Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: November 22, 2024 Fri
Time: 11:31 am
Time: 11:31 am
Results for expenditures in criminal justice
10 results foundAuthor: 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: McLeod, Jeffrey S. Title: State Efforts in Sentencing and Corrections Reform Summary: States continue to struggle during what is the most difficult fiscal environment since the Great Depression. Projections are that the economic recovery will be slow, forcing states to think longterm about how to do more with less. Full economic recovery may not happen until the end of the decade. With corrections among states’ largest expenditures, many are rethinking their approaches to sentencing and corrections practices as they seek to constrain spending. Between 2009 and 2010, at least 40 states made cuts to general fund expenditures for corrections. They are reducing staff salaries, benefits, or overtime, eliminating prison programs, and making food-service changes. Furthermore, states have been increasingly focused on finding ways to decrease overall prison populations. Given that the average prison bed now costs $29,000 a year, they are looking for ways to reduce the number of nonviolent and low-risk individuals going to prison, to move offenders who can be safely managed in the community out of prison sooner, and to keep ex-offenders out of prison through improved prisoner reentry practices. Ultimately, states aim to reduce prison populations enough to allow them to close prisons. States are accomplishing reductions through sentencing reform, efforts to reduce offender recidivism, and parole and probation reform. For example: South Carolina approved a sentencing reform package in 2010 that the state estimates will reduce the need to build and operate new prison beds by 1,786, saving up to $241 million by reducing incarceration of nonviolent offenders and more closely supervising released inmates to reduce recidivism; Nevada saved $38 million in operating expenditures by FY 2009 and avoided $1.2 billion in new prison construction by making key sentencing reforms, including expanding the number of credits inmates could earn for “good time” and the number of credits those on community supervision could earn for complying with conditions; and Kentucky passed legislation expected to save the state $422 million over the next decade by diverting certain drug offenders into treatment rather than prison and reserving prison space for violent and career criminals. The challenge to states is to make cuts in corrections spending while maintaining public safety. Fortunately, there now exists a significant body of research about which sentencing and corrections practices work and which do not. Research shows that implementation of evidence-based practices leads to an average decrease in crime of between 10 percent and 20 percent. Programs that are not evidence-based, on the other hand, tend to see no decrease or even a slight increase in crime. States can use that knowledge to make more informed decisions about which policies and programs to support as they seek to reduce spending on corrections. This Issue Brief provides an overview of the cost drivers behind corrections expenditures and identifies critical decision-points for states to consider as they take action to reduce costs. It also examines challenges to enacting reforms and makes recommendations for states looking to improve public safety with fewer resources. Those recommendations include: Pursue an approach to reform that involves coordination and collaboration among state executive, legislative, and judicial branches; Adopt evidence-based practices proven to reduce recidivism and eliminate programs shown to be ineffective or harmful; Target high-risk offenders and tailor sentencing, treatment, and release decisions to individual risk factors; Support mandatory supervision and treatment in the community; and Use real-time data and information for decision-making. Details: Washington, DC: NGA Center for Best Practices, 2011. 26p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 11, 2011 at: http://www.nga.org/files/live/sites/NGA/files/pdf/1110SENTENCINGREFORM.PDF Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.nga.org/files/live/sites/NGA/files/pdf/1110SENTENCINGREFORM.PDF Shelf Number: 123315 Keywords: Costs of Criminal JusticeEvidence-Based PracticesExpenditures in Criminal JusticeSentencing (U.S.)Sentencing Reform |
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: Henrichson, Christian Title: The Price of Prisons: What Incarceration Costs Taxpayers Summary: Staff from Vera’s Center on Sentencing and Corrections and Cost-Benefit Analysis Unit developed a methodology to calculate the taxpayer cost of prisons, including costs outside states’ corrections budgets. Among the 40 states that participated in a survey, the cost of prisons was $38.8 billion in fiscal year 2010, $5.4 billion more than what their corrections budgets reflected. States’ costs outside their corrections departments ranged from less than 1 percent of total prison costs in Arizona to as much as 34 percent in Connecticut. The full report provides the taxpayer cost of incarcerating a sentenced adult offender to state prison in 40 states, presents the methodology, and concludes with recommendations about steps policy makers can take to safely rein in these costs. Fact sheets provide details about each of the states that participated in Vera’s survey. Details: New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2012. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 26, 2012 at: http://www.vera.org/download?file=3407/the-price-of-prisons.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.vera.org/download?file=3407/the-price-of-prisons.pdf Shelf Number: 123766 Keywords: Costs of Criminal JusticeExpenditures in Criminal JusticePrisons (U.S.) |
Author: Towers, Jude Title: Measuring the impact of cuts in public expenditure on the provision of services to prevent violence against women and girls Summary: A report by leading academic Professor Sylvia Walby, UNESCO Chair in Gender Research, and Jude Towers at Lancaster University, raises concern about the implications of public expenditure reductions for the provision of local violence against women services. This report, commissioned by the Northern Rock Foundation and Trust for London, examines the impact of public expenditure cuts on services to prevent violence against women and girls. The data was drawn from around 20 published and previously unpublished sources. Details: Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom: Northern Rock Foundation, 2012. 58p. Source: Report for Northern Rock Foundation and Trust for London: Internet Resource: Accessed on February 3, 2012 at http://www.nr-foundation.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Measuring-the-impact-of-cuts-in-public-expenditure-on-the-provision-of-services-to-prevent-violence-against-women-and-girls-Full-Report-2.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.nr-foundation.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Measuring-the-impact-of-cuts-in-public-expenditure-on-the-provision-of-services-to-prevent-violence-against-women-and-girls-Full-Report-2.pdf Shelf Number: 123940 Keywords: Crime PreventionExpenditures in Criminal JusticeFemale VictimsViolent Crime |
Author: Great Britain. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary Title: Policing in Austerity: One Year On Summary: In spring 2011 Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) carried out an inspection into the preparedness of forces and authorities across England and Wales to make savings over the four years of the spending review period (2011/12–2014/15). We provided an independent commentary on the estimated scale of the challenge, and on how forces and authorities planned to meet it. The results were published in Adapting to Austerity. In this report we shine a light on whether forces and authorities have achieved their goals for the Year 1 of the spending review, and on how they now plan to meet the remaining challenge as they enter Year 2 (2012/13). Our review contains data and analysis which enables the public, their elected representatives and the police to see how their force compares with others. HMIC found that: Forces are balancing their books by cutting the workforce and reducing their spending on goods and services; The front line is being protected, although not preserved; The nature of the front line is changing; Service to the public has largely been maintained; but There are some concerns around sustainability. Details: London: HMIC, 2012. 86p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 7, 2012 at: http://www.hmic.gov.uk/media/policing-in-austerity-one-year-on.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.hmic.gov.uk/media/policing-in-austerity-one-year-on.pdf Shelf Number: 125497 Keywords: Costs of Criminal JusticeExpenditures in Criminal JusticePolice Administration (U.K.)Police Performance |
Author: Great Britain. National Audit Office Title: Restructuring of the National Offender Management Service Summary: The U.K. National Offender Management Service, an Executive Agency of the Ministry of Justice, faces substantial financial and operational challenges, including a vulnerability to unexpected changes in the prison population, and will find it more difficult to meet its savings targets following decisions to drop some sentencing reforms designed to reduce the size of the prison population. The National Offender Management Service achieved value for money in 2011-12, as it hit its savings target of £230 million while restructuring its headquarters and it has broadly maintained its performance, such as in reducing reoffending. As a result of some sentencing reforms not going ahead, the Ministry of Justice lost around £130 million of savings. Given the loss of these reforms, the prison population is now unlikely to fall significantly over the next few years. This limits the Agency’s plans to close older, more expensive, prisons and bring down costs. The Agency’s savings target for 2012-13 of a further £246 million is challenging and it currently projects it will spend £32 million more than its budget. Its cumulative annual savings target increases to over £880 million by 2014-15. The Agency currently has a £66 million shortfall in the £122 million needed over the next two years to fund early staff departures aimed at bringing long-term reductions in its payroll bill. The Agency has restructured its headquarters, reducing staff numbers by around 650 from around 2,400. Despite having fewer staff at its headquarters, prison governors, probation trust chief executives and other stakeholders consulted by the NAO generally regarded the restructure positively, considering it produced a more efficient organization with greater clarity on accountability. The Agency relies on the probation profession to deliver reforms and to reduce costs, but there are some tensions in the relationship. The NAO found that the Agency has done much to ensure knowledge of probation is captured at its headquarters but has recommended the Agency continue to engage with probation trusts to address their perception it lacks understanding of probation issues. The Agency’s responsibility for offenders means that its core business is managing risk. It has strong risk management mechanisms at its headquarters and in the oversight of prisons. However, there are gaps in how the Agency consolidates the recording of risks from prisons at a regional level, meaning the Agency may be unaware of risks in different areas. Details: London: The Stationery Office, 2012. 44p. Source: Internet Resource: HC: 593, 2012-2013; Accessed September 29, 2012 at: http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/1213/restructuring_noms.aspx Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/1213/restructuring_noms.aspx Shelf Number: 126489 Keywords: Costs of Criminal JusticeExpenditures in Criminal JusticeOffender Supervision (U.K.)ProbationProbationers |
Author: Kyckelhahn, Tracey Title: State Corrections Expenditures, FY 1982-2010 Summary: Presents data on state corrections expenditures from fiscal years 1982 to 2010. This bulletin examines trends in state corrections spending for building and operating institutions and for other corrections functions. The report also details institutional operating expenditures per inmate over the study period. It compares trends in state corrections expenditures with state spending for public welfare, education, health and hospitals, and highways. Data are drawn from the Census Bureau's State Government Finance Survey, which collects information on state expenditures and revenues, and the Bureau of Justice Statistics' National Prisoner Statistics, which collects information on state prison populations. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2012. 14p. Source: BJS Bulletin: Internet Resource: Accessed January 13, 2013 at http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/scefy8210.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/scefy8210.pdf Shelf Number: 127264 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationCorrectionsCosts of Criminal JusticeExpenditures in Criminal Justice |
Author: Moll, Jeanette Title: Putting “Corrections” Back in State Jails: How to Reform Texas’ Expensive, Ineffective State Jail System Summary: State jails in Texas are a part of the prison system. State jails are managed by the state, but unlike prisons, almost exclusively house inmates charged with low-level larceny and drug possession crimes. State jails were designed to be a low-cost alternative to prison, with dual goals of reducing prison populations and reducing recidivism rates in low-risk defendants. Unfortunately, state jails are universally failing in their objective. Almost as expensive as prisons, with higher recidivism rates, state jails merely cycle state jail felons in and out of the jailhouse doors, doing little to reduce risks of future criminality, but doing a great deal to burden Texas taxpayers. This paper details the bad deal Texas taxpayers get for the their state jails, both in high costs and increased risks to the public safety, as well as the ways the Texas Legislature can fix the state jail system for good. Details: Austin, TX: Texas Public Policy Foundation, 2012. 16p. Source: Internet Resource: Policy Perspective: Accessed January 30, 2013 at: http://www.texaspolicy.com/sites/default/files/documents/2012-11-PP29-PuttingCorrectionsBackInStateJails-CEJ-JeanetteMoll.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.texaspolicy.com/sites/default/files/documents/2012-11-PP29-PuttingCorrectionsBackInStateJails-CEJ-JeanetteMoll.pdf Shelf Number: 127444 Keywords: Costs of Criminal JusticeExpenditures in Criminal JusticeJail ReformJails (Texas, U.S.) |
Author: Williamson, Derek Title: A Review of the Cost and impact of Dealing with the Past on Criminal Justice Organisations in Northern Ireland Summary: A new report by Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland (CJI) has indicated the financial cost borne by criminal justice agencies in Northern Ireland in terms of dealing with the past is estimated to exceed L30m per year. The inspection report also found that while the cost of dealing with legacy issues had largely been absorbed by the criminal justice agencies, this had negative consequences for current day criminal justice issues. "CJI undertook this inspection to provide information on the costs and impacts for the criminal justice system in dealing with the past," said Brendan McGuigan, Chief Inspector of Criminal Justice in Northern Ireland. "The report looked at the estimated total costs which may exceed over L187m in five years time, and the implications and risks that legacy issues can create in terms of reduced public confidence in the criminal justice system and the ability of criminal justice agencies to deliver effective and efficient services now and in the future." Mr. McGuigan said the Inspection found a willingness and commitment existed among leaders and criminal justice organisations to meet and manage their individual and collective obligations in relation to the past. Yet this resolve was undermined by delay as the various agencies sought to ensure individuals with the correct skills were allocated to addressing legacy issues. The Chief Inspector added that it was the view of Inspectors that the criminal justice system had not been structured to deal with the past nor could it provide a comprehensive solution to legacy issues. Details: Belfast: Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland, 2013. 57p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 23, 2013 at: http://www.cjini.org/CJNI/files/8b/8b89d447-fb32-41d7-ae26-57b18509c8a2.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.cjini.org/CJNI/files/8b/8b89d447-fb32-41d7-ae26-57b18509c8a2.pdf Shelf Number: 131692 Keywords: Costs of Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland)Expenditures in Criminal Justice |