceration in Oregon as well as severe racial disparity in the criminal justice system. District attorneys need to be advocates for change, but a range of dynamics contribute to DAs playing a very different role. Encouraging public engagement with district attorneys and pushing for greater prosecutorial accountability will be decisive factors in solving the serious problems in our criminal justice system. Details: Portland: ACLU of Oregon, 2016. 23p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 28, 2016 at: http://aclu-or.org/sites/default/files/Roadblocks_to_Reform_Report_ACLUOR.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://aclu-or.org/sites/default/files/Roadblocks_to_Reform_Report_ACLUOR.pdf Shelf Number: 138839 Keywords: Court ReformCriminal Justice ReformDistrict Attorneys |
Author: Bowen, Phil Title: Better courts: Cutting crime through court innovation Summary: The report suggests that by embracing principles of fairness, swiftness, authority and a focus on people as well as cases, our criminal courts can do more to reduce crime and make better use of resources. The report highlights 11 case studies that exemplify better court innovation. The report argues that successful innovation must be started from the local level and calls for more freedom for local courts to act on their own initiative. The report points to a range of innovations which ought to be explored as simpler approaches to resolving low-level crime and anti-social behaviour problems; a new generation of 'accountability' courts in which judges regularly supervise offenders on community sentences; courts, prosecutors and others engaging with court users to help improve the court process, and the government to explore how redesigning the current administrative structure can unlock greater frontline innovation. Details: London: Centre for Court Innovation, 2016. 40p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 5, 2016 at: http://www.justiceideas.org/sites/default/files/documents/Better%20Courts.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.justiceideas.org/sites/default/files/documents/Better%20Courts.pdf Shelf Number: 139637 Keywords: Criminal CourtsCriminal Justice Reform |
Author: Allen, Rob Title: Meeting the Needs of Young Adult Women in Custody Summary: This report looks at how best the prison system can meet the needs of young adult women. It follows T2A's 2013 report 'Young Adults in Custody: the way forward' which considered the broader issues relating to young adults in prison. That report coincided with proposals by the Coalition Government to dispense with specific young offender institutions (YOIs) and instead to detain young adults in mixed establishments - a practice that has been increasing over the last few years1. The Government's plans were put on hold pending the outcome of Lord Harris's independent review into self-inflicted deaths in custody of 18-24 year olds which reported on July 1st 2015. The Government responded to the review in December 2015. In the meantime the House of Commons Justice Select Committee has embarked on a major inquiry into young adults in the criminal justice system. Details: London: T2A Transition to Adulthood, 2016. 26p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 13, 2016 at: http://www.t2a.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Young-Adult-Women-in-Custody_LR2.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.t2a.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Young-Adult-Women-in-Custody_LR2.pdf Shelf Number: 139010 Keywords: Criminal Justice ReformFemale InmatesFemale OffendersYoung Adult Offenders |
Author: Caudill, Jonathan W. Title: Breaking Ground: Preliminary Report of Butte County Sheriff's Alternative Custody Supervision Program Summary: In January 2012, Sally Parker organized, at the request of Jon Caudill, a meeting between them, Undersheriff Kory Honea, Captain Andy Duch, Lt. Brian Flicker, and Ryan Patten. Recent AB 109 developments, including creation of the Butte County Sheriff's Office Alternative Custody Supervision (ACS) Program, led the legislated shift of prisoners from the state prison system to the county jail systems to the center stage across the state. From the meeting originated a research agreement between the Principle Investigator, Jonathan Caudill, and the Butte County Sheriff's Office (BCSO) including three specific projects: a) identify county prisoner inmate needs, b) establish a recidivism measure, and c) evaluate implementation of the ACS Program. These specific projects, however, also relate to a general philosophy of managing the jail population and improving public safety, while providing offenders with appropriate tools for success. The balance between public safety, managing jail resources, and offender treatment has been the focus of many discussions and the focal point of the BCSO Executive Command. The key to balancing these foci is understanding their interconnectedness. The overarching goals of these projects have been to understand this interconnectedness and identify specific adjustments. As explained in the findings section, we found some anticipated and some unexpected results. First and as expected, we found that many of the surveyed inmates expressed a desire for services while incarcerated and continued assistance during reentry. Several theoretical frameworks may explain these findings; however, the underlying desire for a continuum of services remains. While these are preliminary findings and should be interpreted as such, these findings are commonsensical as we know that approximately two-thirds of inmates were unemployed when arrested. If an individual is unemployed prior to a new felony conviction and incarceration, they are even less employable afterwards. Given these findings, we recommend the BCSO staff conduct a supervision and treatment plan for all potential ACS eligible inmates. Implemented correctly, this strategy will increase treatment accuracy and gauge supervision needs. Our second expected finding was the limitations of the current data collection strategy and offender management system. We knew at the onset that intensive community supervision was a new concept for the BCSO and, therefore, they lacked appropriate software. The BCSO, at the time of this report, has an active jail information management system request for proposal and requested that this study's PI consult in the proposal scoring process. We recommend that the BCSO continue their search for an appropriate offender management system that has the capacity to store historical data and network with other county systems. Third, we discovered that the BCSO implemented the ACS Program in an efficient manner and is now prepared to proceed to the formalization phase. In fact, the projected one-year recidivism estimation suggested the ACS program has a lower recidivism rate than the most recent California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) one-year recidivism rate. Our analyses revealed the current ACS six-month recidivism rate just below 20 percent (0.19). Based on this number and previous time-to-recidivism research, we estimated the ACS program one-year recidivism rate at 0.327, while the most recent CDCR recidivism estimate for property and drug offenders was 0.492. Additionally, the data suggest that officers are maintaining a service orientation (67 percent of all officer-participant encounters were service, as opposed to enforcement). This trend, however, has the potential to wane once the program newness expires. New programs produce excitement and enthusiasm, but the natural conflict accompanying offender management can generate "burnout" and depersonalization. Depersonalization can hinder service provision and supervision strategies. To protect ACS officers from unnecessary occupational stress, we recommend that the BCSO further formalize the ACS program, to include additional officer training and a comprehensive, evidence-based supervision strategy. Beyond the anticipated preliminary findings, we also discovered two unanticipated findings. First, both the logistic regression model and survival analysis revealed an opportunity to make the ACS risk assessment tool more efficient. Although the estimated coefficients were in the appropriate direction (positive correlation between risk scores and recidivism), the unadjusted risk scores lacked consistency across time (see Graph 1 for a visual representation of risk scores regressed on time to failure). These findings suggest that the BCSO can use proper data, a comprehensive understanding of crime and its correlates, and advanced statistics to improve public safety through recidivism reduction and resource management. To improve the risk assessment tool, we recommend that the BCSO explore a population-validated risk assessment tool. Our last two findings are of methodological concerns. We discovered during the preliminary analysis that the inmate needs survey design and delivery required adjustment. Specifically, the results suggest two previous treatment questions produced poor response rates and at least one current needs question confused interview sessions. The research team is considering both of these issues and they anticipate a new version of the inmate needs survey. Related to survey delivery, there remains confusion among jail staff and inmates as to the project goals, thereby making this process somewhat inefficient. The research team implemented an alternative survey strategy and, after evaluation of the response rates, they may recommend further data collection adjustments. The second methodological concern focuses mainly on evaluation resources. The preliminary results provide several interesting outcomes and important corollary projects. The additional pressures of county prison on the BCSO jail have generated further interest in resource management strategies and efficient alternative custody programs. For example, the BCSO administrative staff approved an experimental research design assessing the efficiencies of flash incarceration as an intermediate sanction. Unfortunately, the research team lacks resources beyond the current evaluation plan to conduct this study given their other professional demands. Based on the gravity and complexity of AB 109 legislation and the innovative strategy spearheaded by the BCSO in response to resource re-alignment, we recommend the BCSO work proactively to prioritize research projects promoting public safety and resource management. Related, the BCSO has the potential to move from a state best-practices model6 to a national model of best practices, but this may require additional evaluation resources. Based on this logic, the BCSO should continue external funding activities that include evaluation resources. Collectively, the preliminary findings are positive for BCSO's goal of balancing public safety, jail resources, and offender treatment. The American Civil Liberties Union of California recently released a county-level analysis of best practices, Public Safety Realignment: California at a Crossroads. The terminology "at a crossroads" suggests what occurs now will have a profound influence on the future of offender management. We find value in this idea, but also assert that offender management is dynamic and requires recursive evidence-based program models. The BCSO is breaking ground with an unparalleled, innovative approach to public safety, jail resource management, and offender treatment. For the BCSO, the next logical step is to utilize these preliminary findings as a guidepost for program development. Details: Chico, CA: California State University, Chico, 2012. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 3, 2016 at: https://www.csuchico.edu/pols/documents/breaking-ground-final-report.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: https://www.csuchico.edu/pols/documents/breaking-ground-final-report.pdf Shelf Number: 139275 Keywords: Corrections OfficersCriminal Justice ReformJail InmatesJailsOffender SupervisionPublic Safety RealignmentRecidivismUnemployment and Crime |
Author: Caudill, Jonathan W. Title: Navigating the Storm: An Empirical Assessment of the Local Effects of California's Criminal Justice Realignment Summary: October 1st of 2014 marked the third-year implementation anniversary of California's Criminal Justice Realignment (AB 109) legislation. California's AB 109 realigned sentencing options for certain non-violent, non-sexual, and non-serious felony offenses, precluding incarceration in state prison. This less punishment, more rehabilitation sentencing structure shifted correctional supervision to county criminal justice systems (namely, county jails and probation departments) across the State. Along with this widespread jurisdictional decentralization, came many concerns regarding the impact of such a dramatic shift in correctional supervision. Reported here are the results of a three-year evaluation that uniquely included both quantitative and qualitative research methods to assess the impact of AB 109 on Butte County criminal justice organizations. First examined is the change in workload for the District Attorney's Office, focusing on outcomes such as the number of case filings by specific offense categories, failure to appear charge accumulation, and total number of charges over time. Second, this report demonstrates through comparison of recidivism outcomes of pre-AB 109 offenders to recidivism outcomes of post-AB 109 offenders a continuity of supervision during the implementation of Realignment. Results here also highlight factors that increased the likelihood of new arrests and/or probation violations for probation offenders. The empirical work then turns to a small cohort of Post-Release Community Supervision (PCS) offenders. These PCS offenders were tracked for three years to better understand their recidivism outcomes and impact on the local criminal justice system. Their cumulative impact on the jail and overall recidivism was assessed through exploring their total number of times entering the county jail, the proportion of those bookings that turned into formalized charges, and the proportion of those charges that ultimately became convictions. Finally, the report presents findings from two qualitative studies: the level of service orientation across supervision organizations and offenders' perceptions of the utility of home visits' Details: Chico, CA: California State University, Chico, 2015. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 8, 2016 at: https://www.csuchico.edu/pols/documents/Navigating%20the%20storm%20three%20years%20after%20109.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: https://www.csuchico.edu/pols/documents/Navigating%20the%20storm%20three%20years%20after%20109.pdf Shelf Number: 139318 Keywords: Community SupervisionCommunity-Based CorrectionsCriminal Justice PolicyCriminal Justice ReformProbationersPublic Safety RealignmentRecidivism |
Author: National Governor's Association Title: A Governor's Guide to Criminal Justice Summary: Governors play a critical role in ensuring public safety. As the state's chief executive, they are responsible for setting public safety priorities for their administration and identifying policies and programs to achieve them. Further, they oversee the state agencies responsible for implementing those policies and programs, such as corrections, state police, and juvenile justice. To help them define and achieve their priorities, governors rely on expertise and support from a core team of advisors including policy staff, legal counsel, and cabinet secretaries. Those criminal justice policy advisors serve as a primary source of information and play an integral role in the development of state policy. They provide guidance on best practices, help develop effective strategies for achieving policy objectives, coordinate agency actions, engage communities and stakeholders, allocate resources, and evaluate effectiveness. For nearly 15 years, the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGA Center) has supported a network of governors' criminal justice policy advisors with the goal of improving how justice and public safety policy decisions are made within states. The NGA Center provides them a trusted forum where they can learn best practices, receive technical assistance, and connect with and learn from their peers across the country. As part of its ongoing effort to support that network, the NGA Center has developed A Governor's Guide to Criminal Justice. This guide: 1. Provides an overview of governors' roles and responsibilities as they relate to public safety; 2. Examines the key components that make up a state's criminal justice system and explains the interplay between state, local, and federal functions; 3. Explores budgetary aspects of criminal justice systems; 4. Defines evidence-based practices and examines their role in achieving policy objectives; and 5. Identifies ways that data can be used to drive policy, ensure accountability, and improve public safety. Details: National Governor's Association, 2016. 48p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 11, 2016 at: http://www.nga.org/files/live/sites/NGA/files/pdf/2016/1601GovernorsGuideCriminalJustice.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.nga.org/files/live/sites/NGA/files/pdf/2016/1601GovernorsGuideCriminalJustice.pdf Shelf Number: 139592 Keywords: Criminal Justice PolicyCriminal Justice ReformCriminal Justice Systems |
Author: Elderbroom, Brian Title: Assessing the Impact of South Dakota's Sentencing Reforms: Justice Reinvestment Initiative Summary: South Dakota made significant reforms to its justice system with the 2013 enactment of the Public Safety Improvement Act. This brief summarizes findings on the preliminary impact of two of these reforms: presumptive probation and felony reclassifications of drug possession and ingestion. These policies have produced positive results, but new developments threaten that success. While prison admissions and sentence lengths for affected offenses declined, the number of convictions for eligible offenses increased. These increases challenge the state's progress toward its reform goals. This brief offers policy recommendations South Dakota should consider to build on the success of SB 70. Details: Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 2016. 15p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 18, 2016 at: http://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/alfresco/publication-pdfs/2000762-Assessing-the-Impact-of-South-Dakota%27s-Sentencing-Reforms-Justice-Reinvestment-Initiative.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/alfresco/publication-pdfs/2000762-Assessing-the-Impact-of-South-Dakota%27s-Sentencing-Reforms-Justice-Reinvestment-Initiative.pdf Shelf Number: 139658 Keywords: Criminal Justice PoliciesCriminal Justice ReformJustice ReinvestmentSentencingSentencing Reform |
Author: Center for Popular Democracy Title: Building Momentum from the Group Up: A Toolkit for Promoting Justice in Policing Summary: The killing of Eric Garner, Mike Brown, John Crawford III, and Ezell Ford over just four weeks last summer, and the subsequent failure to hold any officers involved responsible, spurred a national conversation about police violence and systemic racism. Community members, often led by tenacious young leaders, planned direct actions, die-ins, walk-outs, and acts of civil disobedience to demand accountability and recognition that black lives matter. From New York to Seattle, outraged elected officials walked out of city council meetings and state buildings with their hands up to express solidarity with, and commitment to, the movement for police and criminal justice reform. Communities across the country that have lived for too long under the weight of discriminatory policing and mass incarceration are calling for a transformation of our policing and criminal justice systems. They are making it clear that it is time for policies to first and foremost reflect the concerns and solutions of communities most affected by flawed policing practices. Communities are demanding meaningful oversight of law enforcement, accountability, an end to the criminalization of communities of color, and an investments well beyond federally-sponsored tanks and additional police. To support the efforts of community organizations and elected officials, the Center for Popular Democracy (CPD) and PolicyLink have created Building Momentum from the Ground Up: A Toolkit for Promoting Justice in Policing. The Toolkit is a direct response to organizers, elected officials, and community members from across the country seeking support and resources for campaigns aimed at transforming the policies and practices of local law enforcement. Details: New York: The Center, 2015. 58p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 21, 2016 at: http://populardemocracy.org/sites/default/files/JusticeInPolicing-webfinal_0.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://populardemocracy.org/sites/default/files/JusticeInPolicing-webfinal_0.pdf Shelf Number: 139759 Keywords: Criminal Justice ReformPolice Accountability Police Brutality Police Legitimacy Police Reform |
Author: Koczela, Steve Title: Ready for Reform? Public Opinion on Criminal Justice in Massachusetts Summary: The research - a poll of Massachusetts residents and four focus groups, conducted by the non-partisan MassINC Polling Group - shows that Bay Staters want a criminal justice system that is effective at reducing crimes through prevention and rehabilitation. To get there, they think many of the reforms adopted in other states would be effective. They think there are too many inmates in prison, and that time in prison is actually contributing to recidivism. This report was made possible through the generous support of the Shaw Foundation, The Boston Foundation, the Public Welfare Foundation and individual donors. Details: Boston: MassINC, 2014. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 25, 2016 at: http://massinc.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/CriminalJusticePollReport.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://massinc.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/CriminalJusticePollReport.pdf Shelf Number: 139830 Keywords: Criminal Justice ReformPublic Opinion |
Author: Sanger, Robert M. Title: Fourteen Years Later: The Capital Punishment System in California Summary: Fourteen years ago, the Illinois Commission on Capital Punishment issued a Report recommending 85 reforms in the criminal justice system in that state to help minimize the possibility that an innocent person would be executed. The following year, this author conducted an empirical study, later published in the Santa Clara Law Review, to determine if California's system was in need of the same reforms. The study concluded that over ninety-two percent of the same reforms were needed in California. In addition, the study showed that the California system had additional weaknesses beyond those of Illinois that also could lead to the execution of the innocent. This article is an effort, fourteen years later, to determine what has transpired in California during the last fourteen years. It will survey of the major scholarly and judicial work that has been published in the last fourteen years on the death penalty nationally and specifically with regard to California as well as on the progress, if any, to meet the unmet recommendations for the Illinois Commission. This article concludes that there has been much additional criticism of the failures of the criminal justice and death penalty systems in the country and specifically in California. Nevertheless, the empirical study demonstrates that no additional Recommendations of the Illinois Commission have been met in California in the last fourteen years. Illinois, itself, enacted significant reforms to meet at least some of the Illinois recommendations. Nevertheless, Illinois repealed its death penalty. California, despite no reforms, has not, as yet. The voters will have that option on November 8, 2016. By voting "Yes" on Proposition 62, the California death penalty would be repealed. Details: Santa Barbara, CA: Santa Barbara College of Law; Venture, CA: Ventura College of Law, 2016. 60p. Source: Internet Resource: Special Law Report: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2830677 Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2830677 Shelf Number: 147894 Keywords: Capital PunishmentCriminal Justice ReformDeath Penalty |
Author: Indianapolis Congregation Action Network Title: The People's Agenda for Ending Mass Incarceration and Mass Criminalization in Marion County Summary: Marion County has a long history of overly aggressive policing and prosecution strategies that have entangled far too many Black and Latino men and women in the criminal justice system, without making the community safer. County officials have long failed to follow best practices for preventing violence, diverting people out of the criminal justice system, and reducing the number of people behind bars, - Between 1985 and 2014 the per capita jail population in Marion County doubled, from 1.1 to 2.14 people incarcerated per 1,000 residents. - The number of women incarcerated increased by 145% between 1985 and 2014. - Extraordinarily high rates of incarceration are concentrated in a small number of zip codes with high Black and Latino populations - Blacks in Marion County are 3.1 times more likely to be in jail than Whites. - Unlike most other counties, Marion fails to transparently report basic data on the Annual Survey of Jails, including the number of inmates in county jails who have not been convicted of any crime, as well as the racial demographics of the jail population. - Many people found innocent or whose charges are ultimately dismissed, are spending long periods of time in jail in Marion County, More than 44% of people who had their charges dismissed or were found innocent spent more than 30 days behind bars, with more than 5 percent spending more than 6 months. These figures are extraordinarily high. Marion County's elected officials are responsible for the safety and wellbeing of all people in the county. But historically they have pursued policies that cycle large number of Black and Latino men and women through the criminal justice system and effectively criminalize whole communities. Mayor Hogsett's public recognition that the criminal justice system in Marion County is broken and his commitment to make major policy changes in this area, represents an important opportunity to improve life in Indianapolis for all residents. Details: Indianapolis: Indianapolis Congregation Action Network, 2016. 82p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 14, 2016 at: http://www.indycan.org/resources/document/Indycan_Peoples-Agenda-to-End-Mass-Incarcertion-in-Marion-County_Final2016.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.indycan.org/resources/document/Indycan_Peoples-Agenda-to-End-Mass-Incarcertion-in-Marion-County_Final2016.pdf Shelf Number: 147870 Keywords: Criminal Justice PolicyCriminal Justice ReformMass Incarceration |
Author: Pew Charitable Trusts Title: Missouri Policy Shortens Probation and parole Terms, Protects Public Safety. Summary: In 2012, Missouri established an "earned compliance credits" policy that allows individuals to shorten their time on probation or parole by 30 days for every full calendar month that they comply with the conditions of their sentences. Credits are available only to those who were convicted of lower-level felonies and have been under community supervision for at least two years. The Pew Charitable Trusts evaluated the policy and found that in the first three years, more than 36,000 probationers and parolees reduced their supervision terms by an average of 14 months. As a result, the state's supervised population fell 18 percent, driving down caseloads for probation and parole officers. The law had no evident negative impact on public safety: Those who earned credits were subsequently convicted of new crimes at the same rate as those discharged from supervision before the policy went into effect. Details: Philadelphia: Pew Charitable Trusts, 2016. 8p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 16, 2016 at: http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/assets/2016/08/missouri_policy_shortens_probation_and_parole_terms_protects_public_safety.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/assets/2016/08/missouri_policy_shortens_probation_and_parole_terms_protects_public_safety.pdf Shelf Number: 147920 Keywords: Criminal Justice PolicyCriminal Justice ReformEarned CreditsParoleProbation |
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: Newark, Scott Title: Justice on Trial: Inefficiencies and ineffectiveness in the Canadian criminal justice system Summary: Canada's criminal justice system is a vast and complex machine with numerous players whose actions or inactions impact each other: the courts, the police, corrections, and legal professionals. For those Canadians who are exposed to it, whether as victims or accused, delay and inefficiency can cause real hardship. For taxpayers and those who care about effective public policy and public safety, inefficient and ineffective courts create excessive costs and stand in the way of the proper administration of justice. Good justice policy can only be informed by gathering and analysing the right data, but this has rarely been undertaken in Canada. This paper examines the data on crime rates, length of trials, administration of justice offences, and other measures to get a clear picture of a system that is too often beset with delay and inefficiency. The issues could not be timelier, with the Supreme Court of Canada's July 2016 ruling in the case of R. v. Jordan establishing time frames for reasonable lengths of trial. The accused in the case waited more than 49 months from the time of his arrest to his conviction on a drug offence, which the court found was reflective of a "culture of complacency towards delay". The data show that the police-reported adult crime rate is down 25 percent and youth crime is down 47 percent between 2004 and 2014 (although there was a marked increase in violent crime in 2015). Even so, in 2013/14, the median amount of time from an individual's first court appearance to the completion of their case was 123 days (around 4 months), a slight increase from the years prior. So the system overall has been facing fewer cases but taking longer to complete them. Also of note, offences against the "administration of justice" (violating court orders or bail conditions for example) decreased by 7 percent between 2004 and 2014, much less than the 34 percent decline in the overall crime rate, suggesting that the system is dealing with a smaller core of repeat offenders. Additionally, rates of those in jail awaiting trial (or on "remand") have been exacerbated by the practice of the Courts using judicial discretion to award extra credit due to the perceived less pleasant conditions for offenders. Ironically, a result of this approach is to actually reward repeat offenders at sentencing who are properly and lawfully denied bail, and it also creates an incentive for the accused to stay in jail, adding costs to the system. This paper recommends a Criminal Code amendment that permits pre-trial credit at sentencing but expressly precludes it where bail has been denied because of the past criminal conduct of the person charged. In 1990 the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in the R. v. Askov case, ruling that unjustified delay could constitute a breach of Charter rights. Since then, some defence counsel insist on strict procedural compliance to delay proceedings in an effort to get charges dismissed. What was intended as a shield against abuse has now become a sword to avoid responsibility, and systemic delay is but one of the results. Exacerbating matters, the 1991 Stinchcombe case now mandates disclosure before a preliminary inquiry, which has led to significant delays and calls for its abolition, although this is not feasible because a preliminary inquiry is required by the Charter if the potential punishment is five years or more. But this applies to a wide range of less serious offenses, which have long maximum sentences that are never imposed, including residential break and entry, which has a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. This paper recommends that the Criminal Code should be amended to create select hybrid offences with an option for a sentence of five years less one day, to reduce significantly the number of cases requiring preliminary inquiry. In addition, part XVIII.1 of the Criminal Code regarding mandatory case resolution procedures should be reviewed by the provinces to ensure it is practically achieving the intended result of expediting case processing and resolution. Other promising measures for increasing justice system efficiency include: increasing the jurisdiction of Provincial Courts, simplifying judicial authorizations for evidence gathering and admissibility, changing Legal Aid service delivery models to increase full time salaried counsel and reduce private counsel who bill based on time spent, and more. There is no shortage of reforms to consider. Finally, this paper makes a series of recommendations intended to deal with repeat offenders and administration of justice offences: - Creation of the Criminal Code offence (s. 145) of breach of a condition of conditional release under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (CCRA); - authorize the Parole Board of Canada to order electronic monitoring of offenders on conditional release; - amend the CCRA to restrict statutory release eligibility to first time federal offenders and require earned parole for repeat federal custody offenders; and - amend the CCRA to expressly restrict parole for convicted non-citizens serving a federal sentence for the purpose of immediate removal from Canada. While the data collected for this report reveal a great deal, there is a wide range of potentially extremely useful data points that should be collected by Statcan or the relevant institutions. Because of the multiple players and processes in the Canadian criminal justice system it is extremely important to identify and track information. The Jordan ruling has articulated the importance of improving justice system efficiency and this paper offers some specific suggestions to achieve that goal. While there will no doubt be institutional resistance to this kind of analysis, the best way to design and implement effective public safety reforms is to gather the relevant information, ask the right questions, and make the appropriate choices. Canadians deserve nothing less. Details: Ottawa, ONT: Macdonald-Laurier Institute, 2016. 44p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 15, 2016 at: http://www.macdonaldlaurier.ca/files/pdf/MLI_NewarkJusticegood.pdf Year: 2016 Country: Canada URL: http://www.macdonaldlaurier.ca/files/pdf/MLI_NewarkJusticegood.pdf Shelf Number: 144879 Keywords: Crime RatesCriminal CourtsCriminal Justice AdministrationCriminal Justice ReformCriminal Justice SystemsCriminal Trials |
Author: Flaherty, Aaron Title: Responsible Prison Project: Reshaping the Texas Prison system for Greater Public Safety Summary: The "Responsible Prison Project" is comprised of five residents of the Darrington Unit corrections facility in eastern Texas, each of whom is a graduate of an in-prison seminary program. Last month, the men composed a report entitled, "Reshaping the Texas Prison System for Greater Public Safety." The proposed solutions, the authors say, are to help the Texas Department of Criminal Justice fulfill its stated mission to "provide public safety, promote positive change in offender behavior, reintegrate offenders into society, and assist victims of crime." "It has often been said that those who are closest to a problem are closest to its solution," the document begins. "That is no less true of prisoners." The document highlights a number of specific issues in the prison, from prisoner intake, to conditions and practices in the facility, to reentry programming. Each section paints a picture of current state of affairs, followed by a proposal for change. Details: s.l.: 2016. 104p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 26, 2016 at: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3149075-Responsible-Prison-Project.html#document/p2 Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3149075-Responsible-Prison-Project.html#document/p2 Shelf Number: 146021 Keywords: Correctional InstitutionsCriminal Justice ReformPrisonPrison ReformReligion |
Author: Council of State Governments Justice Center Title: Salt Lake County, Utah: A County Justice and Behavioral Health Systems Improvement Project Summary: An extensive data analysis coupled with over 50 in-person interviews with stakeholders in Salt Lake County's justice and behavioral health systems led to the identification of key recommendations improve outcomes for people involved with the county's criminal justice system, particular those with behavioral health disorders. Since the start of this project in January 2014, county leaders have taken steps to strengthen policies, programs, and practices, demonstrating their commitment to continued systems improvement and data-driven outcomes. These efforts include: n Pretrial screening process enhancements to ensure that everyone receives a Salt Lake Pretrial Risk Instrument (SLPRI) assessment once booked into jail n Funding to hire staff to implement a risk and need screen for everyone booked into jail n Information-sharing agreements are being developed to increase data sharing between county stakeholders, particularly the Sheriff's Office, Behavioral Health Services, and Criminal Justice Services n Commitment to the use of evidence-based interventions with the county probation population to address criminogenic risk and needs The county has also created three new programs that complement many of the recommendations in this report: - Community-based Intensive Supervision Program pilot (currently being implemented) - Pre-Prosecutorial Diversion pilot (currently being designed) - Co-Occurring Reentry and Empowerment (CORE) II Program for women with co-occurring disorders (scheduled to launch in September 2015) Details: Washington, DC: The Justice Center, 2015. 20p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 12, 2016 at: https://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/SaltLakeCountyReport.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: https://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/SaltLakeCountyReport.pdf Shelf Number: 146669 Keywords: Criminal Justice ReformCriminal Justice SystemsEvidence-Based ProgramsMental Health ReformTreatment Programs |
Author: Perrin, Benjamin Title: Canada's Justice Deficit: The Case for a Justice System Report Card Summary: In Sherbrooke, Quebec, in October 2015, murder and conspiracy charges against five members of that city’s chapter of the Hells Angels were stayed. The men were released from custody because of a lengthy delay in the Crown’s disclosure to the Defence. Thirty-one Hells Angels members and associates who were caught in the same police investigation similarly had drug charges against them stayed, also because of unreasonable delay. This is just one high-profile example that Canada’s justice system risks being too slow and inefficient to fulfill its responsibilities. The main role of the criminal justice system is to protect the safety, lives, and property of Canadians by promptly and thoroughly investigating crimes, holding trials, and dealing with offenders. It must do so while guaranteeing the constitutional rights of accused persons, supporting victims of crime, and do so cost effectively. Similarly, the role of the civil justice system is to resolve disputes by giving litigants timely access to the courts and offering fair and efficient trials. Unfortunately, in neither case is the system working as it was intended to do. Our review has found the justice system to be largely opaque and unaccountable. Evidence suggests that it is slow, inefficient, and failing to meet many of its core objectives. Another problem is that for those without a lawyer, Canada’s justice system is largely un-navigable. The costs of litigation for many are excessive – even prohibitive – which raises ongoing questions about access to justice. Canada is suffering from what we call a "justice deficit": a large and growing gap between the aspirations of the justice system and its actual performance. In provinces and territories that have not taken concrete steps to stem the tide, we see rising case processing times, a growing population of accused persons on remand pending trial, increasing costs across the board, and a growing number of people unable to afford a lawyer. This inefficient system is imposing economic and social costs on Canadians. In Newfoundland and Labrador, it has been reported that as much as 40 percent of judges' available sitting time was lost due to collapsed cases and, due to unproductive appearances and adjournments, as much as 72 percent of the court’s sitting time is spent on scheduling cases for hearings. In Saskatchewan, the justice deficit is particularly prevalent for First Nations and Metis Peoples. One commission notes that they face "high incarceration rates, high crime rates, conflict with police, and a growing concern about the future of Aboriginal young people." In Ontario, the justice deficit is partly caused by fiscal challenges, according to the Drummond Report. A lot of resources are being funnelled into investigating and prosecuting organized crime, gangs, and cyber-crime. At the same time, the province is dealing with a substantial increase in the number of people in custody awaiting trial (about 60 percent of the provincial prison population in 2013). Despite provincial resources going into justice services, many individuals dealing with the system have too many assets to qualify for legal aid, yet have too few assets to be able to pay for expensive legal representation: they are left to become their own lawyers or simply give up on their own cases. Taken as a whole, these circumstances are leading most Ontarians to believe that the justice system works better for the rich than the poor. Canada’s territories have perhaps the country's worst justice deficit, exacerbated by the region's rugged geography and sparse population. Problems with of substance abuse, mental health, and/ or fetal alcohol spectrum disorder abound. The court system has become overstretched, leading to undue delays in the administration of justice. Nationwide, despite a decrease in the average number of charges, the demand placed on court resources has increased over time because of the rise in the number of court appearances. A significant concern is that it takes almost as many court appearances to resolve a case without trial (4.9) as it does for those that go to trial (5.5). Along with the rise in number of court appearances comes the increased likelihood that an accused released on bail will either fail to appear or otherwise breach the terms of his or her release, thus triggering additional proceedings against them, creating a vicious cycle of recidivism. Spending on the justice system takes a major share of public resources, but based on a large number of reviews across the country, the system is not performing to a reasonable standard. To address Canada’s "justice deficit," there is an urgent need for a regular and objective assessment of the performance of the justice system – a report card on Canada’s justice system. Regular monitoring, analysis, and assessment of the performance of Canada’s judicial system would help tremendously to enhance the transparency and accountability of this central branch of government that is responsible for the protection of the rights and freedoms of all Canadians. Details: Ottawa: Macdonald-Laurier Institute, 2016. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 15, 2016 at: http://www.macdonaldlaurier.ca/files/pdf/MLI_JusticeReportCard_F_web.pdf Year: 2016 Country: Canada URL: http://www.macdonaldlaurier.ca/files/pdf/MLI_JusticeReportCard_F_web.pdf Shelf Number: 141151 Keywords: Criminal Justice Administration Criminal Justice ReformCriminal Justice Systems |
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: Harvard Law School. Criminal Justice Policy Program Title: Moving Beyond Money: A Primer on Bail Reform Summary: Bail reform presents a historic challenge – and also an opportunity. Bail is historically a tool meant to allow courts to minimize the intrusion on a defendant's liberty while helping to assure appearance at trial. It is one mechanism available to administer the pretrial process. Yet in courtrooms around the country, judges use the blunt instrument of secured money bail to ensure that certain defendants are detained prior to their trial. Money bail prevents many indigent defendants from leaving jail while their cases are pending. In many jurisdictions, this has led to an indefensible state of affairs: too many people jailed unnecessarily, with their economic status often defining pretrial outcomes. Money bail is often imposed arbitrarily and can result in unjustified inequalities. When pretrial detention depends on whether someone can afford to pay a cash bond, two otherwise similar pretrial defendants will face vastly different outcomes based merely on their wealth. These disparities can have spiraling consequences since even short periods of pretrial detention can upend a person’s employment, housing, or child custody. Being jailed pretrial can also undercut a defendant’s ability to mount an effective defense. As these outcomes accumulate in individual cases, improper use of money bail can accelerate unnecessarily high rates of incarceration and deepen disparities based on wealth and race throughout the criminal justice system. Detaining unconvicted defendants because they lack the wealth to afford a cash bond also violates the Constitution. A recent wave of advocacy has created national momentum for fundamentally rethinking how pretrial decision-making operates. Litigation across the country has resulted in the bail systems of several jurisdictions being declared unconstitutional, destabilizing well-established practices and focusing the attention of policymakers on the problems resulting from money bail. Increasing media attention to the unjust consequences of money bail has intensified scrutiny of existing practice. All of this builds on sustained attention from experts and advocacy groups who have long called for fundamental reform of cash bail.3 As policymakers across the political spectrum seek to end the era of mass incarceration,4 reforming pretrial administration has emerged as a critical way to slow down the flow of people into the criminal justice system. This primer on bail reform seeks to guide policymakers and advocates in identifying reforms and tailoring those reforms to their jurisdiction. In this introductory section, it outlines the basic legal architecture of pretrial decision-making, including constitutional principles that structure how bail may operate. Section II describes some of the critical safeguards that should be in place in jurisdictions that maintain a role for money bail. Where money bail is part of a jurisdiction’s pretrial system, it must be incorporated into a framework that seeks to minimize pretrial detention, ensures that people are not detained because they are too poor to afford a cash bond amount, allows for individualized pretrial determinations, and effectively regulates the commercial bail bond industry. Section III addresses the legal and policy considerations relevant to eliminating the use of money bail. It describes leading reform strategies, highlights competing policy considerations implicated by these strategies, and elaborates constitutional principles that should guide policy reform. It focuses on a set of reforms that many advocates have advanced as a way to move to a “riskbased” system of pretrial decision-making. In particular, it focuses on three aspects of such a system: the expanded use of pretrial services agencies and the tools those agencies employ to supervise pretrial defendants in the community; actuarial risk assessment instruments, which provide judges with a quantitative model for forecasting the risk that particular defendants will fail to appear for trial or will commit a serious crime during the pretrial period; and the limited use of preventive detention. This primer does not prescribe a one-size-fits-all package of pretrial reforms. Indeed, some of the potential reforms raise knotty legal and policy questions. Answering those questions will require jurisdictions to assess local circumstances and needs and make fundamental judgments among competing policy values in order to craft appropriate policies. While this primer does not propose a uniform model of bail reform, it can guide advocates and policymakers through the considerations that should structure a reform strategy. It aims to help translate growing momentum for bail reform into on-the ground change by providing policymakers and advocates with guidance on what alternatives are available and how they might be implemented. Details: Cambridge, MA: Harvard Law School, 2016. 40p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 28, 2016 at: http://cjpp.law.harvard.edu/assets/FINAL-Primer-on-Bail-Reform.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://cjpp.law.harvard.edu/assets/FINAL-Primer-on-Bail-Reform.pdf Shelf Number: 147310 Keywords: BailCriminal Justice ReformPretrial Detention |
Author: Tiry, Emily Title: Road Map to Pretrial Reforms: Profile Analysis of New Hampshire's Pretrial Defendant Population Summary: This report details an effort in New Hampshire to adopt evidence-based policy and practice for pretrial release decision-making. Many states have introduced changes to improve pretrial release decision-making in recent decades. As the first step toward implementing pretrial reforms in New Hampshire, the current study examines the characteristics of the pretrial defendant population, identifies data gaps and limitations, and presents a road map for developing a validated pretrial risk assessment tool. The population analysis findings suggest that the pretrial defendant population in New Hampshire is largely demographically homogenous across counties, but counties vary in their charging, bail-setting, and data collection practices. Details: Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 2016. 31p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 14, 2016 at: http://www.urban.org/research/publication/road-map-pretrial-reforms/view/full_report Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.urban.org/research/publication/road-map-pretrial-reforms/view/full_report Shelf Number: 144886 Keywords: BailCriminal Justice PolicyCriminal Justice ReformPretrial DetentionPretrial ReleaseRisk Assessment |
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: Meyer, Maureen Title: Mission Unaccomplished: Mexico's New Criminal Justice System Is Still a Work in Progress Summary: After eight years of reform, Mexico has a new criminal justice system -- at least on paper. When the Mexican Congress passed a series of constitutional reforms to Mexico's justice system in 2008, it was lauded as an important step towards making the criminal justice system more effective, efficient, and transparent and as one of Mexico's most powerful and ambitious tools to counter impunity and corruption. Given the magnitude of the reforms, the federal and state governments were given eight years to make the full transformation from a primarily inquisitorial, written-based system to an adversarial, oral-based system in which the prosecution and defense present competing evidence and arguments in open court. As of June 18, 2016, the transition to the new criminal justice system (Nuevo Sistema de Justicia Penal) is officially over. But a fully reformed system is far from being a reality in the country. The reformed system had to be implemented in Mexico's 31 states and Mexico City for the investigation and prosecution of crimes at both the federal and state levels. Although authorities asserted that by the June 18 implementation deadline, the new system was operating to some extent in all of the country for state-level crimes, they reluctantly acknowledged that only four states met all the criteria to consider the system fully operational (Coahuila, Nuevo León, Yucatán, and Chihuahua). Regarding crimes under federal jurisdiction, Mexican authorities said in an interview with WOLA that the new system is operating in 28 states; however, in states with high levels of violence and the presence of organized crime, such as Guerrero, Tamaulipas, Jalisco, and Baja California, the new system just began to operate in June 2016. Federal crimes are under the authority of the Attorney General's Office (Procuraduría General de la República, PGR) and include crimes related to drug trafficking and organized crime. Apart from a disorganized and slow implementation process, the full transition to the new system will be delayed until prosecutors and judges conclude thousands of cases opened under the inquisitorial or "old" system, which has faced backlogs for decades. In the old system, federal prosecutors usually take over seven months before presenting charges against a suspect and on average each prosecutor handles forty cases. Additionally, on June 15, 2016—just three days before the transition to the new system officially ended—the Mexican Congress finally approved a key set of amendments (miscelanea penal) that defined the operational and procedural aspects of the adversarial system, including relevant due process exceptions in organized crime cases. Implementing these amendments will also delay the complete transition to the adversarial system. Given these complications, an evaluation by the Mexican think tank CIDAC estimated that the full implementation of the new system could take 11 more years, meaning that it could be until 2027 that people prosecuted in Mexico fully benefit from the new safeguards of the reformed system. Details: Washington, DC: Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA), 2016. 11p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 19, 2016 at: https://www.wola.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Mission-Unaccomplished-Justice-Reform-Mexico_WOLA.pdf Year: 2016 Country: Mexico URL: https://www.wola.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Mission-Unaccomplished-Justice-Reform-Mexico_WOLA.pdf Shelf Number: 144888 Keywords: Criminal Justice ReformCriminal Justice Systems |
Author: Fishman, Nancy Title: Greater Oklahoma City Chamber Criminal Justice Reform Task Force: Report and recommendations Summary: For years, Oklahoma County has been grappling with an overcrowded and run-down jail. With discussions abounding about whether to replace it with a larger facility, the Greater Oklahoma City Chamber of Commerce convened a task force to examine the county’s local justice system and needs. Chaired by Clayton Bennett, chairman of the Oklahoma City Thunder, the task force included business leaders, criminal justice stakeholders, the judiciary, county and city officials, state agencies, and others. It also brought in Vera to help analyze why the jail was overcrowded, how it was used, and whether that use served the county’s public safety needs effectively. This report presents Vera’s recommendations to the Greater Oklahoma City Chamber Criminal Justice Task Force for how the county can safely reduce its jail population. While data collection practices limited some of the analysis, key findings and associated recommendations are reported. Summary Jails in the United States have experienced dramatic growth over the past 30 years. Between 1983 and 2013, annual jail admissions nearly doubled, from 6 million to 11.7 million. Oklahoma County has followed these national trends, with the county jail population increasing five-fold since 1983— from 495 to 2,581 people. The county opened a new, larger jail facility in 1991. Since then, conditions and overcrowding at the jail have reached crisis proportions. Originally designed to house 1,200 people, it now houses more than twice that many. Partnering for change With concerns about the jail mounting, and new discussions starting about whether to replace it—at significant cost to the county—the Greater Oklahoma City Chamber of Commerce convened Greater Oklahoma City Chamber Criminal Justice Task Force ("the Task Force"). The Task Force brought in the Vera Institute of Justice in February 2016 to help analyze why the jail was overcrowded, how it was used, and whether that use served the county’s public safety needs effectively. Vera presented its findings to the Task Force, and provided recommendations and guidance for how the county can safely reduce its jail population. While data collection practices limited some of the analysis, key findings and associated recommendations are reported below. Jail overview > The jail is severely overcrowded and is running at double capacity. The average daily population was 2,581 people even though the facility was originally built for 1,200. Second to municipal charges, the most common reason for bookings were non-criminal behavior—such as temporary commitment to jail for a non-criminal violation and failure to appear in court. > The most common underlying felony, misdemeanor, and municipal charges of those detained in the jail were alcohol- and drug-related. Of the 10 most common crimes, the majority were nonviolent. > Black people were over-represented—while there were almost equal numbers of black and white people in the jail, white people account for 58 percent of the county population and black people make up only 15 percent of the county population. > Oklahoma County’s rate of female incarceration was high compared to the national average for a county of its size. Twenty-seven percent of people who entered jail last year were women. Key findings and recommendations > The independent agencies and decision-makers in Oklahoma City and County who make up the local justice system do not coordinate or collaborate, and do not share an understanding of how the jail should be used. Moreover, the criminal justice agencies have not been collecting, analyzing, or sharing the data that would enable them to understand who is in the jail and why, or to make informed, data-driven decisions. Vera proposes increased governance and oversight of the local justice system to eliminate these problems and improve data collection practices. This includes the creation of a permanent, staffed policy advisory body that can spearhead and sustain reforms. > One-quarter of all jail admissions were for the lowest-level offenses: municipal and traffic violations such as public drunkenness and not having a driver’s license at the time of a traffic stop. Vera recommends the county keep as many of these people out of jail as possible, through strategies like expanding the use of citations rather than arrest and booking. Admissions on low-level charges account for much of the volume in the booking area of the jail, and contribute to overcrowding and delays. > Ability to pay bail is the chief determining factor in who stays in jail and who is released pending the resolution of their cases. Vera estimated that 80 percent of people in the Oklahoma County jail were being held pretrial. Vera recommends the county create an effective, evidence-based process to decide who stays in jail while their case proceeds and who goes home. Improving the existing processes for non-financial release for appropriate defendants is the first step, but ultimately the county system should include national best practices like the use of a validated risk assessment tool, individualized decision-making by a judge that takes into account one’s ability to pay, and a robust range of pretrial supervision options. > Almost half of people who entered the jail in 2015 were released within three days. However, for those not released within three days, the average length of stay was 41 days. In a one-day snapshot of the jail population on June 1, 2015, one-third of incarcerated people had been there for six months or longer. Vera recommends the county improve processes that move cases through the court system, to alleviate delays and systemic inefficiencies that keep people in jail longer than they need to be. > Of the almost 30,000 people who entered the county jail in 2015, many suffer from addiction, mental illness, or both. Vera recommends the county expand mental health and substance use treatment diversion options for these people, and focus resources on those who are repeatedly booked into the jail for low-level offenses. Recommendations in this area include developing preand post-booking diversion strategies and speeding and broadening access to existing drug and mental health specialty courts. > In addition to significant problems caused by cash bail, fines, fees, and costs are levied on individuals at virtually every point in the criminal justice system. Those without the ability to pay these fees often are brought back to jail for their failure to pay criminal justice debt. Vera recommends the county implement strategies that will keep people from entering an endless cycle of debt and re-incarceration, which not only harms individuals and their families but also imposes recurring costs on both the county and Oklahoma City, without improving public safety. Details: New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2016. 96p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 23, 2016 at: https://storage.googleapis.com/vera-web-assets/downloads/Publications/oklahoma-city-chamber-criminal-justice-task-force-report/legacy_downloads/OK-chamber-final-report.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://storage.googleapis.com/vera-web-assets/downloads/Publications/oklahoma-city-chamber-criminal-justice-task-force-report/legacy_downloads/OK-chamber-final-report.pdf Shelf Number: 14808 Keywords: Criminal Justice ReformCriminal Justice SystemsInmate PopulationJails |
Author: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, Audit Division Title: Audit of the Department's Use of Pretrial Diversion and Diversion-Based Court Programs as Alternatives to Incarceration Summary: The Smart on Crime initiative, announced by the Department of Justice (Department) in August 2013, highlighted five principles to reform the federal criminal justice system by, among other things, ensuring just punishments for low-level, non-violent offenders. Smart on Crime encouraged federal prosecutors in appropriate cases involving non-violent offenders to consider alternatives to incarceration such as pretrial diversion and diversion-based court programs where appropriate. Pretrial diversion and diversion-based court programs are alternatives to prosecution or incarceration that enable certain low-level and non-violent offenders to be diverted from traditional criminal justice proceedings, with the result being that the offender may receive no conviction or be sentenced to a lesser or no term of incarceration. Officials of the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys (EOUSA) told us that, while the Smart on Crime initiative contemplates greater use of diversion programs nationally, it does not mandate that each U.S. Attorney's Office (USAO) increase the use of diversion regardless of other priorities or local circumstances. Additionally, the Department's FY 2014-2018 Strategic Plan calls for the expansion of diversion programs as a way to reform and strengthen the federal criminal justice system and address prison overcrowding. The leadership of the Department has acknowledged that the level of federal prison spending is unsustainable. For fiscal year (FY) 2016, the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) budget was $7.5 billion and accounted for 26 percent of the Department's discretionary budget, figures that have risen markedly in the past 15 years. As of September 2015, the BOP operated at 26 percent over capacity and is projected to remain overcrowded through FY 2016 and beyond. Traditional pretrial diversion is initiated at the discretion of the USAOs. It generally involves a decision to defer prosecution in order to allow an offender the opportunity to successfully complete a period of supervision by the Probation or Pretrial Services offices of the U.S. Courts with the agreement that, if successful, the USAO will not prosecute the offender and any pending criminal charges will be dismissed.1 Subject to the criteria in the U.S. Attorney’s Manual, each USAO determines for itself which offenders are eligible for diversion. Diversion-based court programs, by contrast, are generally run by the U.S. Courts in partnership with the USAOs and Probation and Pretrial Services. These The Smart on Crime initiative, announced by the Department of Justice (Department) in August 2013, highlighted five principles to reform the federal criminal justice system by, among other things, ensuring just punishments for low-level, non-violent offenders. Smart on Crime encouraged federal prosecutors in appropriate cases involving non-violent offenders to consider alternatives to incarceration such as pretrial diversion and diversion-based court programs where appropriate. Pretrial diversion and diversion-based court programs are alternatives to prosecution or incarceration that enable certain low-level and non-violent offenders to be diverted from traditional criminal justice proceedings, with the result being that the offender may receive no conviction or be sentenced to a lesser or no term of incarceration. Officials of the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys (EOUSA) told us that, while the Smart on Crime initiative contemplates greater use of diversion programs nationally, it does not mandate that each U.S. Attorney's Office (USAO) increase the use of diversion regardless of other priorities or local circumstances. Additionally, the Department's FY 2014-2018 Strategic Plan calls for the expansion of diversion programs as a way to reform and strengthen the federal criminal justice system and address prison overcrowding. The leadership of the Department has acknowledged that the level of federal prison spending is unsustainable. For fiscal year (FY) 2016, the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) budget was $7.5 billion and accounted for 26 percent of the Department's discretionary budget, figures that have risen markedly in the past 15 years. As of September 2015, the BOP operated at 26 percent over capacity and is projected to remain overcrowded through FY 2016 and beyond. Traditional pretrial diversion is initiated at the discretion of the USAOs. It generally involves a decision to defer prosecution in order to allow an offender the opportunity to successfully complete a period of supervision by the Probation or Pretrial Services offices of the U.S. Courts with the agreement that, if successful, the USAO will not prosecute the offender and any pending criminal charges will be dismissed. Subject to the criteria in the U.S. Attorney's Manual, each USAO determines for itself which offenders are eligible for diversion. Diversion-based court programs, by contrast, are generally run by the U.S. Courts in partnership with the USAOs and Probation and Pretrial Services. These programs typically address criminal charges filed against low-level, non-violent offenders through supervision, drug testing, and treatment services. Diversion-based court programs can target a range of offenses, though they often focus on specific offenses such as drug crimes or particular categories of offenders. While some diversion-based court programs result in a full dismissal of charges, others may result in a conviction with a sentence of probation or little incarceration. The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) initiated this audit to evaluate the (1) design and implementation of federal pretrial diversion and diversion-based court programs, (2) variances in the usage of the programs among the USAOs, and (3) cost savings associated with successful program participants. We found that, since the announcement of the Smart on Crime initiative, the Department has taken some steps to address its historically limited use of pretrial diversion and diversion-based court programs. Between August 2013 and March 2014, EOUSA distributed informational materials designed to inform the USAOs about diversionary court programs and provided training and workshops on alternatives to incarceration. EOUSA also conducts an annual survey of the USAOs' diversion programs. We attempted to obtain from EOUSA the total number of offenders who were placed into a pretrial diversion program as well as the number of unsuccessful participants, which we believe are crucial metrics needed to evaluate the program’s effectiveness. However, we were told that neither EOUSA nor the USAOs track this information. As a result, the Department cannot fully measure the success of its pretrial diversion program. We were able to obtain from EOUSA the number of offenders who successfully completed a pretrial diversion program from FY 2012 through FY 2014 for all 94 USAOs, which was 1,520 offenders. In order to assess whether additional offenders were potentially suitable for pretrial diversion, we determined the number of federal defendants convicted of low-level, non-violent offenses based on U.S. Sentencing Commission statistics. In undertaking this analysis, we applied the same criteria used by the Department’s National Institute of Justice (NIJ) in its 1994 report identifying the universe of federal low-level, non-violent drug offenders, namely: (1) a category I criminal history, (2) zero criminal history points, (3) no weapons offense conviction, (4) no aggravated role adjustment, and (5) no prior arrest for a crime of violence or controlled substance.3 We further restricted this universe by only including offenders who fell within Zone A of the U.S. Sentencing Commission sentencing table and therefore were eligible for a probationary sentence with no conditions of confinement. We also excluded those offenders sentenced under the guideline for unlawfully entering or remaining in the United States because, as a practical matter, offenders illegally in this country are rarely considered for alternative dispositions. Applying all of these criteria, we identified 7,106 offenders during the 3-year period of our review as potentially suitable for pretrial diversion. Of this total, 1,520 offenders successfully completed a pretrial diversion program. We were unable to assess whether the remaining 5,586 potentially suitable offenders would have met the particular USAO's eligibility requirements for its pretrial diversion program or would have been deemed suitable candidates for supervision by Probation and Pretrial Services. We also found, based on the data available to us, that the use of pretrial diversion appeared to be substantially less in some USAOs than in others. Forty-four USAOs (just under one-half of all USAOs), had between zero and five successful pretrial diversion participants. With regard to diversion-based court programs, the vast majority of federal judicial districts (78 out of 94) had no program as of August 2015. Unlike for pretrial diversion, the Department had not established criteria that the USAOs must consider for determining admission into a diversion-based court program. We attempted to obtain from EOUSA the number of offenders who participated in a federal diversion-based court program in past years, but were told the information was not available. As with our analysis of potentially suitable pretrial diversion offenders, we identified those offenders potentially suitable for a diversion-based court program from an analysis of U.S. Sentencing Commission statistics using the criteria from the 1994 NIJ report, but included offenders who fell within either Zone A or Zone B of the U.S. Sentencing Commission sentencing table. Again excluding offenders sentenced for unlawfully entering or remaining in the United States, we determined that 12,468 offenders sentenced from FY 2012 through FY 2014 were potentially suitable for diversion-based court programs. However, as with traditional pretrial diversion, we were unable to assess whether these potentially suitable offenders would have met the entrance and eligibility requirements of diversion-based court programs in their individual sentencing jurisdictions. We found the Department had not evaluated the effectiveness of the USAOs' pretrial diversion programs or its efforts to pursue their use. An evaluation would assess the Department’s progress toward accomplishing the goals established in the Department’s Strategic Plan and its Smart on Crime initiative. The Department also has not evaluated the potential for pretrial diversion programs to reduce prosecution or incarceration costs, and we were unable to obtain data that would have allowed us to do so. Given this absence of data, we instead estimated the incarceration costs that the Department spent on offenders we identified as potentially suitable for pretrial diversion. We determined that of the 7,106 offenders who completed or who were potentially suitable to complete a pretrial diversion program, 4,530 received no prison sentence while 2,576 received some sentence of incarceration. Based on the amount of prison time these 2,576 offenders received, we estimated that from FY 2012 through FY 2014 the Department expended $26,313,168, or $10,215 per offender. These estimates do not take into account the additional costs to the Department to prosecute these cases or to the U.S. Courts to handle them. Nor does this amount include the costs of the pretrial diversion program itself. We believe the Department should consider how it can assess going forward whether prosecuting offenders meeting these criteria are consistent with two of the Smart on Crime initiative principles, namely that prosecutors should pursue the most serious cases that implicate clear, substantial federal interests, and that prosecutors should pursue alternatives to incarceration for low-level, non-violent crimes. For diversion-based court programs, we were able to estimate incarceration costs avoided by a sample of successful participants in three judicial districts. Based on these estimates, we found that the potential for cost savings may be substantial. In the example with the largest sample size, our analysis of court records from the Central District of Illinois identified an estimated potential cost savings from $7,721,258 to $9,665,811 for 49 judgmentally selected successful program participants, or an average of $157,577 to $197,261 per offender. We also found that the Department has not studied the effect pretrial diversion and diversion-based court programs may have on recidivism. We reviewed the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s National Crime Information Center (NCIC) records for the 39 participants who had completed the Central District of Illinois diversion-based court program between November 2002 and February 2011 and found that 9 of these individuals (23 percent) were convicted for a new offense, re-arrested, or had their supervision revoked within 2 years of their diversion-based court program graduation date.6 By comparison, the general recidivism rate for federal inmates has been estimated as high as 41 percent. We recognize that our sample size was small, and believe that a broader study by the Department of the effect of diversion-based court programs on recidivism is warranted to determine if these results are borne out on a more widespread and systemic basis. We make 3 recommendations to the Office of the Deputy Attorney General and 2 recommendations to EOUSA to strengthen the use of pretrial diversion and diversion-based court programs in order to meet the Department’s goals and ensure that alternatives to prosecution are available and utilized where appropriate. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, 2016. 60p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 26, 2017 at: https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2016/a1619.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2016/a1619.pdf Shelf Number: 145405 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCosts of Criminal JusticeCriminal Justice ReformDiversion ProgramsPretrial Diversion |
Author: Harvell, Samantha Title: Reforming Sentencing and Corrections Policy: The Experience of Justice Reinvestment Initiative States Summary: After four decades of soaring prison growth and stubbornly high recidivism rates, the United States is rethinking its heavy reliance on incarceration. This shift has been led by the states, which recognize that the fiscal and human costs of widespread imprisonment have largely outweighed the benefits. In many states, leaders are embracing a fresh correctional approach guided by data and anchored in evidence about what works to change criminal behavior. Tough-on-crime rhetoric has been increasingly eclipsed by smart-on-crime calls for a more enlightened criminal justice system that delivers better public safety at a lower cost. The Justice Reinvestment Initiative (JRI) is a response to these impulses and a strong catalyst of state reforms. The justice reinvestment model aims to use data-driven policies and practices to reduce corrections populations and reinvest subsequent savings in proven public safety strategies. JRI, a public-private partnership between the Bureau of Justice Assistance and The Pew Charitable Trusts, was formally launched in 2010 to fund, coordinate, and help state and local justice reinvestment efforts. Through JRI, 24 states have made legislative and administrative changes to their sentencing, release, and supervision policies, all in an effort to cut recidivism, control rising prison populations, and rein in costs. To evaluate their performance, state stakeholders and JRI partners have tracked system-level trends on key outcomes, monitored policy-specific data trends, and studied the impact of certain reforms. Many of the states are early in the JRI process, so attempts to decipher impacts and draw firm conclusions are somewhat premature. That said, a review of state efforts shows that prison populations in more than half the JRI states were below previously projected levels in 2015. Put another way, JRI strategies enabled 15 states to either decrease their prison population or keep it below levels predicted before reform. On the fiscal front, JRI states reported $1.1 billion in savings or averted costs through 2016, attributable to reforms, and invested nearly half that ($450 million) in crime reduction strategies. These and other outcomes described in this report are promising. Also heartening is a culture shift that is increasingly placing data and evidence at the core of modern correctional practice. Still, challenges remain. Some states have hit multiple barriers limiting their ability to pass reform legislation or fully translate reforms into practice on the ground. These obstacles must be addressed to ensure JRI's potential is not squandered. In addition, ongoing vigilance is critical to document successful strategies and sound the alarm when reforms veer off track. Details: Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 2016. 97p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 1, 2017 at: http://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/86691/reforming_sentencing_and_corrections_policy_final.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/86691/reforming_sentencing_and_corrections_policy_final.pdf Shelf Number: 140782 Keywords: Corrections Policy Criminal Justice Policy Criminal Justice ReformJustice Reinvestment Sentencing Reform |
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: 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: Louisiana Justice Reinvestment Task Force Title: Report and Recommendations Summary: Louisiana's Justice Reinvestment Task Force was created to study the state's criminal justice system and recommend strategic changes to get more public safety for each dollar spent. The inter-branch, bipartisan panel of experts found that, with the highest imprisonment rate in the United States, annual corrections spending at two-thirds of a billion dollars, and high recidivism rates, Louisiana’s taxpayers are not getting a good public safety return on investment. Examining practices in states like Texas, Georgia, Alabama, and others that have adopted data-driven policy changes, the task force now recommends that Louisiana lawmakers adopt a comprehensive set of reforms to improve the performance of its criminal justice system. The reforms would ensure consistency in sentencing, focus prison beds on those who pose a serious threat to public safety, strengthen community supervision, clear away barriers to successful reentry, and reinvest a substantial portion of the savings into evidence-backed programs and prison alternatives and services that support victims of crime. Overview of Task Force Recommendations Ensure Clarity and Consistency in Sentencing Implement a felony class system to reduce uncertainty in sentencing and release. Simplify the criminal code to create transparency for prosecutors, defense counsel, judges and victims. Increase equity by making back-end release mechanisms retroactive for those convicted of nonviolent offenses. Improve the victim registration and notification process. Focus Prison Beds on Those Who Pose a Serious Threat to Public Safety Expand alternatives to incarceration. Revise drug penalties to target higher-level drug offenses. Consolidate laws on property crimes and raise the value threshold for felony charges. Distinguish penalties for illegal possession of a weapon based on the type of underlying felony. Reduce the window of time for which certain prior crimes count toward habitual offender penalty enhancements. Establish a temporary furlough policy for inmates with serious medical needs. Change parole eligibility laws for life sentences imposed for crimes committed as juveniles. Streamline parole release for those who are compliant with case plans and institutional rules. Strengthen Community Supervision Focus community supervision on the highest-risk period by reducing maximum probation terms and establishing an earned compliance credit incentive. Improve the process for responding to violations of probation and parole conditions with swift, certain and proportional sanctions. Clear Away Barriers to Successful Reentry Eliminate certain collateral consequences of felony convictions that create barriers to reentry. Tailor criminal justice financial obligations to a person's ability to pay. Modify penalties for failure to pay criminal justice financial obligations. Suspend child support payments during incarceration. Expand incentives for inmates to participate in high-skilled workforce development and recidivism reduction programming. Expand eligibility period for Transitional Work Programs and increase take-home pay. Reinvest a Substantial Portion of the Savings Reinvest over $154 million dollars saved from lowering the prison population into research-based programs that reduce recidivism and services that support victims of crime. Impact of the Recommendations The task force's consensus recommendations would avert the projected growth in the number of prisoners in Louisiana and bend the prison population downward, for an overall reduction in the prison population of 13 percent (4,817 prison beds) by 2027. This decline in the number of prisoners would save Louisiana taxpayers $305 million over the next ten years. Savings in FY2018 alone would exceed $9 million. The recommendations would reinvest over half of the savings — $154 million — into research-based programs that reduce recidivism and services that support victims of crime. The recommendations would also reduce the community supervision population by 16 percent (11,421 people) by 2027, compared to the projected population absent reform. Assuming Division of Probation and Parole staffing levels remain constant, this drop in the community supervision population would reduce average caseload sizes from 139 to 113 cases per officer. Details: Baton Rouge: The Task Force, 2017. 76p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 23, 2017 at: http://gov.louisiana.gov/assets/docs/Issues/Criminal-Justice/Justice-Reinvestment-Task-Force-Report_2017.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://gov.louisiana.gov/assets/docs/Issues/Criminal-Justice/Justice-Reinvestment-Task-Force-Report_2017.pdf Shelf Number: 144556 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Costs of Corrections Costs of Criminal Justice Criminal Justice ReformEvidence-Based Program Justice Reinvestment Victim Services |
Author: Women in Prison Title: The Corston Report 10 Years On. How far have we come on the road to reform for women affected by the criminal justice system? Summary: The year 2017 marks a decade since the publication of the Corston report - A review of women with particular vulnerabilities in the Criminal Justice System. The 43 recommendations in the Corston report provided a roadmap for women-specific criminal justice reform. They gained cross-party support and were broadly accepted by three successive governments. Here, we aim to give an overview of what progress has been made to date in the implementation of the Corston recommendations. Considering each of the recommendations of the Corston report in isolation does not suffice to appreciate the overall vision and ethos embedded in Baroness Corston's report. Her overarching aim was that of systems change, of "a distinct, radically different, visibly-led, strategic, proportionate, holistic, woman-centred, integrated approach". It is important, therefore, that we ask ourselves to what extent there has been fundamental systems change for women affected by the criminal justice system and what major barriers still impede its implementation. We would like to highlight as a continued priority for government the following five, interlinked, key areas for systemic change: Expansion of and sustained funding for women's centres in the community as "one-stop-shops" to prevent women entering or returning to the criminal justice system (recommendations number 29, 30, 32 and 33). Liaison and diversion schemes to be extended and rolled out nationally to divert women away from custody into support (recommendations number 33 and 36). Specialist community support, including mental health support (recommendations number 36, 37, 39 and 40) and accommodation for women affected by the criminal justice system (recommendations number 16 and 21). Sentencing reform with greater use of alternatives to custody and women's community support services (recommendations number 18, 19, 20, 22, 23 and 24). Coordinated, joined-up working between all agencies involved in the lives of women affected by the criminal justice system (recommendations number 1, 7, 8, 9 and 39). In order to achieve true systems change for women affected by the criminal justice system, it is vital for policy makers to recognise that criminal justice solutions alone are not sufficient to deal with offending. Nor is the Ministry of Justice, in isolation, able to implement the changes needed to reduce (re)offending. What is required is a joined-up approach that takes into account the root causes of women's offending. This approach must encompass an understanding of the compelling opportunities for change that appropriate housing, mental health support and gender-specific women's community support services can offer. Details: London: Women in Prison, 2017. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 27, 2017 at: http://www.womeninprison.org.uk/perch/resources/corston-report-10-years-on.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.womeninprison.org.uk/perch/resources/corston-report-10-years-on.pdf Shelf Number: 144590 Keywords: Corston ReportCriminal Justice ReformFemale Offenders (U.K.)Gender-Based Programs |
Author: Independent Commission on New York City Criminal Justice and Incarceration Reform Title: A More Just New York City Summary: In her 2016 State of the City address, New York City Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito called for fundamental criminal justice reform. Titling her speech "More Justice," Mark-Viverito announced the creation of an independent commission to explore "how we can get the population of Rikers [Island] to be so small that the dream of shutting it down becomes a reality." The Speaker appointed former New York State Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman to chair the Independent Commission on New York City Criminal Justice and Incarceration Reform. Under Judge Lippman's leadership, 27 commissioners were selected, including leaders in business, philanthropy, academia, law, and social services, as well as those with personal experience being held on Rikers Island. Several organizations from the non-profit and private sectors were engaged to provide research and strategic support, including the Center for Court Innovation, Latham & Watkins LLP, Vera Institute of Justice, CUNY Institute for State and Local Governance, Forest City Ratner Companies, Global Strategy Group, and HR&A Advisors. To ensure its independence, the Commission relied on philanthropic support, taking no money from government or political entities. For more than one year, the Commission has studied the City’s criminal justice system, and Rikers Island in particular. In addition to gathering formal testimony and interviewing a wide range of experts—city officials, corrections staff, formerly incarcerated New Yorkers and their families, prosecutors, defense attorneys, clergy, service providers, advocates, and others—the Commission undertook a far-reaching community engagement process, including meetings with the faith community, design workshops, public roundtables throughout the City, and a website to solicit public input. The Commission also performed in-depth data analysis and evaluated model programs and practices from across the country and around the world. Jail in New York City The presumption of innocence is one of the foundations of the American legal system. Yet on any given day, three-quarters of the roughly 9,700 people held in New York City’s jails are awaiting the outcome of their case, nearly all of them because they cannot afford bail. These individuals have been found guilty of no crime. Research shows that incarceration begets incarceration. Spending time behind bars also begets other problems, including eviction, unemployment, and family dysfunction. These burdens fall disproportionately on communities of color. On any given day, nine out of ten people being held behind bars in New York City are either Black (55 percent) or Latino (34 percent). The vast majority of those incarcerated in New York City, more than 7,500, are housed in nine jails located on Rikers Island (the rest are held in smaller facilities around the City). Many of these facilities are falling apart. And many lack the kinds of basic services, including air conditioning and space for social services, that are essential to a modern correctional system. This creates a toxic environment for everyone—both those being held and those doing the guarding. The Commission heard multiple reports of mistreatment on Rikers Island, ranging from small, daily humiliations to occasional acts of shocking brutality. Much of this testimony confirmed the stark conclusion of the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Manhattan: there is a deep-seat- ed culture of violence on Rikers Island. Another problem is physical isolation. Rikers Island is located far from the City’s courthouses and neighborhoods. It is accessible only by a narrow bridge. The Department of Correction spends $31 million annually transporting defendants back and forth to courthouses and appointments off the Island. Visiting a loved one on Rikers can take an entire day, forcing people to miss work and make costly arrangements for child care. Rikers's inaccessibility also presents challenges for the men and women who work there. The Commission heard from corrections officers who slept in their cars between shifts rather than travel home to be with their families. Perhaps most importantly, Rikers's isolation encourages an "out-of-sight, out-of-mind" dynamic, to the detriment of all parties. Rikers Island essentially functions as an expensive penal colony. The Commission has estimated that the annual price of housing someone in a New York City jail is $247,000. The costs, both moral and financial, of this arrangement might be readily borne by New York City taxpayers if there were compelling evidence that it helped to keep the City safe. But no such evidence exists. For more than 20 years, New York City has successfully driven down both crime and incarceration, a trend which has continued under Mayor Bill de Blasio. The City has proven that more jail does not equal more public safety. Indeed, an emerging body of research suggests that jail can actually undermine public safety, encouraging criminal behavior and undermining the stability of families and communities. Details: New York: The Commission, 2017. 150p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 3, 2017 at: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/577d72ee2e69cfa9dd2b7a5e/t/58e0d7c08419c29a7b1f2da8/1491130312339/Independent+Commission+Final+Report.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/577d72ee2e69cfa9dd2b7a5e/t/58e0d7c08419c29a7b1f2da8/1491130312339/Independent+Commission+Final+Report.pdf Shelf Number: 144694 Keywords: Criminal Justice ReformJailsPrison ConditionPrison ViolenceRikers Island |
Author: Selth, Andrew Title: Police Reform in Burma (Myanmar): Aims Obstacles and Outcomes Summary: Despite all the publicity that Burma has received since the inauguration of a hybrid military-civilian parliament in 2011, and the launch of an ambitious reform program by President Thein Sein, there are some important issues which seem to have escaped serious study. It has become clear, for example, that the new government wishes not only to reinvigorate plans to expand and remodel the Myanmar Police Force (MPF), but also to give it a more distinctive civilian style and ethos, and see it take greater responsibility for some key aspects of the country's internal security. Indeed, such steps will be essential if Burma is to strengthen the rule of law and make an orderly transition to a genuine and sustainable democracy. The armed forces (Tatmadaw) will remain responsible for external defence and for counter-insurgency campaigns against armed ethnic groups. However, it seems to be envisaged that, as part of the broad democratisation process, the MPF will assume a greater role in terms of law enforcement and the maintenance of internal order. Already, there are more blue uniforms than green uniforms on the streets protecting VIPs and standing static guard outside diplomatic missions. The police can also be expected to play a larger part in quelling civil unrest, with the army only called upon to provide aid to the 'civil' power during emergencies, as occurred in Arakan (Rakhine) State in 2012 and Meiktila in 2013. To this end, the MPF is being expanded, restructured and modernised. It is already larger and more powerful than it has been since the colonial era, but the goal is a force of over 100,000 men and women, with 34 'combat' battalions. Recruitment and officer corps entry standards have been raised. At the same time, the MPF's doctrine and training programs are being changed to give greater emphasis to 'community-based policing' by unarmed officers working in close cooperation with the civil population. This approach is not completely new to Burma but, if fully and successfully adopted, it will be in stark contrast to the tough paramilitary style of policing that has characterised the force since General Ne Win's 1962 coup. As the Indonesian example has shown, however, such a transition will be neither quick nor easy. Burma's armed forces remain very powerful. There will be some areas, such as intelligence collection and internal security operations, where the interests of the MPF and Tatmadaw will overlap. The respective roles, responsibilities and associated benefits of the two institutions may be sorted out - probably in the Tatmadaw's favour - but there is likely to be friction. Also, there are cultural issues in the police force which will take a long time to resolve. Corruption and the abuse of power, for example, are deeply-rooted problems that will be difficult to eradicate. Until they are, the force's relations with the general population will remain problematical. Should the MPF be able to reinvent itself, however, it has the potential to make a major contribution to Thein Sein's reform program and the development of a more democratic, stable and humane society in Burma. Also, as an important civilian body answerable to the public through an 'elected' government, its behaviour - and treatment by the government - will be important indicators of progress in current attempts to implement the rule of law in Burma and make the security forces more accountable for their actions. Details: Brisbane: Griffith University, Griffith Asia Institute, 2013. 40p. Source: Internet Resource: Regional Outlook Paper, No. 44: Accessed April 6, 2017 at: http://www.burmalibrary.org/docs20/Selth-2013-Police_Reform-red.pdf Year: 2013 Country: Burma URL: http://www.burmalibrary.org/docs20/Selth-2013-Police_Reform-red.pdf Shelf Number: 144725 Keywords: Criminal Justice ReformPolice CorruptionPolice ReformPolicingRule of Law |
Author: Cortes, Nancy G. Title: Perspectives on Mexico's Criminal Justice System: What Do Its Operators Think? Survey of Judges, Prosecutors, and Public Defenders Summary: Justice in Mexico, a research and public policy program based at the University of San Diego, released the English version of the latest publication in the Justiciabarometro series, Justiciabarometro 2016- Perspectives on Mexico's Criminal Justice System: What do its operators think?, thanks to the generous funding from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. The 2016 Justiciabarometro provides a comparative analysis of the justice system operators' demographics and perspectives, as well as comparisons to similar data collected in 2010. Survey participants included 288 judges, 279 prosecutors, and 127 public defenders in 11 Mexican states, with a response rate of 56%, a 2.4% margin of error, and a 95% confidence interval. Details: San Diego: Justice in Mexico, Department of Political Science & International Relations, University of San Diego, 2017. 54p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 21, 2017 at: https://justiceinmexico.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/2016-Justiciabarometro_English-Version_Online.pdf Year: 2017 Country: Mexico URL: https://justiceinmexico.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/2016-Justiciabarometro_English-Version_Online.pdf Shelf Number: 145065 Keywords: Court ReformCriminal Justice ReformCriminal Justice SystemsJudgesProsecutorsPublic Defenders |
Author: MacDonald, John M. Title: Evaluating the Role of Race in Criminal Justice Adjudications in Delaware Summary: In Delaware, African Americans are over-represented throughout the criminal justice system. Data from 2012 to 2014 show that African Americans represent 22% of the state's general population, 42% of arrestees, 42% of criminal dispositions, 51% of incarceration sentences, and 57% of Delaware's incarcerated population. Previous studies have examined African Americans' over-representation in the Delaware criminal justice system by highlighting aggregate differences in the state's arrest and incarcerated population relative to its general population, or differences in incarcerated individuals relative to those arrested for common felony offenses. This study expands on these earlier efforts by conducting a more fine-grained analysis that tracks outcomes among all adults arrested for criminal offenses in Delaware between 2012 and 2014. Using detailed administrative data, the study was able to measure important information related to the case and defendant characteristics of each arrest that is processed in the Delaware state courts. This study examined criminal justice adjudications in Delaware to determine the extent to which race played a role in an arrestee's final disposition to incarceration (i.e. a SENTAC Level V sentence) and length of an incarceration sentence. The study calculated the size of disparities between Whites and African Americans arrested at each stage of criminal procedure in Delaware. The study then documented the extent to which observable case-level factors reduced disparities in incarceration sentences and sentence lengths. The study assessed what racial disparities in incarceration sentences and sentence lengths would look if White defendants had the same case-level characteristics as African American defendants. The study also estimated the evolution of African American-White disparities in incarceration as criminal histories accumulate. The study found there were significant disparities in incarceration sentences and sentence lengths for African Americans relative to Whites arrested on criminal offenses. These disparities decreased substantially to levels that were practically small after controlling for current charge and case characteristics, contextual information related to county location, detention between arrest and disposition, and criminal history. The African American-White incarceration sentence disparity was 60% before controlling for other variables. When African American defendants were compared to similarly situated White defendants the relative disparity in incarceration sentences was reduced to 11%, a raw difference of less than 1%. Similarly, the average incarceration sentence length was 40% longer for African Americans relative to Whites when no other factors were considered. When African American defendants were compared to similarly situated White defendants, the relative difference in incarceration sentence length was reduced to an 11% difference, or approximately 39 days, which is no longer statistically significant. When racial disparities are estimated that gave Whites the same characteristics as African American defendants, differences in incarceration sentencing were largely driven by current charge and case characteristics and contextual factors. African American-White differences in the probability of incarceration can be specifically attributed to differences in arrest charges, detention between arrest and final disposition, having a juvenile criminal record, county location, and the number of prior arrests. Differences in sentence length are accounted for primarily by arrest charge types and the seriousness of arrest charges. Examination of the evolution of criminal histories shows that as defendants accumulate criminal histories, their probability of incarceration increases, but racial differences do not change. An analysis of defendants first arrested in 2002-2004 and rearrested in 2012-2014, shows an elevated risk of receiving an incarceration sentence with each successive arrest. Differences between African American and White defendants in the probability of incarceration are constant across successive arrests, showing that racial disparities in the 2012-2014 period are not uniquely impacted by earlier arrests. The results of this study suggest that current charge and case characteristics from the arrest stage are the primary drivers of racial disparities in incarceration sentences and sentence length. Contextual factors related to county location and detention between arrest and court disposition are important, but less influential contributors to racial differences in incarceration sentencing. Taking into account these three sets of case-level factors suggests that discretion in criminal processing after arrests plays little role in explaining the relatively high rates of African Americans serving an incarceration sentence in Delaware in 2012-2014. The results indicate that criminal justice system reform efforts to reduce racial disparities in incarceration in Delaware will need to focus on how sentences are determined. Details: Dover: Delaware Administrative Office of the Courts, 2016. 39p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 28, 2017 at: http://courts.delaware.gov/supreme/docs/DE_DisparityReport.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://courts.delaware.gov/supreme/docs/DE_DisparityReport.pdf Shelf Number: 145175 Keywords: Arrests and Apprehensions Criminal Justice ReformRacial Discrimination Racial Disparities Sentencing Disparities |
Author: Pew Charitable Trusts Title: How States Engage in Evidence-Based Policymaking: A National Assessment Summary: Evidence-based policymaking is the systematic use of findings from program evaluations and outcome analyses ("evidence") to guide government policy and funding decisions. By focusing limited resources on public services and programs that have been shown to produce positive results, governments can expand their investments in more cost-effective options, consider reducing funding for ineffective programs, and improve the outcomes of services funded by taxpayer dollars. While the term "evidence-based policymaking" is growing in popularity in state capitols, there is limited information about the extent to which states employ the approach. This report seeks to address this gap by: 1) identifying six distinct actions that states can use to incorporate research findings into their decisions, 2) assessing the prevalence and level of these actions within four human service policy areas across 50 states and the District of Columbia, and 3) categorizing each state based on the final results. The study finds: - Five states lead the way in evidence-based policymaking. - Washington, Utah, Minnesota, Connecticut, and Oregon are leading in evidence-based policymaking by developing processes and tools that use evidence to inform policy and budget decisions across the areas examined. - 11 states show established levels of evidence-based policymaking by pursuing more actions than most states but either not as frequently or in as advanced a manner as the leading states. - 27 states and the District of Columbia demonstrate modest engagement in this work, pursuing actions less frequently and in less advanced ways. - Seven states are trailing, taking very few evidence-based policymaking actions. - Most states have taken some evidence-based policymaking actions in at least one human service policy area, but advanced application is less common. - Defining levels of evidence can allow state leaders to distinguish proven programs from those that have not been evaluated. Thirty-nine states and the District of Columbia have defined at least one level of evidence, such as "evidence-based"; 23 of the 40 have created an advanced definition that distinguishes multiple levels of rigor, such as "evidence-based" and "promising." - Inventorying state programs can help governments to manage available resources strategically. Fortynine states and the District have produced an inventory of state-funded programs; 29 of the 50 have created an advanced inventory that classifies programs by evidence of effectiveness. - Comparing program costs and benefits would allow policymakers to weigh the costs of public programs against the outcomes and economic returns they deliver. Seventeen states have conducted cost-benefit analyses; 16 of the 17 have created an advanced analysis that monetizes benefits to calculate return on investment. - Reporting outcomes and program effectiveness can help policymakers identify which investments are generating positive results and use this information to better prioritize and direct funds. Forty-one states and the District reported or required key outcome data during the fiscal year 2013-17 budget cycles; 13 of the 42 have created advanced budget materials that include findings from program evaluations. - Targeting funding to evidence-based programs, such as through a grant or contract, can help states implement and expand these proven approaches. Forty-nine states and the District of Columbia have such a funding mechanism; five of the 50 have created advanced mechanisms to dedicate at least 50 percent of program funds for a specific policy area toward these initiatives. - Requiring action through state law, which includes administrative codes, executive orders, and statutes, can help states sustain support for evidence-based policymaking. Thirty-three states and the District have developed a framework of laws to support one or more of the five advanced actions listed above in at least one policy area; 11 of the 34 states have created an advanced framework of laws to support two or more advanced actions. Details: Philadelphia: Pew Charitable Trusts, 2017. 50p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 8, 2017 at: http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/assets/2017/01/how_states_engage_in_evidence_based_policymaking.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/assets/2017/01/how_states_engage_in_evidence_based_policymaking.pdf Shelf Number: 145349 Keywords: Criminal Justice PolicyCriminal Justice ReformEvidence-Based PoliciesEvidence-Based Practices |
Author: Coghlan, Paul Title: Bail Review: Second advice to the Victorian Government Summary: My first advice was directed largely to legislative reform in accordance with the Terms of Reference. This advice deals with broader systemic issues that arise directly out of the consideration of the operation of the bail system, including Terms of Reference 4 to 7. It also addresses issues that I indicated in my first advice I would deal with. At the moment, the greatest individual difficulty in the operation of bail and remand matters in the Magistrates' Court is the failure to produce accused at court, either in person or by audio visual link. The simple cause of this situation is that there are not enough custodial places available in Victoria. One of the difficulties which arises is that prisoners are serving sentences in police cells, including in the Custody Centre at the Melbourne Magistrates' Court. The position will be eased somewhat when the new prison at Ravenhall comes into operation towards the end of 2017. However, the issue is unlikely to be completely resolved, particularly as any reforms to the Bail Act 1977 (Bail Act) arising from this Review are likely to increase the number of prisoners on remand. If prisoners are not produced, then their cases are often put off. Costs may be directly incurred and the need to return to court on multiple occasions can be inefficient and costly. If the case had been able to proceed, bail might have been granted or the matter resolved. It has been well understood for many years that much is to be gained in the criminal justice system by early resolution. As I discuss in this advice, a very large number of warrants are issued in the Magistrates' Court each year (about 60,000 in 2016). These warrants are for the arrest of accused who do not answer bail and for those who do not answer summons when the Court is unable to deal with the matter or takes the view that it is inappropriate to do so. It is likely that the predominant majority of those arrested on warrant are either re-bailed or bailed, particularly when the offending is at the lower end of seriousness and would not result in a custodial term. I recommend that a new process be developed for dealing with these less serious offences. The successful operation of this process will depend on amending the law to allow some indictable offences to be dealt with in the absence of the accused. That is not possible now because an indictable offence can only be dealt with by a magistrate in the presence of the accused and with their consent. As noted above, a large number of warrants are also issued for accused who fail to answer a summons. A reasonably high percentage of these are for indictable offences at the lower end of the range. Such offences could properly be dealt with in the absence of the accused. The changes I recommend should reduce the number of people on bail and therefore less warrants may issue as a result of failure to answer bail. Allowing some indictable offences to be dealt with in the absence of the accused should also reduce the number of warrants for cases in which a summons was issued. If less warrants are issued, then less court time and police time will be taken to deal with those warrants, and less custodial places will be required. That should have some positive effect on the numbers in police cells. I have looked at the operation of the Court Integrated Services Program (CISP). Even a moderate increase of about 200-300 extra CISP places would take significant pressure away from the remand system. I make a number of recommendations about CISP. When considering the question of out of hours remand, I discovered that because of the very large numbers involved, there are delays in dealing with cases in the Magistrates' Court in usual hours. The Court sitting hours end at 4pm, but some magistrates have been sitting until 7.30pm to try and deal with their lists. The disadvantages of this are obvious. The trial of the Night Court has been limited because of the available resources, including the lack of prosecutors or legal aid lawyers. There is a strong argument to say that a Bail & Remand Court should ordinarily sit from about 9am to 10pm, and I make a recommendation of how this could be done. The Court could deal with many bail applications during these hours (and also finalise some matters) particularly with an increased use of audio visual links. If that leaves only the period from 10pm to 9am the next morning, it would be possible to give police officers the power to remand adults for that period, and to preserve the bail justice system for children and vulnerable people (who should have immediate access to a bail justice). I received submissions from the Office of Public Prosecutions (Victoria) and the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions about appeals to the Supreme Court. There are two aspects to this. The first relates to staying a decision of magistrates or judges to grant bail, and the second relates to the test to be applied. Consultation on these issues will be required, particularly in relation to the appeal test. I make recommendations on the information which should be provided to any bail decision maker. Finally, the Bail Act does need to be rewritten. It is not a task within my Terms of Reference, but I discuss some aspects that could be reviewed or improved if a rewrite is conducted. Details: Melbourne: Victorian Government, 2017. 74p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 10, 2017 at: http://apo.org.au/files/Resource/coghlan-report-2.pdf Year: 2017 Country: Australia URL: http://apo.org.au/files/Resource/coghlan-report-2.pdf Shelf Number: 145388 Keywords: BailCriminal Justice ReformPretrial Release |
Author: Rogers, Ashley Title: The First Fifty: A Study of Summary: Assembly Bill 109 ("AB 109") and the subsequent amending legislation (collectively, "The 2011 Realignment Legislation Addressing Public Safety" or "Realignment") seismically shifted the way California structures and manages its criminal justice system. Effective October 1, 2011, AB 109 redefined more than 500 felonies and "realigned" responsibility for the incarceration and supervision of a significant population of specified adult felony offenders from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR") to county-based corrections programs. In brief, AB 109 altered both sentencing and post-prison supervision for the newly statutorily classified "non-serious, non-violent, non-sex" offenses and offenders. While the legislation is comprehensive and complex, two major groups are affected by these changes. First, offenders convicted of qualifying felonies are now incarcerated in county jails instead of in state prisons. Second - and perhaps most critically-released prisoners who would have previously been placed on state parole but now qualify as so-called "non-non-non" offenders are diverted to the supervision of county probation departments under "Post Release Community Supervision ("PRCS"). Because of its import and controversial surrounding it, the latter population-prisoners released under PRCS-is the focus of this paper. On October 1, 2011, California counties assumed responsibility for supervising approximately 60,000 offenders from 33 California prisons who qualified for PRCS. While some have remained neutral, responses to the PRCS component of AB 109 have been largely as passionate as they have been mixed. Supporters note that, because the offenders were to be released into counties anyway, PRCS simply shifts who will do the supervising. They assert that the shift is more technical than substantive: because the offenders to be supervised by PRCS were incarcerated for a relatively low-level "non-non-non" felony, probation offers should be equipped to handle the risks and needs of a population nearly identical to those they already supervise. Prior to AB 109's implementation, Governor Brown expressed confidence that counties were prepared to assume the targeted populations, adding, "It's bold, it's difficult and it will continuously change as we learn from experience. But we can't sit still and let the courts release 30,000 serious prisoners. We have to do something, and this is the most-viable plan that I've been able to put together." Critics of AB 109, however, assert with equal confidence that the plan as it relates to PRCS is far from "viable." They emphasize that under AB 109, offenders are classified only by the present committed offense, meaning that it is possible that a person with a history of violent, serious, or sex offenses-or even a lengthy criminal history-may technically qualify as a "non-non-non" offender under AB 109. The shift in supervisory responsibility from parole to probation departments becomes important. Probation officers, critics argue, may be ill-equipped to address the great risks and significant needs of a potentially a dramatically different population than that contemplated by the legislature. Indeed, several counties have asserted that they are unprepared and under-financed, and some are even bracing for a spike in crime. (See "Part II: The Counties' Responses to AB 109" for further discussion.) b. Scope of the Paper What is missing from these charged debates, however, is data. Speculation about the population is insufficient to spur any informed changes, and a lack of data could lead to rash, harmful decisions based on isolated incidents or conjecture alone. Answers to critical questions - Who are these offenders to be supervised by PRCS? What are their risks? What are their needs? - must be answered. This paper examines these questions in the context of one county - Santa Clara County. In this paper, we first provide an overview of the history and legislative rationale of AB 109, the provisions governing the scope of PRCS, and the CDCR's procedures regarding the determination screening process and data provided to the counties ("Part I: The Legislative Intent of AB 109 and Post-Release Community Supervision"). Second, we provide further context on the various responses to AB 109 as depicted in the media ("Part II: The Counties' Responses to AB 109"). Third, we answer the aforementioned questions (Who are these offenders? What are their risks? What are their needs?) by analyzing the demographics, risks, and needs of the first fifty offenders released to Santa Clara County under PRCS ("Part III: Describing the PRCS Population: The First Fifty Released in Santa Clara"). We then compare the results of the study with the legislative intent and the counties' various responses and predictions ("Part IV: Comparing the First Fifty to the Legislative Intent and Counties' Responses"). Finally, we offer an analysis of the limitations of the study ("Part V: Limitations of the Study") and offer conclusions on the implications of the findings ("Conclusion: Implications of the Study"). Details: Stanford, CA: Stanford Law School, 2012. 80p. Source: Internet Resource: Draft report: Accessed May 13, 2017 at: http://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/default/files/child-page/183091/doc/slspublic/The_First_Fifty_Rogers.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/default/files/child-page/183091/doc/slspublic/The_First_Fifty_Rogers.pdf Shelf Number: 131360 Keywords: Community CorrectionsCommunity SupervisionCriminal Justice Policy Criminal Justice Reform Prison Overcrowding Probation Public Safety Realignment Recidivism |
Author: Fair Punishment Project Title: The Promise of Sanctuary Cities and the Need for Criminal Justice Reforms in an Era of Mass Deportation Summary: While many officials champion their status as "sanctuary cities" and have taken meaningful steps to protect immigrant communities, sweeping criminal laws in these places leave many immigrants trapped within an arm's reach of deportation. President Trump intends to use local criminal justice systems to deport as many non-citizens as resources will allow. Local officials - mayors, city council members, county commissioners, prosecutors, and the police - now have a critical opportunity to thwart his plans and acknowledge the inextricable link between the deportation pipeline and the criminal justice system, and to finally reform their criminal justice systems. It is already smart policy to stop sending people to jail en masse; localities' punitive policies disproportionately send people of color, including immigrants, to languish in jail or prison. But to make good on their laudable sanctuary goals, local officials must heed the advice of criminal justice reformers, immigration advocates, and their communities, and institute sweeping change. This report is a collaboration between the Fair Punishment Project and the Immigrant Defense Project, with the support of the Immigrant Legal Resource Center. Together, we hope that our breadth of experience can help advance the conversation that has already started about the intersection between criminal justice and President Trump's immigration policies. In this report, we first explain the various ways that non-citizens are trapped in the deportation web, starting with arrest. We then offer concrete reform proposals that officials at every level of city and county government can implement. Details: Cambridge, MA: Fair Punishment Project, 2017. 35p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 17, 2017 at: https://www.ilrc.org/sites/default/files/fpp-sanctuary-cities-report-final.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://www.ilrc.org/sites/default/files/fpp-sanctuary-cities-report-final.pdf Shelf Number: 145543 Keywords: Criminal Justice ReformIllegal ImmigrantsImmigrant DeportationImmigrantsImmigrationSanctuary CitiesUndocumented Migrants |
Author: Grattet, Ryken Title: California' County Jails in the Era of Reform Summary: California's county jails have been profoundly affected by several reforms over the last decade. Most importantly, in 2011, public safety realignment shifted responsibility for large numbers of non-serious, non-violent, and non-sexual offenders from state prisons to county correctional systems. This lowered the state prison population - allowing prisons to prioritize beds for more serious offenders - but increased county jail populations. Three years later, Proposition 47 downgraded a range of drug and property offenses from potential felonies to misdemeanors. The reduced population pressure has allowed jails to prioritize beds for more serious drug and property offenders who are no longer eligible for prison. Despite the growing importance of jails, little is known about the basic characteristics of jail populations. In this report, we analyze state and local data on individuals moving through county correctional systems. Using data from 11 counties, we find that: Reforms altered the offender composition of the jail population, especially among those held on drug and property crimes. After three years under realignment, the number of drug and property offenders in jails increased by 55 percent and 40 percent, respectively. One year after the passage of Proposition 47, the number of drug and property offenders fell by 35 percent and 13 percent, respectively. Length of stay for felony drug and property offenders increased after realignment. For example, median time served for felony drug offenders released in October 2011 was 45 days, compared to 98 days for those released in October 2015. However, length of stay for people who served time for misdemeanors and felony crimes against persons has remained stable. Releases due to overcapacity rose under realignment and dropped after Proposition 47, when jail population pressure eased. The demographic composition of jails has largely remained stable. But the age distribution does show modest signs of change: the share of those ages 18-21 in jail has decreased slightly, as the share of those in their 30s has increased. As jail populations shift toward more serious drug and property offenders, counties and the state will need to consider how jail security and rehabilitative programs might be made more effective. While researchers and policymakers continue to examine the longer-term effects of realignment and Proposition 47, it is also important to keep in mind that the recent reprioritization of jail beds may have implications for crime and recidivism. Details: San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California, 2016. 12p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 20, 2017 at: http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_916RGR.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_916RGR.pdf Shelf Number: 145661 Keywords: California RealignmentCounty JailsCriminal Justice ReformJail InmatesJails |
Author: Grawert, Ames C. Title: A Federal Agenda to Reduce Mass Incarceration Summary: This report sets forth an affirmative agenda to end mass incarceration and reform our criminal justice system. Bipartisan momentum has been growing for years. We must keep it going. The United States has less than five percent of the world's population, but nearly one quarter of its prisoners. Mass incarceration contributes significantly to the American poverty rate. Conservatives, progressives, and law enforcement leaders now agree that the country must reduce its prison population, and that it can do so without jeopardizing public safety. In the last decade, 27 states have led the way, cutting crime and imprisonment together. Of course, because 87 percent of prisoners are housed in state facilities, changes to state and local law are necessary. But history proves that decisions made in Washington affect the whole criminal justice system, for better or worse. Federal funding drives state policy, and helped create our current crisis of mass incarceration. And the federal government sets the national tone, which is critical to increasing public support and national momentum for change. Without a strong national movement, the bold reforms needed at the state and local level cannot emerge. In a divisive political environment, it is tempting to assume that progress toward federal reform is impossible. But even today, the need to confront problems in the way we arrest, prosecute, and incarcerate remains a rare point of trans-partisan agreement. Republican and Democratic Congressional leaders alike acknowledge that unnecessarily long federal prison sentences continue to impede rehabilitation, driving recidivism and economic inequality. And according to a new poll from the Charles Koch Institute, 81 percent of Trump voters believe criminal justice reform is a "very important" or "somewhat important" issue. More than half know someone who is in or has been to prison. Even with broad public support, addressing the problems in our criminal justice system will not be easy. For the last eight years, the White House and Justice Department supported this important work. But Attorney General Jeff Sessions appears opposed to efforts to reduce unnecessarily harsh charging and sentencing. While President Donald Trump's own views remain unclear, key advisers such as Vice President Mike Pence, senior adviser Jared Kushner, and Gov. Chris Christie all support efforts to reduce imprisonment. To help bridge that divide, this report offers solutions that would keep crime rates low and show support for law enforcement, while reducing mass incarceration. The strongest of these policies require congressional action. Others could be implemented by a sympathetic administration. Taken together, these policies form the core of a national agenda for federal leaders to make our country safer and fairer. They also serve as models for state and local action. Legislation End the Federal Subsidization of Mass Incarceration: Federal grants help shape criminal justice policy at the state and local levels. For decades, these grants have subsidized the growth of incarceration. For example, the 1994 Crime Bill offered states $9 billion in funding to build more prisons. Today, $8.4 billion in federal criminal justice grants flow from Washington annually, largely on autopilot, encouraging more arrests, prosecution, and incarceration. To bring accountability to this flow, Congress can pass a "Reverse Mass Incarceration Act" that would dedicate $20 billion over 10 years to states that reduce both crime and incarceration. This would spur state and local action across the country. End Federal Incarceration for Lower-Level Crimes: Our criminal justice system relies heavily on prison, using it as the default punishment for most crimes. But research has shown that unnecessary incarceration is costly and ineffective at preventing recidivism and promoting rehabilitation. Early estimates show that approximately 49 percent of the federal prison population is likely incarcerated without an adequate public safety reason. Congress can pass legislation to eliminate prison terms for lower-level offenses and shorten prison terms for other crimes. In doing so, it can safely, significantly cut the prison population, saving around $28 billion over 10 years, enough to fund a Reverse Mass Incarceration Act. Institute a Police Corps Program to Modernize Law Enforcement: The country faces a national crisis in policing. Some believe that overly-zealous enforcement has reached a breaking point. Others believe police are not adequately funded or supported. All can agree that something needs to change. To advance a twenty-first century police force, Congress can allocate $40 billion over five years to recruit new officers and train them in modern policing tactics focused on crime prevention, as well as techniques to reduce unnecessary arrests, uses of force, and incarceration. Enact Sentencing Reform: While lawmakers should aspire to the bold changes to federal sentencing described above, Congress can start with a milder first step: reintroducing and passing the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act of 2015. This proposal would cautiously reduce prison sentences for some nonviolent crimes. A bipartisan group of senators, led by Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), have already committed to reintroducing the bill this session. The White House has expressed cautious support. Executive Action Redirect Federal Grants Away from Mass Incarceration: Since many of the harmful incentives in federal criminal justice grants are written into law, truly ending the federal subsidization of mass incarceration will take congressional action, as laid out above. But the Justice Department can take the first step, by changing performance measures for grants to reward states that use federal funds to reduce both crime and incarceration. Institute New Goals for Federal Prosecutors: The Justice Department should ensure that scarce federal criminal justice resources are focused on the most serious crimes, and evaluate U.S. Attorneys nationally based on their ability to decrease both crime and incarceration. Commute Sentences to Retroactively Apply the Fair Sentencing Act: In 2010, Republicans and Democrats joined together to pass legislation to reduce the disparity between crack and powder cocaine crimes as the drugs are scientifically equivalent. But more than 4,000 federal prisoners remain incarcerated under outdated drug laws. Future presidents can bring justice to these prisoners by identifying clemency petitions meeting certain criteria, fast-tracking them for review, and granting clemency. Details: New York: Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law, 2017. 30p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 20, 2017 at: Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law Shelf Number: 146308 Keywords: Criminal Justice ReformMass IncarcerationPrison ReformSentencing Reform |
Author: Great Britain. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Probation Title: The work of probation services in courts Summary: Probation services have for many years provided advice and information to courts to help judges and magistrates decide on the right sentence. Under the government's Transforming Rehabilitation programme, probation services changed. In June 2014, they were divided into a new public sector National Probation Service (NPS) and 21 new privately owned Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs). The NPS assumed responsibility for all advice and information provided to courts. Alongside Transforming Rehabilitation, the Ministry of Justice is modernising the criminal justice system. Historically, courts adjourned for three weeks or more so that pre-sentence advice could be assembled. New expectations are that most advice to court can be given on the day in cases where a defendant pleads guilty, to allow for an immediate sentence decision. In response, the NPS implemented nationwide arrangements for a speedier approach. Court Workload The inspection report sets out the volume of work undertaken by the NPS in court: 158,305 Pre-sentence reports prepared for magistrates' and Crown Courts (July 2015 to June 2016) 100% - The percentage of pre-sentence reports completed by the NPS within the timescales set by the court, including remands in custody (April to September 2016) 31,342 (29%) Community sentences enforced in court due to failure to comply, further offences or other reasons (October 2015 to September 2016) 71% Of community sentences ran their full course successfully or were finished early for good progress (October 2015 to September 2016) 48% Decline in commencements of accredited programmes (2009/2010 to 2015/2016) 44% Percentage increase in the use of rehabilitation activity requirements for community orders during the period of April-June 2015 to April-June 2016 Findings Inspectors found strong arrangements between the NPS and the courts, though working arrangements with CRCs were less well developed. Pre-sentence oral reports delivered on the day were well regarded by sentencers. Inspectors found satisfactory (or better) arrangements to obtain information regarding child protection and domestic abuse. Worryingly, accredited programmes to prevent reoffending were recommended by the NPS relatively infrequently, despite clear evidence to support their use. Short written reports were not always sufficiently thorough in their assessments of the risks an individual could pose. NPS enforcement work was of a high quality, but many sentencers expressed concern about cases where CRCs allowed an individual too many absences before breaching them and taking them back before the court. NPS hardware and software were dated, making staff less efficient, but inspectors did see the effective use of video link in some courts. Details: Manchester: HM Inspectorate of Probation, 2017. 45p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 23, 2017 at: http://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2017/06/The-work-of-probation-services-in-courts-report.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2017/06/The-work-of-probation-services-in-courts-report.pdf Shelf Number: 146351 Keywords: Community SentencesCriminal Justice ReformProbationProbationersSentencing |
Author: Muntingh, Lukas Title: Race, gender and socio-economic status in law enforcement in South Africa - are there worrying signs? Summary: In the South African context the right to equality has particular significance given the country's history of statutory unfair racial discrimination. This paper investigates, based on quantitative data, how different sub-sets in the South African population experiences law enforcement. Accepting that formal and procedural discrimination according to race was entrenched under apartheid, especially in law enforcement, the paper enquires if different population sub-sets experience different criminal justice outcomes. Despite shortcomings in the data, there is sufficient evidence to indicate that there is reason to be concerned and that further research is required. The most reliable evidence of different outcomes in respect of race and gender is the profile of the prison population. Coloured people (adults) have a much higher rate of imprisonment (1932/100 000) than any other population group. Africans (adults) are imprisoned at a rate of 1042/100 000 while Indian and White adults are imprisoned at a rate of around 160/100 000. The high imprisonment rate for the Coloured population requires further research, but there is reason to conclude that the reasons are (at least) historical in nature as a result of the use of forced prison labour in the Western and Northern Cape and the high levels of institutionalisation of Coloured boys by the previous regime after WWII. The different population groups and genders also experience pre-trial detention differently, with Coloured females standing the highest chance of being detained pre-trial and White females the lowest chance. Although arrest data is not available per population group, a number of observations are made. The majority of the 1.6 million arrests made in 2011/12 were for non-priority crimes. If women and children are excluded from the arrest data it was calculated that one out of every 13 South African adult men were arrested in 2011/12. Arrest and detention place poor people at the risk of further marginalisation and exclusion, and when arrests and detention are concentrated in particular geographical areas, the effect becomes structural and inter-generational in those areas. There is little doubt that poor African and Coloured South Africans experience law enforcement, and ultimately the risk of pre-trial detention and imprisonment, very differently from Indians and Whites. Transforming the criminal justice system would require that the performance of the police and courts be assessed to determine why the trends created during apartheid apparently still persist and what steps need to be taken at policy and practice levels to turn this around. Twenty years after the end of apartheid it is simply not acceptable to practice criminal justice without asking questions about how the poor and historically disadvantaged are affected by the system that is supposed to make society safer. Details: South Africa: Civil Society Prison Reform Initiative (CSPRI) c/o Community Law Centre, 2013. 29p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 4, 2017 at: http://acjr.org.za/resource-centre/Inequality%20paper.pdf Year: 2013 Country: South Africa URL: http://acjr.org.za/resource-centre/Inequality%20paper.pdf Shelf Number: 146702 Keywords: Criminal Justice ReformRacial Discrimination Socioeconomic Conditions and Crime Socioeconomic Status |
Author: Gonsalves, Kate Title: Disrupting Mass Incarceration at the Local Level: A Guide to Mapping Reform Summary: When considering criminal justice reform, the media and many of us are still primarily focused on the roles of the police and the federal government. Much attention has been appropriately paid to the lives lost and families torn apart in police shootings around the country as well as positions taken by President Trump and members of his administration on criminal justice reform. What is often overlooked, however, is the significant power and responsibility of "downballot" elected officials such as county commissioners, district attorneys and school board members. These actors play a direct part in the systems that contribute to over-incarceration. They may run for election unopposed and their decisions can easily escape public attention. But these decisions, be they about disciplinary policies, discretionary budget appropriations, or charging practices, have a direct, far-reaching, and often immediate impact at the local level. The daily practices of these stakeholders play their part in perpetuating racial disparities in our criminal justice system and in shaping outcomes. Simply put, meaningful criminal justice reform is unlikely to be achieved without buy-in from local level stakeholders. These decision makers, particularly sheriffs, district attorneys, and judges, hold the keys to the front door of the correctional system. County and municipal actors are responsible for many of the decisions that funnel people through that front door because people who are sentenced to state prisons are prosecuted locally. These local actors have discretion over whether to stop, search, arrest, fine, divert, or charge someone and how long a sentence should be sought. By refocusing our attention from the federal and state level to our local communities, we can see that locally-elected leaders at the city and county levels have tremendous power to drastically change systems of over-criminalization. This guide aims to expose the opportunity and responsibility that local elected leaders have to bring about criminal justice reform. It will also provide a framework to help you seek accountability from your local level officials and representatives. Details: Portland: Oregon Justice Resource Center, 2017. 33p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 5, 2017 at: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/524b5617e4b0b106ced5f067/t/594dbdd5b3db2b9cbb1e1f75/1498267106315/Disrupting+Mass+Incarceration+at+the+Local+Level+FINAL.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/524b5617e4b0b106ced5f067/t/594dbdd5b3db2b9cbb1e1f75/1498267106315/Disrupting+Mass+Incarceration+at+the+Local+Level+FINAL.pdf Shelf Number: 146740 Keywords: Criminal Justice ReformMass Incarceration Prisoners |
Author: Chemonics International Inc. Title: Changes for Justice Project: Final Report Summary: The Changes for Justice (C4J) Project was funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) under Contract No. DFD-I-00-08-00070-00, a Task Order under the Encouraging Global Anticorruption and Good Governance Efforts (ENGAGE) Indefinite Quantity Contract (IQC) awarded to Chemonics International with a start date of May 12, 2010. The C4J contract effective end date was May 11, 2014, but the project received a cost extension until May 11, 2015. The C4J Project was based on several recent USAID efforts to support the bureaucratic reform processes of the Indonesian Supreme Court and the Attorney General's Office (AGO), including the Justice Sector Reform Program (JSRP) focused on the AGO, the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC)/USAID Indonesia Control of Corruption Project (ICCP), focused on the Supreme Court, and the Indonesia Anticorruption and Commercial Court Enhancement (In-ACCE) Project, focused on five first-instance general (district) courts with jurisdiction for commercial and anticorruption cases. C4J was designed to sustain those earlier projects' reforms, compare the knowledge and experiences of each, and deepen the reforms by improving management and increasing transparency and accountability within Indonesia's judicial and prosecutorial systems. The goals of the C4J Project were divided into three parts: Sustaining and Broadening Reforms in the Supreme Court (Component 1); Sustaining and Broadening Reforms in the Attorney General's Office (Component 2); and Special Initiatives (Component 3). Key activities included institutional reforms in human resources, budget and financial management, case management, information technology, education and training programs, and public services. Technical activities included development and launching of prosecution guidelines, a new prosecutorial code of conduct, a new certification program for judges on juvenile cases, and an integrated justice sector training program on combatting threats to biodiversity. Special Initiatives of the project under Component 3 included installation of public information desks, creation of Version 1 of a new case tracking system (CTS) in three pilot district courts during the first year of the project, and a new program to combat threats to biodiversity in three pilot districts, including district courts, district prosecutors' offices, and rural communities. These pilot programs proved to be an excellent model for testing, evaluating, and rolling out reforms. Details: Washington, DC: United States Agency for International Development, 2015. 130p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 9, 2017 at: http://www.chemonics.com/OurWork/OurProjects/Documents/C4J%20Final%20Report.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Indonesia URL: http://www.chemonics.com/OurWork/OurProjects/Documents/C4J%20Final%20Report.pdf Shelf Number: 147179 Keywords: CourtsCriminal CourtsCriminal Justice ReformCriminal Justice SystemsPolitical Corruption |
Author: Piehl, Anne Morrison Title: Putting Time Limits on the Punitiveness of the Criminal Justice System Summary: Over the past 30 years, both the incarcerated population and the limitations placed on those with criminal records have dramatically expanded. The consequences of a criminal conviction can last long beyond any imposed sentence, but current efforts to reduce the punitiveness of the criminal justice system tend to focus on sentencing reform rather than consequences for those who have already served prison terms. I offer three principles for reform efforts aimed at reducing criminal justice punitiveness. First, negative consequences of prior criminal convictions should be targeted to enhance public safety. Second, processes for time-limiting information about convictions should be implemented. Finally, decreases in the severity of criminal punishment should generally be automatically and retroactively applied. Reform efforts that follow these principles can better target society's resources toward people with the highest risk of offending. Details: Washington, DC: Brookings Institute, Hamilton Project, 2016. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Policy Memo 2016-03: Accessed September 14, 2017 at: https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/es_20161021_reducing_punitiveness_piehl.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/es_20161021_reducing_punitiveness_piehl.pdf Shelf Number: 147239 Keywords: Criminal Justice PolicyCriminal Justice ReformPunishmentSentencing Reform |
Author: MacDonald, Scott Title: Justice System Change Initiative-Riverside County Jail Utilization Report Summary: The Justice System Change Initiative. This report presents information developed by a collaboration between the Riverside County Sheriff's Office and CA Fwd's Justice System Change Initiative (J-SCI). California Forward is an independent, bipartisan governance reform organization that promotes political, fiscal and organizational reform to improve the impact of public programs. J-SCI was developed to build the capacity and skills of counties to transform justice systems through data-driven policy and fiscal decisions. The scope of this initiative includes identifying more effective, evidence-based services that support individual behavior change; as well as promoting new justice system policies and practices that better align resources to promote public safety. J-SCI provides a team of subject matter experts to initiate a collaborative review of current policy and practice. This includes the collection and analysis of complex cross-system data; facilitation of the local discussion regarding data findings and opportunities for more effective practice; and, the development of local systems and capacity for ongoing analysis and policy development. The result is a sustainable, locally driven review, analysis and reform that provides local policymakers greater choice and confidence in the priorities and programs they oversee. The Purpose of the Jail Utilization Study. Incarceration represents one of the costliest elements of the criminal justice system. Nationwide, the use of incarceration to respond to crime increased more than fivefold in recent decades, with the accompanying costs of building and staffing this tremendous expansion of jail and prison capacity. Now that a bipartisan consensus is mounting to reexamine this trend, it becomes clear that most communities lack meaningful data about their jails. Who is in jail? How did they get there? How long do they stay and how often do they return? Without knowing some of these basic facts, leaders are understandably reluctant to endorse changes. Riverside county jails have faced federally imposed population caps based on significant crowding issues. Jail expansion and construction has not been sufficient to address the growth of the jail population and leaders in Riverside understand that building new jail space, alone will not be sufficient to address these problems. Understanding jail utilization is an essential starting point, and provides an initial map for system change. The J-SCI team worked in collaboration with system stakeholders in Riverside County to compile and analyze data regarding local jail utilization. After an initial kickoff in October 2014, the J-SCI executive steering committee showed interest in better understanding the county's use of one of their most limited and expensive resources. Working directly with the jail's staff, JSCI team developed a data analysis approach that engaged county experts in the jail's Headcount Management Unit (HMU) to better understand the issues and opportunities facing the jail. The resulting data was analyzed to identify key areas for further study and consideration. The observations and recommendations of this report are a starting point for further examination and discussion among all system partners. The end discussions will be policy recommendations that are founded in data and supported by a broad consensus. The Structure of this Report. To help organize the key variables of the jail population, this report characterizes the major pathways or "doors" into and out of jail. The "front door" entries are those entering jail as the result of a new crime; the "side door" are those already in the system who enter for probation violations, warrants, court commitments or factors other than arrest for a new law violation. Jail exits are the "back door," and those who recidivate are described as being in the "revolving door." The data also characterizes some of the trends inside the doors: the average daily population, jail programming, the key variable of length of stay, and the calculation of total "bed days" consumed by individuals. Finally, two areas of special concern are addressed: jail use by mentally ill offenders and the impact of Proposition 47. The report concludes with observations and recommendations for further study and policy consideration. result of such Details: Sacramento: California Forward, 2015. 50p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 15, 2017 at: http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/COMIO/Uploadfile/pdfs/2016/Sept14/JusticeSystemChangeInitiativeReport.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/COMIO/Uploadfile/pdfs/2016/Sept14/JusticeSystemChangeInitiativeReport.pdf Shelf Number: 147342 Keywords: Criminal Justice PolicyCriminal Justice ReformJail InmatesJailsProposition 47 |
Author: Aitken, Jonathan Title: What Happened to the Rehabilitation Revolution? How sentencers can revive it How it can be helped by a hung Parliament Summary: The Rehabilitation Revolution has been championed in one form or another by at least two former Home Secretaries, five past Secretaries of States for Justice and a previous Prime Minister. Yet for all the ministerial support for the basic thesis of offender rehabilitation the reality of this so-called revolution has been a disappointment. For more than a decade, informed opinion has broadly agreed that the rehabilitation of offenders needs to be at the heart of an effective criminal justice system. Embedding rehabilitation across the criminal justice system can provide the basis on which the root causes of offending can be tackled, helping to reduce the volume and severity of offending and ultimately improving lives and enabling a reduction in the size of the prison population. The paradox of this consensus is that successive governments have failed to live up to the bold policy statements which so many have promised in the area of rehabilitative criminal justice reform. There has been no shortage of fine words: from the Labour Government's White Paper A Five Year Strategy for Protecting the Public and Reducing Reoffending1 introduced in 2006 by Home Secretary Charles Clarke; through a compendium of speeches advocating offender rehabilitation from successive Conservative Justice Secretaries Kenneth Clarke (2010-12); Chris Grayling (2012-15); Michael Gove (2015-16) and Liz Truss (2016-17), to the speech given by David Cameron in February 2016. That was the first speech from a Prime Minister on prison and rehabilitative reform for some 20 years and yet there has been depressingly little in the way of tangible progress. Both the national reoffending rate and the size of the prison population have remained stubbornly high. While it is true that in recent years the custodial population has remained stable at just under 86,000, in April 2006 it was 77,000, and given recent increases it now approaches 90,000.2 This 12 percent rise has been accompanied by year-on-year falls in recorded crime. The prison estate itself has been changing - though arguably neither fast enough nor necessarily for the best. Her Majesty's 136 prisons have now fallen to 117:3 cutting costs, but at the risk of exacerbating overcrowding. The recently opened HMP Berwyn, near Wrexham in North Wales, will offer modern facilities for more than 2,100 prisoners when completed - but the location and larger size of the prison means prisoners will be more distant from their families. For many this will make them inaccessible to their families and prove detrimental to effective rehabilitation, as highlighted in Lord Farmer's recent and important review. In the prisons dangerous episodes have been getting worse. The latest statistics show that in the past year all records were broken in English and Welsh prisons by 40,161 selfharming incidents, 120 suicides, 224 other deaths in custody and 26,022 assaults of which 6,844 were on staff - 650 of them serious. So why have successive governments failed so consistently? Why has an apparent consensus stalled? It is worth recalling David Cameron's speech in 2016 on prison and criminal justice reform, with the major commitments made in that address having mostly already been trailed in the speeches of the then Justice Secretary Michael Gove and some of his predecessors: 1. Making sure that prisons are places of positivity and reform designed to maximise the chances of people going straight when they come out. 2. Addressing prisoners' illiteracy, addiction and mental health problems. 3. Revolutionising the prison education system. 4. Measuring the performance of individual prisons. 5. Giving prison governors new powers to set up therapeutic communities, drug free wings and abstinence-based treatment programmes that prisoners need. 6. Delivering Problem Solving Courts in England and Wales. 7. Helping prisoners to find work on release. 8. Delivering lower re-offending rates. Details: London: Centre for Social Justice, 2017. 38p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 16, 2017 at: http://www.centreforsocialjustice.org.uk/core/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/CSJJ5667-Rehab-Revolution-WEB.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.centreforsocialjustice.org.uk/core/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/CSJJ5667-Rehab-Revolution-WEB.pdf Shelf Number: 147360 Keywords: Correctional ProgramsCriminal Justice ReformOffender RehabilitationPrison ReformPrisonsSentencingTreatment Programs |
Author: Roodman, David Title: The impacts of incarceration on crime Summary: When it comes to locking people up, the United States is a world champion. In 1970, 196,000 people resided in American prisons, and another 161,000 in jails, which worked out to 174 inmates per 100,000 people. In 2015, 1.53 million people languished in US prisons and 728,000 in jails, or 673 per 100,000. Only North Korea, among major nations, may surpass the US in this regard. Such statistics are almost always invoked and graphed when initiating discussions of criminal justice reform. Figure 1 and Figure 2 depict them afresh with photographs taken at the Eastern State Penitentiary in Philadelphia. That fortress-like complex is now a museum, a window onto a criminal justice reform movement of some two centuries ago that sought to replace corporal punishment with solitary confinement, which was seen as humane and rehabilitative. The Open Philanthropy Project has joined a latter-day criminal justice reform movement. It too is motivated by the belief that something is wrong with the state's use of punishment to combat crime. Something is wrong, in other words, with those pictures. Higher incarceration rates and longer sentences, along with the "war on drugs," have imposed great costs on taxpayers, as well as on inmates, their families, and their communities. Yet even though the 59% per-capita rise in incarceration between 1990 and 2010 accompanied a 42% drop in FBI-tracked "index crimes," researchers agree that putting more people behind bars added modestly, at most, to the fall in crime. Yet even if rising incarceration has not been a major factor behind falling crime, it might still have been a factor - and enough so that it ought to give pause to those pushing to reverse the rise. This report works to check that possibility, by reviewing empirical research on the impacts of incarceration on crime. It asks whether decarceration should be expected to increase or decrease crime. With the Open Philanthropy Project making grants for criminal justice reform, this review of the research is an act of due diligence. Any discussion of the impacts of incarceration should specify the alternative: incarceration as opposed to what? This review focuses mainly on studies that compare incarceration to ordinary freedom or traditional supervised released (probation and parole), as distinct from alternatives such as in-patient drug treatment and restorative justice conferences. Those options may offer promise, and deserve more research and evidence reviews. Nevertheless, as a practical matter, if incarceration falls substantially in this country, ordinary and traditional supervised release will probably emerge as the main alternatives. That appears to have been the case in trend-setting California after decarceration reforms in 2011 and 2014. Thus this review remains highly relevant to likely policy choices. For manageability, this review restricts it to "high-credibility" studies: ones that exploit randomized experiments, or else "quasi-experiments" that arise incidentally from the machinations of the criminal justice system and ideally produce evidence nearly as compelling as experiments do. Further, in distilling generalizations and performing cost-benefit analysis, the review relies more heavily on the eight studies that I could replicate by accessing the underlying data and computer code. Replication and subsequent reanalysis of these eight revealed significant econometric concerns in seven and led to major reinterpretations of four. That experience led to an unexpected conclusion about the conduct of social science generally. For it raised doubts about the rest of the high-credibility studies included in this review, the ones that could not be so closely examined. It forced me to conclude that even the best studies on incarceration and crime are less reliable than they appear. And, like a car whose brakes fail once, this raises questions about the reliability of published social science generally. To put that more constructively, the scrutiny that research undergoes to appear in social science journals falls short of the optimum for policymaking. Perhaps the gap needs to be filled outside the normal academic research process, such as through reviews like this one. Details: San Francisco: Open Philanthropy Project, 2017. 142p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 27, 2017 at: http://blog.givewell.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/The-impacts-of-incarceration-on-crime-10.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://blog.givewell.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/The-impacts-of-incarceration-on-crime-10.pdf Shelf Number: 147466 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCosts of Criminal JusticeCriminal Justice ReformInmatesMass IncarcerationPrison PopulationPrisoners |
Author: Reid Howie Associates Title: Redesigning the Community Justice system: Analysis of Consultation Responses Summary: There were 112 responses to the consultation. The most common category of respondent was local authorities (22%). Also common were responses from individuals (20%). Three options were described in the consultation paper: an "enhanced Community Justice Authority (CJA) model" (Option A); a "local authority model" (Option B); and a "single service model" (Option C). The analysis found that where clear preferences could be identified, a very small number of respondents expressed a preference for Option A; a much larger number for Option B; and a small number for Option C. A number of respondents also provided alternative options. Option B was identified most frequently as more likely to meet the key characteristics of a successful community justice system in all but 3 of the 15 characteristics highlighted in the consultation paper. In these 3 cases (a strong, united voice; an overview of the system as a whole; and ability to follow national and international innovation), Option C was identified most frequently. A range of concerns with Option A were identified, including: problems with CJAs; bureaucracy, complexity and duplication; disconnection; weaknesses in performance management and accountability; resource implications; and a negative impact on practice and outcomes. Some positive aspects of Option A were also highlighted, including: strengthening the current model; and the positive role of CJAs to date. A range of positive aspects of Option B were identified. Those highlighted most frequently related to: links to Community Planning Partnerships (CPPs); partnership working; meeting local needs; aspects of service effectiveness; and leadership, direction and accountability. The most common concerns expressed about Option B related to the impact of the option on the overall pattern of provision and consistency of service delivery. Details: Edinburgh: Scottish Government Social Research, 2013. 99p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 28, 2017 at: http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0043/00434958.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0043/00434958.pdf Shelf Number: 131392 Keywords: Community Justice SystemCriminal Justice Reform |
Author: Forman, Benjamin Title: The Geography of Incarceration in a Gateway City: The Cost and Consequences of High Incarceration Rate Neighborhoods in Worcester Summary: This paper examines incarceration in Worcester to better understand the geography of incarceration in a Gateway City context. For an older industrial city, Worcester is especially healthy. The city stands apart from its peers on measures of social and economic well-being, and its neighborhoods are relatively free from the scourge of urban street violence. Despite these best-case conditions, as the data presented below demonstrate, several Worcester neighborhoods are marked by high rates of incarceration. Policymakers in Massachusetts are currently engaged in an unprecedented effort to find strategies to operate our criminal justice system in a more cost-effective manner, and redirect the savings toward models that decrease crime. Using Worcester as an example, the pages that follow explore the cost and consequences of high incarceration rates on Gateway City neighborhoods, giving leaders vital information to consider, as efforts to craft smart, comprehensive criminal justice reform legislation gain momentum on Beacon Hill. Details: Boston: Massachusetts Criminal Justice Reform Coalition, 2017. 22p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 16, 2017 at: https://massinc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/geography.crime_.report.8.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://massinc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/geography.crime_.report.8.pdf Shelf Number: 147684 Keywords: Criminal Justice Policy Criminal Justice ReformNeighborhoods and Crime |
Author: Stanford Justice Advocacy Project Title: Confronting California's continuing prison crisis: The prevalence and severity of mental illness among California prisoners on the rise Summary: The long-running problem of mental illness in California's justice system appears to be getting worse, according to data recently provided by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) and other data presented for the first time in this report. Recent reforms to California's criminal laws have greatly improved the state's justice system: prison and jail crowding have reduced dramatically, sentences are fairer and more proportionate, recidivism rates among those freed early under the reforms are far lower than most released prisoners, and capacity to focus on dangerous crime has increased. Furthermore, since these reforms were enacted, overall crime rates in California have remained on a long-term downward trend. Despite these significant legislative and administrative reforms initiated in part to improve treatment and conditions for people with mental illness in California's justice system, the prevalence and severity of mental illness among California state prisoners are dramatically on the rise. Over 30 percent of California prisoners currently receive treatment for a "serious mental disorder," an increase of 150 percent since 2000. CDCR estimates that the population of prisoners with mental illness will continue to climb, increasing the need for additional psychiatric services in the years to come. Furthermore, there is evidence that CDCR's projections underestimate the current number of prisoners with mental illness. In addition, the severity of psychiatric symptoms of state prisoners is on the rise. The number of prisoners diagnosed with the most serious disorders and transferred to enhanced psychiatric services has increased dramatically over the past 5 years. There is also evidence that criminal defendants in California with mental illness receive longer prison sentences than defendants without mental illness. This disparity exists across all crime categories, from murder to drug possession. Prisoners sentenced to life terms are also more likely to be mentally ill. Finally, despite the substantial criminal justice reforms responsible for the dramatic reduction of California's prison population over the last decade, the population of inmates with mental illness has not decreased.8 Ironically, these reforms were largely initiated on behalf of inmates with mental illness suffering under unconstitutional treatment conditions. This report contains new and updated data about the growing problem of mental illness in California's justice system and describes how prisoners with mental illness do not benefit from some of the most important criminal justice reforms enacted in the state in recent years. Details: Stanford, California: Stanford Justice Advocacy Project, 2017. 10p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 8, 2017 at: https://www-cdn.law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Stanford-Report-FINAL.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://www-cdn.law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Stanford-Report-FINAL.pdf Shelf Number: 148075 Keywords: Criminal Justice ReformMental Health ServicesMentally Ill InmatesMentally Ill OffendersMentally Ill Prisoners |
Author: Luna, Erik, ed. Title: Reforming Criminal Justice Volume 1: Introduction and Criminalization Summary: Reforming Criminal Justice is a four-volume report authored and reviewed by leading scholars in criminal law and other disciplines. The contributions to this report describe the need for reform in particular areas of American criminal justice and suggest policy recommendations to achieve such change. The ultimate goal is to fortify reform efforts currently afoot in the United States with the research and analysis of respected academics. In this way, the report hopes to increase the likelihood of success when worthwhile reforms are debated, put to a vote or otherwise considered for action, and implemented in the criminal justice system. The following offers a brief overview of the project. Volume 1 Table of Contents - Criminal Justice Reform: An Introduction Clint Bolick, Justice, Supreme Court of Arizona, and Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution - The Changing Politics of Crime and the Future of Mass Incarceration David Cole, Hon. George J. Mitchell Professor in Law and Public Policy, Georgetown University, and National Legal Director for the American Civil Liberties Union - Overcriminalization Douglas Husak, Distinguished Professor of Philosophy, Rutgers University - Overfederalization Stephen F. Smith, Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame - Misdemeanors Alexandra Natapoff, Professor of Law, University of California, Irvine - Drug Prohibition and Violence Jeffrey A. Miron, Senior Lecturer and Director of Undergraduate Studies in the Department of Economics, Harvard University, and Director of Economic Studies, Cato Institute - Marijuana Legalization Alex Kreit, Professor of Law and Co-Director of the Center for Criminal Law and Policy, Thomas Jefferson School of Law - Sexual Offenses Robert Weisberg, Edwin E. Huddleson, Jr. Professor of Law and Faculty Director of the Stanford Criminal Justice Center, Stanford University - Firearms and Violence Franklin E. Zimring, William G. Simon Professor of Law and Director of the Criminal Justice Research Program, University of California, Berkeley - Gangs Scott H. Decker, Foundation Professor of Criminology & Criminal Justice and Director of the Center for Public Criminology, Arizona State University - Criminalizing Immigration Jennifer M. Chacon, Professor of Law, University of California, Irvine - Extraterritoral Jurisdiction Julie Rose O'Sullivan, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center - Mental Disorder and Criminal Justice Stephen J. Morse, Ferdinand Wakeman Hubbell Professor of Law, Professor of Psychology and Law in Psychiatry, and Associate Director of the Center for Neuroscience and Society, University of Pennsylvania - Juvenile Justice Barry C. Feld, Centennial Professor of Law Emeritus, University of Minnesota Details: Phoenix, AZ: Arizona State University, 2017. 428p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 18, 2017 at: http://academyforjustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Reforming-Criminal-Justice_Vol_1.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://academyforjustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Reforming-Criminal-Justice_Vol_1.pdf Shelf Number: 148246 Keywords: Criminal Justice PolicyCriminal Justice ReformCriminal Justice System |
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: Grawert, Ames C. Title: Criminal Justice One Year Into the Trump Administration Summary: In his Inaugural Address on Jan. 20, 2017, President Donald Trump pledged to stem the tide of what he called "American carnage."1 The administration carried out that plan with sweeping changes to long-standing Justice Department policies, covering everything from marijuana to private prisons. Some of those changes were explored in a previous Brennan Center report, Criminal Justice in President Trump's First 100 Days.2 Now, at the end of the president's first year in office, this analysis examines the administration's actions to date and their consequences. It first documents significant changes in federal criminal justice policy implemented over the last year. It then describes what impact can be seen to date. Finally, it indicates what to expect moving forward. All told, President Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions have already left a significant mark on the Justice Department. They have used short memoranda or subtle changes in enforcement strategy to quietly undo much of President Barack Obama's criminal justice reform legacy. In its place, they have built a more draconian vision of law enforcement, centered around immigration. While many of these changes occurred without drawing public scrutiny, consequences have already begun to materialize in areas such as immigration enforcement. Over the next three years, these shifts could cause the federal prison population to begin increasing again, reversing what small progress had been made to reduce federal over-incarceration. Further, the administration's words and deeds on criminal justice could disrupt bipartisan efforts to build a fairer, more effective justice system at the state and local levels. Details: New York: Brennan Center for Justice, 2018. 17p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 5, 2018 at: https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/publications/Criminal_Justice_One_Year_Into_the_Trump_Administration_0.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/publications/Criminal_Justice_One_Year_Into_the_Trump_Administration_0.pdf Shelf Number: 149696 Keywords: Criminal Justice PolicyCriminal Justice Reform |
Author: Eisen, Lauren-Brooke Title: Criminal Justice: An Election Agenda for Candidates, Activists, and Legislators Summary: This report sets forth an affirmative agenda to end mass incarceration in America. The task requires efforts from both federal and state lawmakers. Today, criminal justice reform stands on a knife's edge. After decades of rising incarceration and ever more obvious consequences, a powerful bipartisan movement has emerged. It recognizes that harsh prison policies are not needed to keep our country safe. Now that extraordinary bipartisan consensus is challenged by the Trump administration, through inflammatory rhetoric and unwise action. Only an affirmative move to continue reform can keep the progress going. The United States has less than five percent of the world's population, but nearly one quarter of its prisoners. About 2.1 million people are incarcerated in this country, the vast majority in state and local facilities. Mass incarceration contributes significantly to the poverty rate. It is inequitable, placing a disproportionate burden on communities of color. It is wildly expensive, in some cases costing more to keep an 18-year-old in prison than it would to send him to Harvard. Our criminal justice system costs $270 billion annually, yet does not produce commensurate public safety benefits. Research conclusively shows that high levels of imprisonment are simply not necessary to protect communities. About four out of every ten prisoners are incarcerated with little public safety justification. In fact, 27 states have reduced both imprisonment and crime in the last decade. A group of over 200 police chiefs, prosecutors, and sheriffs has formed, whose founding principles state: "We do not believe that public safety is served by a return to tactics that are overly punitive without strong purpose . . . we cannot incarcerate our way to safety." In cities, states, and at the federal level, Republicans and Democrats have joined this effort. They recognize that today's public safety challenges demand new and innovative politics rooted in science and based on what works. The opioid epidemic, mass shootings, and cyber-crime all require modern responses that do not repeat mistakes of the past. Crime is no longer a wedge issue, and voters desire reform. A 2017 poll from the Charles Koch Institute reveals that 81 percent of Trump voters consider criminal justice reform important. Another, from Republican pollster Robert Blizzard, finds that 87 percent of Americans agree that nonviolent offenders should be sanctioned with alternatives to incarceration. And according to a 2017 ACLU poll, 71 percent of Americans support reducing the prison population - including 50 percent of Trump voters. But the politician with the loudest megaphone has chosen a different, destructive approach. Donald Trump, and his Attorney General Jeff Sessions, falsely insist there is a national crime wave, portraying a country besieged by crime, drugs, and terrorism - "American carnage," as he called it in his inaugural address. But, crime in the United States remains at historic lows. While violent crime and murder did increase in 2015 and 2016, new data show crime and violence declining again in 2017. The national murder rate is approximately half of what it was at its 1991 peak. Those who seek to use fear of crime for electoral gain are not just wrong on the statistics; they are also wrong on the politics. Now, to continue the progress that has been made, it is up to candidates running for office to boldly advance policy solutions backed by facts, not fear. This report offers reforms that would keep crime low, while significantly reducing incarceration. Most solutions can be enacted through federal or state legislation. While most of the prison population is under control of state officials, federal policy matters too. The federal government's prison population is larger than that of any state. Further, Washington defines the national political conversation on criminal justice reform. And although states vary somewhat in their approach to criminal justice, they struggle with similar challenges. The state solutions in this report are broadly written as "models" that can be adapted. Steps to take include: Eliminating Financial Incentives for Incarceration Enacting Sentencing Reform Passing Sensible Marijuana Reform Improving Law Enforcement Responding to the Opioid Crisis Reducing Female Incarceration Details: New York: Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law, 2018. 60p. Source: Internet Resource: Solutions 2018: Accessed April 5, 2018 at: https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/publications/Criminal_Justice_An_Election_Agenda_for_Candidates_Activists_and_Legislators%20.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/publications/Criminal_Justice_An_Election_Agenda_for_Candidates_Activists_and_Legislators%20.pdf Shelf Number: 149699 Keywords: Criminal Justice PolicyCriminal Justice ReformMass IncarcerationOpioid CrisisSentencing Reform |
Author: Eagly, Ingrid Title: Lexipol: The Privatization of Police Policymaking Summary: This Article is the first to identify and analyze the growing practice of privatized police policymaking. In it, we present our findings from public records requests that reveal the central role played by a limited liability corporation - Lexipol LLC - in the creation of internal regulations for law enforcement agencies across the United States. Lexipol was founded in 2003 to provide standardized policies and training for law enforcement. Today, more than 3,000 public safety agencies in thirty-five states contract with Lexipol to author the policies that guide their officers on crucial topics such as when to use deadly force, how to avoid engaging in racial profiling, and whether to enforce federal immigration laws. In California, where Lexipol was founded, as many as 95% of law enforcement agencies now rely on Lexipol's policy manual. Lexipol offers a valuable service, particularly for smaller law enforcement agencies that are without the resources to draft and update policies on their own. However, reliance on this private entity to establish standards for public policing also raises several concerns arising from its for-profit business model, focus on liability risk management, and lack of transparency or democratic participation. We therefore offer several recommendations that address these concerns while also recognizing and building upon Lexipol's successes. Details: Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles, 2018. 87p. Source: Internet Resource: UCLA School of Law, Public Law Research Paper No. 18-09; Criminal Justice, Borders and Citizenship Research Paper No. 3142035: Accessed May 8, 2018 at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3142035 Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3142035 Shelf Number: 150099 Keywords: Community PolicingCriminal Justice ReformImmigration PolicingPolice TrainingPolicingPrivatization |
Author: Bird, Mia Title: Realignment and Recidivism in California Summary: California has experienced significant changes in its criminal justice landscape since the 2011 implementation of public safety realignment-which shifted the management of lower-level offenders from the state prison and parole system to county jail and probation systems. The prison population has dropped dramatically, and though jail populations rose, overall incarceration levels have declined. One goal of realignment was to reduce California's persistently high recidivism rates. Using data from 12 counties representative of the state, this report examines rearrest and reconviction rates after release from custody for two groups of offenders affected by realignment: those on post-release community supervision (PRCS) and those sentenced under section 1170(h) of the California Penal Code. Overall, we find realignment had modest effects on recidivism, with considerable variation across offender groups and counties. Specifically: Individuals on PRCS have somewhat higher recidivism than similar individuals released before realignment. PRCS offenders are released from state prison after serving time for certain lower-level felonies and receive supervision by county probation agencies. In the two years following realignment, we find that 71.9 percent of these individuals were rearrested (2.6 percentage points higher than before realignment), and 56.4 percent were reconvicted (2.4 points higher). Realignment did not have a consistent effect on recidivism for individuals sentenced under 1170(h). These offenders are sentenced for a specific set of lower-level felonies and, under realignment, serve time in county jail rather than state prison. In the two years following realignment, we find that 74.5 percent of these individuals were rearrested (2.3 percentage points higher than their pre-realignment counterparts) and 54.9 percent were reconvicted (2.0 points lower). Offenders who received straight sentences have the same or lower rates of recidivism. Realignment created two types of 1170(h) offenders: those who receive both jail time and probation supervision (known as a "split" sentence) and those who receive jail time with no supervision (known as a "straight" sentence). The group serving "straight" sentences had the best outcomes: the same two-year rearrest rates and lower two-year reconviction rates (by 3.0 percentage points). Those who received "split" sentences had higher rates of rearrest (by 7.8 points) but lower rates of reconviction (by 3.4 points) compared with similar individuals before realignment. The effects of realignment on recidivism vary substantially across counties. For example, overall we find reconviction rates were higher for those on PRCS after realignment, but in fact nine counties saw lower rates of reconviction-indicating that the overall finding is driven by a small number of counties. County variation in recidivism outcomes is likely linked to demographic, economic, and geographic differences, as well as the range of county capacity and experiences providing evidence-based interventions before realignment. However, some of this variation may be due to different intervention strategies, creating the potential for counties to learn from each other over time. Notably, offenders who received a jail term and no supervision stand out as having better outcomes on all measures of recidivism, when compared with similar individuals released before realignment. This finding suggests we need to carefully consider the complex relationship between supervision and recidivism. While it could simply be easier to detect reoffending when an individual is under supervision, the requirements of supervision could also create more opportunities for non-criminal violations. With a longer follow-up window and more recent data, the relationship between supervision and recidivism, as well as the overall effects of realignment, may change as counties build capacity and experience with evidence-based practices. Policymakers, practitioners, and researchers must continue to work together to develop the data and expertise necessary to understand the impacts of California's corrections reforms and to identify effective strategies to reduce recidivism. Details: San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California, 2017. 34p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 12, 2018 at: http://www.ppic.org/publication/realignment-and-recidivism-in-california/ Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://www.ppic.org/publication/realignment-and-recidivism-in-california/ Shelf Number: 150170 Keywords: Criminal Justice ReformPrison reformPrisonsPublic Safety RealignmentRecidivism |
Author: Bird, Mia Title: Evaluating the Effects of Realignment Practices on Recidivism Outcomes Summary: In 2011, California enacted Public Safety Realignment, a historic policy reform that resulted in dramatic reductions to the state prison population. Realignment shifted responsibility and authority over lower-level felons from the state prison and parole system to county jail and probation systems. From our current vantage point, it is clear that the changes brought by realignment paved the way for a series of subsequent reforms. 1 Together, these reforms reflect two key features of the state's changing approach to criminal justice policy. First, the state has altered system incentives and rules to reduce its overall reliance on incarceration. Second, the state has increased the emphasis on the use of evidence-based interventions to reduce crime and criminal justice involvement. Despite the emphasis on data-driven policy and practice, dedicated resources to support data collection, evaluation, or research have not been provided. In the case of realignment, this is particularly problematic given that data capturing individuals moving through state and county criminal justice systems are kept in separate systems. Evaluating the effects of realignment or identifying effective recidivism-reduction interventions would not be possible without finding a way to collect and integrate data from these disparate systems. In 2013, PPIC initiated the Multi-County Study (MCS), a data collection effort aimed at producing an integrated dataset to address these gaps. NIJ provided support for our first phase of analytic work drawing on the MCS dataset. The planned work would focus on the following research questions: (1) What was the impact of realignment on recidivism statewide? (2) How did the effects of realignment vary across counties? (3) How have service and sanction interventions affected recidivism outcomes? Details: San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California, 2018. 13p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 31, 2018 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/251627.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/251627.pdf Shelf Number: 150412 Keywords: Criminal Justice ReformPrison reformPrisonsPublic Safety RealignmentRecidivism |
Author: Bird, Mia Title: The Impact of Proposition 47 on Crime and Recidivism Summary: Passed by voters in November 2014, Proposition 47 brought broad and significant changes to California's criminal justice system. Undertaken in the wake of public safety realignment in 2011, Proposition 47 reduced the penalties for certain lower-level drug and property offenses and represented a further step in prioritizing prison and jail space for higher-level offenders. The policy has sparked continued debate around two key questions: Did Proposition 47 increase crime? We find no evidence that violent crime increased as a result of Proposition 47. While California saw an uptick in the violent crime rate from 2014 to 2016, this trend appears to have preceded the reform and is due in large part to unrelated changes in crime reporting after 2014. We find some evidence that Proposition 47 affected property crime. Statewide, property crime increased after 2014. While the reform had no apparent impact on burglaries or auto thefts, it may have contributed to a rise in larceny thefts, which increased by roughly 9 percent (about 135 more thefts per 100,000 residents) compared to other states. Crime data show that thefts from motor vehicles account for about three-quarters of this increase. Despite recent upticks, California's crime rates remain comparable to the low rates observed in the 1960s-even with the dramatic reductions in incarceration ushered in by recent criminal justice reforms. Did Proposition 47 reduce recidivism? Recidivism rates decreased due to Proposition 47. Using data from 12 California counties, we find that among individuals released after serving sentences for Proposition 47 offenses, the two-year rearrest rate was 70.8 percent, 1.8 percentage points lower than for similar individuals released before the reform. The two-year reconviction rate for individuals released under Proposition 47 was 46.0 percent, 3.1 percentage points lower than their pre-reform counterparts. These overall declines were driven by substantial reductions in recidivism rates for Proposition 47 offenses. Rearrest and reconviction rates for these offenses were 10.3 and 11.3 percentage points lower, respectively, than for similar individuals before the reform. Our findings suggest that the measure reduced both arrests by law enforcement and convictions resulting from prosecutions by district attorneys. However, we are not able to separate the reform's effects on reoffending from its effects on the practices of criminal justice agencies. Proposition 47 redirected the savings from reduced incarceration to treatment interventions, with the goal of reducing recidivism. While it is too early to know if this shift in funding has affected recidivism rates, in the coming years the state and counties will be better able to assess the impact of increased interventions and to identify promising strategies. As California continues to pursue criminal justice reforms, understanding the effects of Proposition 47 and local treatment programs will be essential to achieving further reductions in recidivism and maintaining public safety. Details: San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California, 2018. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 13, 2018 at: http://www.ppic.org/wp-content/uploads/r_0618mbr.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: http://www.ppic.org/wp-content/uploads/r_0618mbr.pdf Shelf Number: 150527 Keywords: Crime RatesCriminal Justice ReformCriminal Justice SystemsProposition 47Public Safety RealignmentRecidivismTreatment Programs |
Author: Houses of the Oireachtas. Joint Committee on Justice and Equality Title: Report on Penal Reform and Sentencing Summary: The issue of penal and criminal law reform has received considerable attention in recent years, and a number of significant reports have been published on it, as outlined in Table 1, below. The Joint Committee on Justice and Equality, in revisiting the subject in 2017, sought to combine this evidence with the insights and perspectives of a number of stakeholder groups in order to identify specific legal or policy actions which can be taken to reduce the number of people who receive custodial sentences, improve conditions in prison, and improve support for prisoners post-release. In March 2013, the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality produced a Report on Penal Reform, which made five key recommendations: 1) Reduce prison numbers The report recommended the adoption of a "decarceration strategy" - a declared intention by the Government to reduce the prison population by one-third over a ten-year period. 2)Commute prison sentences of less than six months That all sentences for under six months' imprisonment imposed in respect of non-violent offences should be commuted and replaced with community service orders. 3) Increase standard remission from one quarter to one third and introduce an incentivised remission scheme of up to one half That standard remission should be increased from one quarter to one third of all eligible sentences of over one month in length. An enhanced remission scheme of up to one half should be made available on an incentivised basis for certain categories of prisoner, particularly those serving a prison sentence for the first time. 4)Introduce legislation providing for structured release, temporary release, parole and community return That a single piece of legislation should be introduced that would set out the basis for a structured release system, to include proposed changes to remission set out above, and to temporary release and parole; and provide a statutory framework for an expanded community return programme. 5)Address prison conditions and overcrowding, and increase the use of open prisons That structured release and incentivised remission programmes could not operate effectively within prisons unless prison conditions are improved and overcrowding tackled. In addition, actions should be taken to improve conditions within prisons generally. The proportion of open prisons should also be increased. Whilst some reforms have been introduced and progress made in the years since the 2013 report, the current Joint Committee on Justice and Equality was of the view that much more remained to be done, and thus it made penal reform and sentencing a key priority issue in its 2017 Work Programme. Details: Dublin: Houses of the Oireachtas, 2018. 151p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 10, 2018 at: https://data.oireachtas.ie/ie/oireachtas/committee/dail/32/joint_committee_on_justice_and_equality/reports/2018/2018-05-10_report-on-penal-reform-and-sentencing_en.pdf Year: 2018 Country: Ireland URL: https://data.oireachtas.ie/ie/oireachtas/committee/dail/32/joint_committee_on_justice_and_equality/reports/2018/2018-05-10_report-on-penal-reform-and-sentencing_en.pdf Shelf Number: 150806 Keywords: Criminal Justice ReformPrison Reform Prisons Sentencing |
Author: Crest Advisory Title: Rewiring Justice: Transforming punishment and rehabilitation for the 21st century Summary: The criminal justice system is in crisis. Despite a plethora of reforms, the system is not built to deal with the changing face of crime and the markedly different challenges it now faces compared to a decade ago. Crest Advisory's Rewiring Justice report examines and sets out how the criminal justice system could be redesigned to deliver better outcomes - keeping people safe and rehabilitating offenders, whilst securing public confidence. The report maps the current sentencing / diversionary landscape, and explores the principles needed to drive reform. In addition, we identify good practice and innovation, while exploring how other systems have transformed themselves to meet contemporary challenges. We have also looked at justice from the other end of the telescope; exploring the perspectives of offenders themselves. Successive governments have failed in their reforms at every stage of the 'offender journey' through the system, meaning: Interventions to prevent offending / reoffending reach people too late; Punishment within the community is virtually non-existent, so prison is over-utilised; Prisons are overcrowded and thus incapable of proper rehabilitation; The social causes of crime and reoffending are neglected Our report argues that the current system delivers neither punishment or rehabilitation as an objective, and that the solution to the failure of criminal justice reform lies in balancing both objectives, not prioritising one over the other. The report sets out 14 recommendations, which lay the groundwork for an alternative vision of the criminal justice system, including: Introduce a new national presumption against the use of custodial sentences less than six months, for non-serious offences; Pilot a new 'swift and certain' programme for punishing prolific offenders in the community; Incentivise PCCs to work with probation providers to co-design new innovative community sentences and greater flexibility in commissioning electronic monitoring; Give Police and Crime Commissioners and directly elected mayors the opportunity to bid for managing the cost of offenders sentenced to short custodial sentences; Pilot a network of 'rehabilitation hubs' for male prolific offenders within police force areas, based on the 'women's centre' model; Reform post-sentence supervision arrangements so that probation providers are given greater discretion in prioritising resources; Overhaul community sentences to ensure new national minimum standards on swiftness, intensity, enforcement and transparency; Create a new L100 million criminal justice transformation fund, against which PCCs and Directly Elected Mayors could seek capital and revenue funding to support innovation and join up local services locally; Expand revenue raising powers to enable PCCs and directly elected mayors to raise a new 'Crime and Justice' Precept raising up to an additional L180 million per year; Amend the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities to explicitly designate as 'vulnerable' any individual who is homeless upon completion of a custodial sentence. Details: London: Crest, 2018. 60p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 20, 2018 at: http://crestadvisory.com/rewiring-justice-transforming-punishment-and-rehabilitation-for-the-21st-century/ Year: 2018 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://crestadvisory.com/rewiring-justice-transforming-punishment-and-rehabilitation-for-the-21st-century/ Shelf Number: 151596 Keywords: Criminal Justice ReformCriminal Justice Systems |
Author: Redgrave, Harvey Title: Examining the case for justice devolution Summary: What is meant by 'justice devolution'? Why is it needed and what difference will it actually make to people's lives? In a world of rising demand and shrinking budgets, justice devolution is firmly on the agenda and there is growing interest in and support for the idea of a more localised justice system. Harvey Redgrave's report for the think tank GovernUp argues that it no longer makes sense for government to continue tinkering around the edges, attempting top-down reform of individual criminal justice agencies from above. Instead, local leaders should be empowered to join up services from the bottom up - in order to deal with the root cause of crime - rather than managing its consequences and to ensure services can be built around the needs of victims. Details: London: Crest Advisory, 2016. 60p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 20, 2018 at: http://crestadvisory.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/governup-harvey-redgrave-justice-devolution-report.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://crestadvisory.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/governup-harvey-redgrave-justice-devolution-report.pdf Shelf Number: 151603 Keywords: Criminal Justice AdministrationCriminal Justice ReformCriminal Justice SystemDecentralizationPolice AccountabilityPolice Performance |
Author: Brazilian Forum on Public Security Title: Public safety agenda is a solution (SEGURANCA PUBLICA E SOLUCAO) Summary: Violence and insecurity are among the major concerns of Brazilian society today. The scenario is severe: in 2016 reached the 61,000 mark unacceptable intentional violent deaths in the country, highlighting the inefficiency of measures proposed by successive governments and several presidential candidates. Meanwhile, penal establishments - where more than 700,000 prisoners are detained and around 350,000 are missing - do not create conditions to reduce criminal recidivism. On the contrary, the main Brazilian criminal organizations were born and strengthened within the prisons, where they recruit new members. And crime costs went from 113 billion reais to 285 billion reais between 1996 and 2015, equivalent to 4.38% of national income. In this sense, three of the main organizations working with public safety in Brazil, the Brazilian Forum on Public Security and Institutes Sou da Paz and Igarape , formulated this AGENDA PUBLIC SAFETY IS SOLUTION containing concrete proposals to assist the federal government in this crucial assignment . The proposals to address the problems identified fall into seven programmatic axes: 1. Efficient system for managing public security; 2. State coercive and regulatory structures to deal with organized crime; 3. Effectiveness and efficiency of police work; 4. Restructuring of the prison system; 5. Violence prevention programs; 6. Reorientation of drug policy; 7. Regulation and control of firearms. The actions listed are based on evidence on policies that have measurable positive impacts on public security in Brazil and ensure a commitment to democratic values. In addition to the three organizations, the material was reviewed by a Critical Reading Panel composed of eight public security experts, police officers and managers. Details: Botafogo, Rio de Janeiro: Igarape, 2018. 20p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 24, 2018 at: https://igarape.org.br/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Agenda-Seguranc%CC%A7a-pu%CC%81blica-e%CC%81-soluc%CC%A7a%CC%83o-completa.pdf Year: 2018 Country: Brazil URL: https://igarape.org.br/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Agenda-Seguranc%CC%A7a-pu%CC%81blica-e%CC%81-soluc%CC%A7a%CC%83o-completa.pdf Shelf Number: 151651 Keywords: Criminal Justice ReformCriminal Justice Systems Organized Crime Public Safety Public Security Violent Crime |
Author: Delaney, Ruth Title: Reimagining Prison Summary: This document-unlike anything we have ever produced at the Vera Institute of Justice (Vera)-is about the possibility of radical change. It asserts a dramatic reconsideration of the most severe criminal sanction we have: incarceration. It articulates a view that is sure to be alien to many. Yet we need not accept as a given the way we do things now, and we encourage you to envision a different path. Indeed, our vision has concrete reference points. It is in the hope, daring, and promise of a small unit for young adults in a Connecticut maximum security facility. It is inspired by what we learned studying and visiting prisons in Germany, where the very conditions and operations of that entire system are defined by a commitment to uphold human dignity-a commitment born of that country's coming to terms with the Holocaust. And it is rooted in our own obligation-now physically exhibited in a museum and memorial in Montgomery, Alabama-to acknowledge and atone for our brutal history of dehumanization and racial oppression and to understand how it has shaped what we do today in our justice system. Our mission is to link these things and suggest a path forward that is as much about reconciliation as it is about criminal justice reform. In October of last year, John, a young adult in Cheshire Correctional Institution- where most people spend 22 hours a day in their cells-was accepted into a new small housing unit. Though the unit is within the same facility, John was handcuffed and shackled and placed in a prison van, subjected to strip searches, and given a medical assessment. In transit, John spent time in a kind of purgatorial interstitial space, waiting in what he described as "a full cage from top to bottom, something like on the show Lockup or Hard Time." But once inside the new unit, John entered a different world. The corrections officers greeted him and shook his hand. They asked him and the other young men in the unit serious questions about their goals and expressed genuine interest in their thoughts, feelings, and plans. In a letter to his family, John described this place as "not a regular prison environment [but] an open, caring, hopeful environment." He began to develop relationships both with older men who act as mentors in the unit and corrections officers, with whom he played chess, talked, and reflected on visits with his family. Each day, John attends group discussions with other young men and older mentors, he participates in town hall meetings where everyone gathers to talk about and resolve issues, and he joins programs that teach him about conflict resolution and money management. He spends the majority of his days outside his cell-attending programs, moving freely around the unit, and playing basketball in the outside courtyard. John, like all the men in the unit, is learning about responsibility and actively working to become a better person for himself and society. John's prison experience spans two possible futures for America's prison systems: the continuation of the punitive, retributive, and dehumanizing routines of the past; and the possibility of a reimagined future built on a wholly different set of foundational principles, designed to promote safety and success. The new unit John found himself in-called T.R.U.E., an acronym that stands for Truthfulness (to oneself and others), Respectfulness (toward the community), Understanding (ourselves and what brought us here), and Elevating (into success)-is a groundbreaking model in which we and our partners in Connecticut reimagine incarceration for young men aged 18 to 25. It was inspired by a visit to a young adult facility in Germany, where corrections officials from Connecticut were first exposed to what could be, not just what had always been. It represents a hopeful possibility for change in the way America handles incarceration. According to one of its participants, "the T.R.U.E. program is dedicated to the reclamation of moral integrity," inherent in which "is the recognition of the dignity of all prisoners in general." Unfortunately, while T.R.U.E. has inspired several other similar efforts, at the moment its goals and practices are shared by only a tiny fraction of prisons in America. At the vast majority of the facilities in the massive network of prisons across the country, people spend endless days in cells; they are marched to and from their limited activities; and their names and identities are lost, replaced with numbers, uniforms, and a stultifying idleness and isolation that impede cognition and fundamentally alters social-psychological processes. And for those who work behind the walls, the daily existence can hardly be described as enviable. It is telling that in American prisons, staff count down the years to retirement using the same language as those they are paid to keep locked up. In prison, everyone is serving a sentence. Details: New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2018. 136p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 24, 2018 at: https://storage.googleapis.com/vera-web-assets/downloads/Publications/reimagining-prison-print-report/legacy_downloads/Reimagining-Prison_FINAL3_digital.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://storage.googleapis.com/vera-web-assets/downloads/Publications/reimagining-prison-print-report/legacy_downloads/Reimagining-Prison_FINAL3_digital.pdf Shelf Number: 153068 Keywords: Criminal Justice ReformMass IncarcerationPrison ReformPrisonersPrisons |
Author: Reclaim Chicago Title: Exercising Full Powers: Recommendation to Kim Foxx on Addressing Systemic Racism in the Cook County Criminal Justice System Summary: In 2016, Cook County State's Attorney Kim Foxx was elected in a landslide victory that was widely seen as a referendum on Cook County's criminal justice system. Voters rejected the "tough on crime" stance of Anita Alvarez as well as her cover-up of the police murder of Laquan McDonald. Voters chose, instead, a candidate who ran on a platform of holding police accountable and reversing some of the policies that led to massive increases in the number of African American and Latinx people incarcerated in Cook County. Changing practices in such a large criminal justice system is a big order. The People's Lobby and Reclaim Chicago - which organized a significant portion of Kim Foxx's electoral operation - have been working with Chicago Appleseed to report regularly on Foxx's progress to reduce incarceration. The following is a report on the first nine months of 2018 data released by the State's Attorney's Office. It includes key recommendations for how Foxx can strengthen her decarceration efforts and be a leader in rolling back the failed policies of over-policing and mass incarceration. In this report we evaluate the performance of Foxx's State's Attorney Office on four major criteria we believe are vital to the advancement of criminal justice reform and overturning decades of systematic racism in the Cook County court system. We look at the role of felony charging by the prosecutor's office and highlight limited successes in a context of rising felony charging by Foxx's office. How people are charged within the criminal justice system has far reaching consequences not just for sentencing, but also for people's ability to avoid pre-trial detention. We analyze how wealth and class effect pre-trial detention in light of recent reforms by Chief Judge Evans and attempts by Foxx to find alternatives to incarceration. This type of research and evaluation is only possible with regular, detailed access to data from the court system, so we evaluate Foxx's efforts at transparency in a court system renowned for antiquated and incomplete record keeping. The most recent data release also provides a clearer window into how gun crimes are charged and adjudicated. The data suggest that a "war on guns" is now adding to the "war on drugs" with equally disastrous results. Details: Chicago: Authors, 2019. 12p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 25, 2019 at: http://www.uupmi.org/uploads/1/1/2/1/112170071/2019-report-kim-foxx_forweb.pdf Year: 2019 Country: United States URL: http://www.uupmi.org/uploads/1/1/2/1/112170071/2019-report-kim-foxx_forweb.pdf Shelf Number: 154739 Keywords: Criminal Justice ReformDiscriminationMass IncarcerationRacial BiasRacism |
Author: United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. Independent Evaluation Unit Title: Final Independent Project Evaluation of the Support to the Justice Sector of Nigeria Summary: The concept of the 'Support to the Justice Sector of Nigeria' project NGAV18 (known hereafter as 'the Project') was identified, conceived and formulated by the European Union (EU), which also provided the majority of the funding. Within the National Indicative Programme (NIP) for Nigeria, the EU had identified Governance and Human Rights as the second Focal Sector of intervention aimed at supporting governance improvements at state and local authority level, with the specific aim of enhancing the functioning of the judiciary, improving prison conditions and reducing the "laws delay". The EU and the Government of Nigeria (GoN) entrusted the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) Country Office in Nigeria (CONIG) with the development and execution of the Project under the 10th European Development Fund (EDF) programme. It had a fully pledged and costed budget of EUR L26,000,000 with an EU contribution of EUR 25,000,000 and UNODC co-funding with a EUR L1,000,000 contribution, out of which the United Nations Childrens Fund (UNICEF) is contributing US$ 887,910.84. UNICEF was UNODCs joint implementing partner. The 42 month Project officially began on the 27th December 2012 and was due to conclude on the 30th June 2016. An extension of the Project was agreed to 26th August 2017 and the budget reduced to EUR L19,076,309 to reflect the revised outputs and activities. Objectives -- The Project's stated overall objective was to "improve governance and compliance with the rule of law in Nigeria through improved effectiveness, accessibility, accountability, transparency and fairness of the justice system". The Project looked to achieve this overall objective through three initial outcomes: Outcome 1: to "improve coordination among justice sector institutions and their officials, as well as improve policies, plans and legislation in justice delivery, benefits the leadership and officials of the key justice institutions agencies". Outcome 2: to "enhance capabilities and improve facilities for effective functioning of the institutions and efficient administration of justice benefits the justice sector training institutions, Federal and States ministries of justice". Outcome 3: to "increase access to justice and respect for human rights. Especially for victims of crime, poor and disadvantaged persons, victims of human rights violations or abuses, women, children, persons with disability who come in conflict with the law, as well as the general vulnerable groups in Nigeria". Details: Vienna: UNODC, 2017. 94p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed march 13, 2019 at: https://www.unodc.org/documents/evaluation/Independent_Project_Evaluations/2017/NGAV18_Final_UNODC_Evaluation_Report_November_2017.pdf Year: 2017 Country: Nigeria URL: https://www.unodc.org/documents/evaluation/Independent_Project_Evaluations/2017/NGAV18_Final_UNODC_Evaluation_Report_November_2017.pdf Shelf Number: 154943 Keywords: Administration of Justice Criminal Justice ReformCriminal Justice Systems Human Rights |
Author: Dobbie, Will Title: Proposals for Improving the U.S. Pretrial System Summary: The Problem -- There are economically large costs of pretrial detention-and, by extension, the use of cash bail-due to the significant collateral consequences of having a criminal conviction on labor market outcomes as well as the direct costs of pretrial detention. In contrast, there are relatively small benefits to pretrial detention due to the relatively low costs of apprehending defendants who fail to appear in court. The existing evidence also suggests that the current pretrial system contribute to inequalities and inefficiencies in the criminal justice system. The Proposal -- The authors propose two sets of policy reforms. The first set of reforms-to use behavioral nudges to decrease pretrial violations and to move the default away from pretrial detention for low-risk defendants-are supported by enough evidence to justify immediate nationwide implementation. The second set of reforms-to improve the pretrial decision-making process through risk assessment tools and judge decision-aids, and to provide additional information on judge performance to both judges and the general public-are supported by enough evidence to justify pilot testing, with widespread implementation to follow if successful. Details: Washington, DC: The Hamilton Project, Brookings Institute, 2019. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: Policy Proposal 2019-05: Accessed march 21, 2019 at: http://www.hamiltonproject.org/assets/files/DobbieYang_PP_20190319.pdf Year: 2019 Country: United States URL: http://www.hamiltonproject.org/assets/files/DobbieYang_PP_20190319.pdf Shelf Number: 155098 Keywords: Bail Collateral Consequences Criminal Justice ReformPretrial Detention Pretrial Justice Pretrial Release |
Author: Center for Health and Justice at TASC Title: No Entry: A Survey of Prosecutorial Diversion in Illinois Summary: "No Entry: A Survey of Prosecutorial Diversion in Illinois," presents information collected on program authorization, oversight, target populations, goals, structure, services, outcomes, and evaluation. It offers observations and recommendations intended to guide criminal justice practitioners and other stakeholders in the development, implementation, expansion, replication, and improvement of diversion programs. As criminal justice reform efforts take hold across the country, diversion programs and initiatives operating at the front end of the justice system represent one of the most promising reform strategies. In these interventions, criminal justice system practitioners work in partnership with stakeholders to deflect and redirect eligible individuals out of the system and into community-based services. They stand in contrast to decades of public policies and practices that have resulted in record incarceration rates, unsustainable costs, and long-lasting collateral consequences harming generations of families and communities. In some programs and initiatives, diversion from the system can occur without even the logging of an arrest. In others, prosecution or sentencing is deferred while participants engage in supervised programming, and charges are dropped when it is completed successfully. By intervening early, caseloads and jail days can be reduced, criminal records can be prevented, and access to services that put men and women on the path to health and stability can be accelerated. Diversion can prevent the costs and harmful collateral consequences-to the justice system, the community, and the individual-of repeated arrests, convictions, and incarcerations. A variety of diversion models and approaches have been implemented, and some have been researched and evaluated with regard to effectiveness and impact. Local jurisdictions seeking to apply effective interventions that meet their needs to improve outcomes and spend resources wisely are increasingly incorporating risk-need-responsitivity principles designed to identify the needs of individuals that, if effectively addressed, would reduce re-offending. As jurisdictions take steps to address recidivism and the nexus between drug use, mental illness, and criminal behavior, and as the body of knowledge on these programs continues to expand, practitioners are becoming more versed in a variety of critical issues that have surfaced in national conversations and must be considered locally. Building on its 2013 report, No Entry: A National Survey of Criminal Justice Diversion Programs and Initiatives, and in recognition of the many diversion programs that have emerged under the strong and innovative leadership of local prosecutors, TASC's Center for Health and Justice (CHJ) set out to explore more deeply the landscape of prosecutorial diversion in Illinois, and specifically that which affords adults an opportunity to be accountable for their behavior without the imposition of a criminal conviction on public record. To that end, between May and December 2015, project staff conducted a survey among prosecutors of diversion programs, practices, and initiatives operating in counties across the state, with an aim of informing program development, implementation of best and innovative practices, collaboration and knowledge exchange, and policy change designed to generate cost savings and achieve public health and safety goals. The project focused on prosecutors because of their unique position to convene partnerships and build collaborative solutions to local criminal justice problems, and because of their flexibility to influence and implement policies and strategies appropriate for the populations and crime patterns of their jurisdictions. A number of observations emerged from the survey analysis: 1. Programs define their goals not only through treatment and justice lenses, but also through individual and system lenses. 2. Most programs limit eligibility based on justice criteria - namely, offense or criminal history - and many are limited to first-time offenses. 3. Jurisdictions take advantage of available statutory options, and collaborate across agencies to develop programs. 4. Jurisdictions explore diversion alternatives throughout the justice system continuum, and the prosecutorial stage offers many opportunities for intercept. 5. Most programs access clinical services, and many access other supportive services. However, many were not able to reportthe use of evidence-based practices. 6. Programs use a variety of funding mechanisms, and many rely on local budgets and participant fees. 7. While many programs report outcomes, in most cases those outcomes do not rise to a statistical measure that can be analyzed or compared on level footing with other programs. Eight recommendations emerged from this analysis that are intended to guide criminal justice system practitioners and other stakeholders in the development, implementation, expansion, replication, and improvement of diversion programs. The recommendations are also intended to inform and motivate policymaker discussions and decisions, as diversion programs continue to proliferate and drive the next wave of criminal justice reform. 1. Incorporate research findings and evidence-based practices into diversion programs. 2. Apply resources to individuals and programs with potential to achieve the greatest impact. 3. Incorporate community-based behavioral health and social services into diversion programs, as appropriate, especially substance use and mental health services. 4. Leverage all available resources for community-based behavioral health and social services, and strongly advocate to protect and expand them. 5. Adopt standardized program goals, outcome and performance measures, and terminology. 6. Adopt standardized data collection and analysis models and mechanisms. 7. Develop a web-based, searchable directory of diversion programs in Illinois. 8. Develop opportunities for cross-system education,training, and technical assistance available to jurisdictions for the purpose of establishing, expanding, and improving prosecutorial diversion programs. The amplification of diversion as a viable and useful justice practice suggests new promise to transform encumbered systems and bring a culture of restoration to lives, families, and communities that have been eroded by justice system involvement. As a growing field, there are many opportunities for improvement in diversion practices-in how programs are designed, implemented, and evaluated; in how data are collected and shared; and in ensuring that community services are available and accessible for those who need them, and as soon as they need them. These recommendations offer a pathway toward realizing that new promise. Details: Chicago: Author, 2017. 30p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 25, 2019 at: http://www2.centerforhealthandjustice.org/sites/www2.centerforhealthandjustice.org/files/publications/IL-ProsecutorialDiversionSurvey-2017.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://www2.centerforhealthandjustice.org/sites/www2.centerforhealthandjustice.org/files/publications/IL-ProsecutorialDiversionSurvey-2017.pdf Shelf Number: 155516 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity-Based CorrectionsCriminal Justice ReformDiversion ProgramsProsecutorial DiversionProsecutors |