Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.

Date: April 29, 2024 Mon

Time: 11:59 pm

Results for prison population

35 results found

Author: Porter, Nicole D.

Title: The State of Sentencing 2011: Developments in Policy and Practice

Summary: This report from the Sentencing Project highlights 55 reforms in 29 states and documents a growing trend to reform sentencing policies and scale back the use of imprisonment without compromising public safety. The report provides an overview of recent policy reforms in the areas of sentencing, probation and parole, collateral consequences, and juvenile justice.

Details: Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project, 2012. 26p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed on February 3, 2012 at http://sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/publications/sen_State_of_Sentencing_2011.pdf

Year: 2012

Country: United States

URL: http://sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/publications/sen_State_of_Sentencing_2011.pdf

Shelf Number: 123939

Keywords:
Crime Statistics
Prison Population
Sentencing (U.S.)
Sentencing Reform

Author: Males, Mike

Title: Jail Needs Assessment for San Mateo County: A preliminary analysis

Summary: On April 5, 2011, Governor Edmund G. Brown signed into law Assembly Bill 109 (AB 109) codifying, one of history’s most sweeping reforms of California’s criminal justice system. This landmark legislation comes 35 years after then Governor Brown signed the Determinant Sentencing Law (DSL) of 1976, ushering in an era of unprecedented prison population expansion. Under the DSL, rehabilitation was eliminated as a goal of sentencing in California in favor of more punitive practices that emphasized incarceration. With the shift to more punitive policies, incarceration rates soared resulting in inevitable overcrowding and a deterioration of conditions within the state’s prisons and jails. As result present day criminal justice stakeholders in each of California’s 58 counties are addressing the challenge of how to serve an increased number of individuals under their supervision. The Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice (CJCJ) produced this report at the request of San Mateo County’s Controller’s Office. The intention of the analysis is to explore San Mateo County’s current and historic criminal justice system trends and determine the future necessity of additional county jail construction. This report provides San Mateo County criminal justice stakeholders with a data-driven analysis that explores targeted areas to apply model interventions that reduce unnecessary incarceration while promoting public safety. San Mateo County is one of the most affluent counties in California, with 2010 median household incomes ($82,750) well above the state average ($57,700). Additionally, the percentage of residents with incomes below poverty thresholds (6.8%) is well below the state as a whole (15.8%). For every race and age level, San Mateo County residents have poverty levels less than half the state average. The county’s population has stabilized, with current and projected growth levels (1% to 1.5% per decade) that are much slower than California as a state (10%) (Demographic Research Unit, 2010). The county thus has (with a few exceptions) generally lower crime rates and social problems, as well as more resources available to apply to reducing them. However, within these apparently stabilizing factors lies great change. Like other major counties, San Mateo County has undergone a dramatic population shift in recent decades, with a significant increase in minority populations. Thirty years ago, three-fourths of the county’s adults age 18-69 was White, of European origin.1 After declines of 30% and 40% in the white and black populations respectively, a 260% rise in the Latino population, and a quadrupling in the Asian population, today there are 80,000 more San Mateo County adults than in 1980, 6 in 10 of whom are Asian, Hispanic, African-American, and other nonwhites. The state Demographic Research Unit (2011) projects continued slow population growth, with declining white populations offset by continued increases in Asians and Latinos.

Details: San Francisco, California: Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, 2011. 15p.

Source: Policy Brief: Internet Resource: Accessed February 18, 2012 at http://www.cjcj.org/files/San_Mateo_County_Sentencing_Practices_and_Trends.pdf

Year: 2011

Country: United States

URL: http://www.cjcj.org/files/San_Mateo_County_Sentencing_Practices_and_Trends.pdf

Shelf Number: 124171

Keywords:
Alternatives to Incarceration
Corrections (California)
Jails
Prison Population

Author: Justice Policy Institute

Title: Due South: Looking to the South for Criminal Justice Innovations

Summary: Southern states historically have had some of the highest incarceration rates in the U.S., regularly trumping the national average. Recognizing the significant costs associated with such high incarceration rates, a number of these states have recently implemented innovative strategies for reducing their prison and jail populations and ensuring better outcomes for people who come into contact with the criminal justice system. These strategies start at the time of arrest, include sentencing reform, and impact who is released from prison on parole and the reentry services they receive upon return to the community. Each of these reforms have either already shown positive results or have significant potential to reduce prison or jail populations, save money and improve public safety. While a number of challenges still face these states and localities around their criminal justice policies, these reforms indicate a significant step toward more fair and effective policies. Although a number of states and localities have implemented or are in the process of creating reforms for youth involved in the juvenile justice system, this brief reviews only adult criminal justice reforms.

Details: Washington, DC: Justice Policy Institute, 2011.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 28, 2012 at http://www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/justicepolicy/documents/due_south-full_report.pdf

Year: 2011

Country: United States

URL: http://www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/justicepolicy/documents/due_south-full_report.pdf

Shelf Number: 124307

Keywords:
Incarceration Rates (U.S.)
Prison Population
Reentry
Sentencing Reform

Author: Pew Center on the States

Title: Time Served: The High Cost, Low Return of Longer Prison Terms

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

Details: Washington, DC: Pew Charitable Trusts, 2012. 65p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 26, 2012 at: http://www.pewstates.org/uploadedFiles/PCS_Assets/2012/Prison_Time_Served.pdf

Year: 2012

Country: United States

URL: http://www.pewstates.org/uploadedFiles/PCS_Assets/2012/Prison_Time_Served.pdf

Shelf Number: 125400

Keywords:
Costs of Criminal Justice
Criminal Justice Expenditures
Criminal Justice Policy
Imprisonment
Inmates
Prison Population
Sentencing

Author: Allen, Rob

Title: Reducing the Use of Imprisonment: What Can We Learn from Europe?

Summary: The familiar story of a rising prison population across Europe, and a general ‘punitive turn’ in Western democracies, now requires a new chapter. Since 2004, European countries have seen a divergence in prison numbers, with the Netherlands, Germany and some others successfully managing to reduce their prison populations, effectively tracking their falling crime levels, whereas England and Wales, along with France, have not achieved this. In England and Wales the prison population has continued to rise despite a clear and sustained reduction in crime. Since 2004 the total numbers incarcerated in the Netherlands has fallen from more than 20,000 to less than 15,000. In 2009 the Dutch Ministry of Justice announced plans to close eight prisons and cut 1,200 jobs in the prison system. They expect the number of prisoners to continue to decline and to average 8,875 by 2015. The Netherlands now uses the spare capacity to lease space at Tilburg jail to house 500 prisoners from Belgium, whose prisons are severely overcrowded. Alongside the Netherlands, Germany, too, has seen a significant decrease in numbers in custody since the middle of last decade. The aim of this paper is to look at features of the criminal justice systems in operation in these countries and to analyse changes in prison numbers in order to see whether any lessons might usefully be considered in England and Wales. There is a particular focus on Germany and the Netherlands as these are countries which share certain similarities with the UK. All three are highly urbanised countries with a GDP per capita well above the EU average, although the UK has recently had higher rates of unemployment and a higher proportion of citizens at risk of poverty and leaving education early than either the Netherlands or Germany. Spending on courts, prosecution and legal aid is similar in the UK and Netherlands, and trust in justice institutions is broadly comparable. Both Labour and the Conservatives have looked to the Netherlands for some of their ‘welfare to work’ agendas.

Details: London: Criminal Justice Alliance, 2012. 20p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 11, 2012 at: http://www.prisonpolicy.org/scans/CJA_ReducingImprisonment_Europe.pdf

Year: 2012

Country: Europe

URL: http://www.prisonpolicy.org/scans/CJA_ReducingImprisonment_Europe.pdf

Shelf Number: 125548

Keywords:
Inmates
Prison Population
Prisoners (Europe)

Author: Mallik-Kane, Kamala

Title: Examining Growth in the Federal Prison Population, 1998 to 2010

Summary: The size of the yearend Federal prison population grew by 77% over the 1998-2010 period, from 104,413 offenders who were convicted of federal crimes to an all-time high of 184,809. Drug offenders made up the largest portion of the increase in Federal prisoners, followed by weapon, immigration, and non-regulatory public-order offenders. An increase in the length of time to be served by prisoners was the leading contributor to growth, accounting for 58% of the total prison population growth between 1998 and 2010. Longer expected lengths of stay for drug offenders, alone, accounted for one-third of total growth in the prison population. Changes in federal conviction, investigation, and sentencing practices, respectively, also added to the prison population—notably, a higher conviction rate in drug cases and heightened enforcement of immigration and weapon offenses. By contrast, prison population growth during this period was moderated by changes in the rate at which sentenced offenders were admitted to prison and modest declines in the federal prosecution rate. Report findings were based on a statistical decomposition analysis using data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ Federal Justice Statistics Program.

Details: Washington, D.C.: Justice Policy Center, Urban Institute, 2012. 35p.

Source: Research Report, September 2012: Internet REsource: Accessed October 13, 2012 at https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/239785.pdf

Year: 2012

Country: United States

URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/239785.pdf

Shelf Number: 126686

Keywords:
Demographic Trends
Imprisonment
Prison Population

Author: Denman, Kristine

Title: New Mexico's Female Prisoners: Exploring Recent Increases in the Inmate Population: Report in Brief

Summary: The female prison population has been increasing since calendar year 2010. However, a dramatic increase occurred in the beginning of 2011, surpassing both the projected population and the capacity of the New Mexico Women’s Correctional Facility (NMWCF). While the population has fluctuated some since that point, it has remained high in recent months since its peak in September 2011. It is expected that this trend will continue. The current research was initiated in an effort to discern the source of this increase.

Details: Albuquerque, NM: New Mexico Sentencing Commission, 2012. 4p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 3, 2012 at http://nmsc.unm.edu/index.php/download_file/-/view/461/

Year: 2012

Country: United States

URL: http://nmsc.unm.edu/index.php/download_file/-/view/461/

Shelf Number: 126859

Keywords:
Detention (New Mexico)
Female Inmates
Female Prisoners
Prison Population

Author: Becker, Karl

Title: Colorado Prison Utilization Study

Summary: This report summarizes CNA’s analysis of the state of Colorado’s short and long term needs for prison capacity. The study addresses the amount of capacity required and the types of beds needed, taking into consideration operational efficiency and programmatic needs. CNA’s review of prison utilization in the Colorado state prison system indicates that based on professional standards for managing correctional system capacity, the Colorado Department of Corrections (CDOC) has a current operational capacity of 17,533 beds. This level is 2,183 beds below the CDOC’s stated operational capacity of 19,716 beds. With a total system prison population of 17,491 as of the end of May, CNA’s analysis indicates that the current aggregate operational capacity of the prison system is roughly in balance with the current inmate population level. Most of the difference between CDOC’s and CNA’s respective approaches to defining operational capacity stems from the treatment of special purpose units and unbudgeted private contract beds. The CDOC definition of operational capacity includes special purpose beds dedicated to functions such as infirmary care and management control (punitive segregation). CNA’s position, consistent with the practices of most state correctional systems, is that because these beds must be reserved for inmates in need of health care in the case of infirmaries and for inmate discipline in the case of management control beds; they are not available for general population housing. As such, they should not be included in operational capacity plans. CNA includes only budgeted contract facility beds in operational capacity. For the current year, this includes 3,300 beds at the Correctional Corporation of America (CCA) facilities (Bent County, Crowley County, and Kit Carson) and 604 beds at Cheyenne Mountain Reentry Center, for a total of 3,903 private contract beds. CDOC includes total private facility capacity in its definition of operational capacity, including unbudgeted beds. The total capacity of these facilities is 5,524, which is 1,621 beds above the level funded in the CDOC budget. CNA’s position is that a prison bed that cannot be paid for is not available to house inmates, and therefore should not be included in operational capacity. CNA’s calculation of operational capacity begins with documentation of all prison beds potentially available in all CDOC facilities. From this base we then deduct those beds that are not available on an ongoing and regular basis for the housing of general population inmates.

Details: Alexandria, VA: CNA Analysis & Solutions, 2013. 171p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 19, 2013 at: http://www.cna.org/sites/default/files/research/ColoradoPrison.pdf

Year: 2013

Country: United States

URL: http://www.cna.org/sites/default/files/research/ColoradoPrison.pdf

Shelf Number: 129467

Keywords:
Correctional Administration
Prison Administration
Prison Capacity
Prison Population
Prisons (Colorado, U.S.)

Author: Levine, Barbara R.

Title: 10,000 fewer Michigan prisoners:Strategies to reach the goal

Summary: Michigan's prisoner population has grown from fewer than 7,900 in 1973 to over 43,000. Corrections has gone from 1.6 percent of General Fund spending to nearly 20 percent. Today the budget of the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) is roughly $2 billion. This growth is not the inevitable product of increases in the size of the general population or of increased crime. On the contrary, Michigan's population growth has been modest and index crime rates have been declining steadily for the last three decades. Prison expansion resulted from specific changes in law, policy and practice that caused the state's incarceration rate to rise from 160 per 100,000 residents in 1983 to 442 today. Reexamining policies in light of current research could allow Michigan, in the next five years, to: 􀂍 Have 10,000 fewer prisoners. 􀂍 Reduce the prisoner population to 33,704 (about the same amount as in 1990 and 35 percent below the high point in 2006). 􀂍 Close seven entire prisons and six additional housing units. 􀂍 Avoid the need to train 2,000 new corrections officers to replace retirees. 􀂍 Save nearly $250 million annually.

Details: Lansing, MI: Citizens Alliance on Prisons and Public Spending, 2015. 94p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 17, 2015 at: http://media.mlive.com/lansing-news/other/CAPPS%20Report.pdf

Year: 2015

Country: United States

URL: http://media.mlive.com/lansing-news/other/CAPPS%20Report.pdf

Shelf Number: 136092

Keywords:
Alternatives to Incarceration
Costs of Corrections
Prison Population
Prison Reform
Prisoners

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 Reform
Criminal Justice Systems
Prison Population
Prisoners

Author: Eisen, Lauren-Brooke

Title: The Reverse Mass Incarceration Act

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

Details: New York: Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law, 2015. 32p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 15, 2015 at: http://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/publications/The_Reverse_Mass_Incarceration_Act%20.pdf

Year: 2015

Country: United States

URL: http://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/publications/The_Reverse_Mass_Incarceration_Act%20.pdf

Shelf Number: 136980

Keywords:
Costs of Corrections
Costs of Criminal Justice
Criminal Justice Reform
Mass Incarceration
Prison Population
Prisoners

Author: Stanford Justice Advocacy Project

Title: Proposition 47 Progress Report: Year One Implementation

Summary: Since the enactment of Proposition 47 on November 14, 2014, the number of people incarcerated in California[s prisons and jails has decreased by approximately 13,000 inmates, helping alleviate crowding conditions in those institutions. Proposition 47 has also reduced the number of jail inmates released from custody early due to overcrowding and should generate over $150 million in state savings this fiscal year. County governments stand to save even more money: over $200 million annually, in aggregate.

Details: Stanford, CA: Stanford Justice Advocacy Project, Stanford Law School, 2015. 11p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 16, 2015 at: https://2pe0o743k0s82lo5l6trs9j1-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Prop-47-report.pdf

Year: 2015

Country: United States

URL: https://2pe0o743k0s82lo5l6trs9j1-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Prop-47-report.pdf

Shelf Number: 137299

Keywords:
Costs of Corrections
Early Release
Prison Overcrowding
Prison Population
Prisoners
Proposition 47

Author: Alaska Criminal Justice Commission

Title: Justice Reinvestment Report

Summary: Alaska's prison population has grown by 27 percent in the last decade, almost three times faster than the resident population. This rapid growth spurred the opening of the state's newest correctional facility - Goose Creek Correctional Center - in 2012, costing the state $240 million in construction funds. On July 1, 2014, Alaska's correctional facilities housed 5,267 inmates, and the Department of Corrections ("DOC") had a fiscal year operating budget of $327 million. Absent reform, these trends are projected to continue: Alaska will need to house an additional 1,416 inmates by 2024, surpassing the state's current prison bed capacity by 2017. This growth is estimated to cost the state at least $169 million in new corrections spending over the next 10 years. The rising cost of Alaska's prison population coupled with the state's high recidivism rate - almost two-thirds of inmates released from the state's facilities return within three years - have led policymakers to consider whether the state is achieving the best public safety return on its corrections spending. Seeking a comprehensive review of the state's corrections and criminal justice systems, the 2014 Alaska Legislature established the bi-partisan, interbranch Alaska Criminal Justice Commission ("Commission"). In April of the following year, state leaders from all three branches of government joined together to request technical assistance from the Public Safety Performance Project of The Pew Charitable Trusts and the U.S. Department of Justice as part of the Justice Reinvestment Initiative. Governor Bill Walker, former Chief Justice Dana Fabe, Senate President Kevin Meyer, House Speaker Mike Chenault, Attorney General Craig Richards, former Commissioner of the Alaska DOC Ron Taylor, and former Chair of the Commission Alexander O. Bryner tasked the Commission with "develop[ing] recommendations aimed at safely controlling prison and jail growth and recalibrating our correctional investments to ensure that we are achieving the best possible public safety return on our state dollars." In addition, Senate President Meyer and Speaker Chenault requested that, because the state's difficult budget situation rendered reinvestment in evidence-based programs and treatment possible only with significant reforms, the Commission forward policy options that would not only avert future prison growth, but would also reduce the prison population between 15 and 25 percent below current levels. Over a seven-month period, the Commission analyzed the state's criminal justice system, including a comprehensive review of sentencing, corrections, and community supervision data. Key findings include: - Alaska's pretrial population has grown by 81 percent over the past decade, driven primarily by longer lengths of stay for both felony and misdemeanor defendants. - Three-quarters of offenders entering prison post-conviction in 2014 were convicted of a nonviolent offense. - Length of stay for sentenced felony offenders is up 31 percent over the past decade. - In 2014, 47 percent of post-revocation supervision violators - who are incarcerated primarily for non-criminal violations of probation and parole conditions - stayed more than 30 days, and 28 percent stayed longer than 3 months behind bars. Based on this analysis, and the directive from legislative leadership, the Commission developed a comprehensive, evidence-based package of 21 consensus policy recommendations that would protect public safety, hold offenders accountable, and reduce the state's average daily prison population by 21 percent, netting estimated savings of $424 million over the next decade.

Details: Juneau: Alaska Criminal Justice Commission, 2015. 38p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 8, 2016 at: http://www.ajc.state.ak.us/sites/default/files/imported/acjc/AJRI/ak_jri_report_final12-15.pdf

Year: 2015

Country: United States

URL: http://www.ajc.state.ak.us/sites/default/files/imported/acjc/AJRI/ak_jri_report_final12-15.pdf

Shelf Number: 137792

Keywords:
Costs of Corrections
Criminal Justice Reform
Criminal Justice Systems
Justice Reinvestment
Prison Population
Prisons

Author: Pettus-Davis, Carrie

Title: From Mass Incarceration to Smart Decarceration

Summary: A prolonged era of mass incarceration has led to staggering rates of imprisonment in the United States, particularly among some of the most vulnerable and marginalized groups. Given the rising social and economic costs of imprisonment and tight public budgets, this trend is beginning to reverse (Petersilia & Cullen, 2014). At the beginning of the 21st century, the United States finds itself facing the enormous challenge of decarcerating America, which is at the same time an enormous opportunity. Through decarceration, the lives of millions of people can be vastly improved, and the nation as a whole can leave behind this short-sighted and shameful period of mass incarceration. But how will this be accomplished, and by whom? Seldom before in the nation's history has the need for applied social innovation been more urgent. More so than most, the profession of social work is positioned to lead in this far-reaching social justice challenge. Social work is uniquely qualified because of its history of reform efforts, an ethical commitment to social justice, and emerging leadership in structural and behavioral interventions addressing complex social problems (Abramovitz, 1998; Brekke, Ell, & Palinkas, 2007; Fraser, 2004). Social work can bring siloed social sectors and diverse academic disciplines together to create a rational and effective response as prisons and jails devolve. Smart Decarceration will be proactive, transdisciplinary, and empirically driven. Effective decarceration will be occurring when (1) the incarcerated population in U.S. jails and prisons is substantially decreased; (2) existing racial and economic disparities in the criminal justice system are redressed; and (3) public safety and public health are maximized.

Details: St. Louis, MO: Washington University in St. Louis, 2014. 12p.

Source: Internet Resource: CSD Working Paper No. 14-31: Accessed March 4, 2016 at: http://csd.wustl.edu/Publications/Documents/WP14-31.pdf

Year: 2014

Country: United States

URL: http://csd.wustl.edu/Publications/Documents/WP14-31.pdf

Shelf Number: 138033

Keywords:
Decarceration
Prison Population
Prison Reform
Prisoners
Prisons

Author: Carson, E. Ann

Title: Aging of the State Prison Population, 1993-2013

Summary: Discusses factors that have contributed to the growing number of older offenders in state prison, and examines changes in the sex, race, current offense, and sentencing characteristics of these offenders over time. It also describes how more prison admissions and longer lengths of stay contribute to the aging of the prison population and result in the growing numbers of offenders who are "aging in" to the older age cohorts. Data are from the Bureau of Justice Statistics' National Corrections Reporting Program, National Prisoner Statistics program, and Survey of Inmates in State Correctional Facilities (1991 and 2004) and from the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting program. Highlights: The number of prisoners age 55 or older sentenced to more than 1 year in state prison increased 400% between 1993 and 2013, from 26,300 (3% of the total state prison population) in 1993 to 131,500 (10% of the total population) in 2013. The imprisonment rate for prisoners age 55 or older sentenced to more than 1 year in state prison increased from 49 per 100,000 U.S. residents of the same age in 1993 to 154 per 100,000 in 2013. Between 1993 and 2013, more than 65% of prisoners age 55 or older were serving time in state prison for violent offenses, compared to a maximum of 58% for other age groups sentenced for violent offenses. At yearend 1993, 2003, and 2013, at least 27% of state prisoners age 55 or older were sentenced for sexual assault, including rape. More than four times as many prisoners age 55 or older were admitted to state prisons in 2013 (25,700) than in 1993 (6,300). Press Release

Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2016. 38p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 19, 2016 at: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/aspp9313.pdf

Year: 2016

Country: United States

URL: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/aspp9313.pdf

Shelf Number: 139353

Keywords:
Elderly Inmates
Elderly Offenders
Inmates
Prison Population
Prisoners

Author: James, Nathan

Title: The Federal Prison Population Buildup: Options for Congress

Summary: Since the early 1980s, there has been a historically unprecedented increase in the federal prison population. The total number of inmates under the Bureau of Prisons' (BOP) jurisdiction increased from approximately 25,000 in FY1980 to over 205,000 in FY2015. Between FY1980 and FY2013, the federal prison population increased, on average, by approximately 5,900 inmates annually. However, the number of inmates in the federal prison system has decreased from FY2013 to FY2015. Some of the growth is attributable to changes in federal criminal justice policy during the previous three decades. These changes include increases in the number of federal offenses subject to mandatory minimum sentences, changes to the federal criminal code that have made more crimes federal offenses, and the elimination of parole. The growth in the federal prison population can be a detriment to BOP's ability to safely operate their facilities and maintain the federal prison infrastructure. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports that the growing number of federal inmates has resulted in an increased use of double and triple bunking, waiting lists for education and drug treatment programs, limited meaningful work opportunities, and increased inmate-to-staff ratios. These factors can contribute to increased inmate misconduct, which negatively affects the safety and security of inmates and staff. The burgeoning prison population has contributed to mounting operational expenditures for the federal prison system. BOP's appropriations increased more than $7.1 billion from FY1980 ($330 million) to FY2016 ($7.479 billion). As a result, BOP's expanding budget is starting to consume a larger share of the Department of Justice's overall annual appropriation. Should Congress choose to consider policy options to address the issues resulting from the growth in the federal prison population, policymakers could choose options such as increasing the capacity of the federal prison system by building more prisons; investing in rehabilitative programming (e.g., substance abuse treatment or educational programs) as a way of keeping inmates constructively occupied and potentially reducing recidivism after inmates are released; or placing more inmates in private prisons. Policymakers might also consider whether they want to revise some of the policy changes over the past three decades that have contributed to the steadily increasing number of offenders being incarcerated. For example, Congress could consider options such as (1) modifying mandatory minimum penalties, (2) expanding the use of Residential Reentry Centers, (3) placing more offenders on probation, (4) reinstating parole for federal inmates, (5) expanding the amount of good time credit an inmate can earn, and (6) repealing federal criminal statutes for some offenses. Congress is currently considering legislation (e.g., S. 2123, H.R. 3713) that would put into effect some of the policy options discussed in this report, including expanding the "safety valve" for some low-level offenders, allowing inmates to earn additional good time credit as a part of a risk and needs assessment system, and reducing mandatory minimum penalties for some offenses.

Details: Washington, DC: Congressional Research Services, 2016. 23p.

Source: Internet Resource: R42937: Accessed May 26, 2016 at: https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42937.pdf

Year: 2016

Country: United States

URL: https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42937.pdf

Shelf Number: 139227

Keywords:
Federal Prisons
Prison Population
Prisoners
Prisons

Author: Donnelly, Neil

Title: Adult prison population size in New South Wales: comparative forecasts

Summary: Aim: To compare the accuracy of Autoregressive Integrated Moving Average (ARIMA) model and Holt-Winters additive exponential smoothing method for forecasting the size of the total NSW adult prison population. Method: NSW adult prison population data was obtained up until July 2016. A rolling origin approach was used with 20 estimation periods (of increasing length) and 20 validation periods (12-months length). ARIMA model and Holt-Winters additive method were applied to each rolling estimation period. Shorter term (e.g. 1 to 3 months) through longer term (e.g. 6 to 12 months) forecasts were made for the relevant 12-months validation period. These forecasts were compared with the actual monthly number of prisoners using mean absolute error (MAE), root mean square error (RMSE) and mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) to assess accuracy. The average of each accuracy measure was calculated for the one-step through 12-steps lead times across the 20 estimation and validation periods. Results: For shorter forecast lead times (e.g. one-step through three-steps) the ARIMA model and Holt-Winters additive method gave similar accuracy measures for MAE, RMSE and MAPE. In each case, the accuracy of the forecasts decreased as the lead time increased. ARIMA was more accurate than Holt-Winters additive at longer lead times (e.g. six-steps through 12-steps) with smaller forecasting errors. Conclusion: The ARIMA model provided more accurate forecasts compared with the Holt-Winters additive method for longer periods such as six-months to 12-months

Details: Sydney: New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, 2016. 8p.

Source: Internet Resource: Contemporary Issues in Crime and Justice, no. 199: Accessed November 8, 2016 at: http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/Documents/CJB/Report-2016-Adult-prison-population-size-in-NSW-Comparative-Forecasts-cjb198.pdf

Year: 2016

Country: Australia

URL: http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/Documents/CJB/Report-2016-Adult-prison-population-size-in-NSW-Comparative-Forecasts-cjb198.pdf

Shelf Number: 146280

Keywords:
Prison Population
Prisoners
Prisons

Author: Nellis, Ashley

Title: The Color of Justice: Racial and Ethnic Disparity in State Prisons

Summary: Growing awareness of America's failed experiment with mass incarceration has prompted changes at the state and federal level that aim to reduce the scale of imprisonment. Lawmakers and practitioners are proposing "smart on crime" approaches to public safety that favor alternatives to incarceration and reduce odds of recidivism. As a result of strategic reforms across the criminal justice spectrum, combined with steadily declining crime rates since the mid-1990s, prison populations have begun to stabilize and even decline slightly after decades of unprecedented growth. In states such as New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, and California, prison depopulation has been substantial, declining by 20-30%. Still, America maintains its distinction as the world leader in its use of incarceration, including more than 1.3 million people held in state prisons around the country. At the same time of productive bipartisan discussions about improving criminal justice policies and reducing prison populations, the U.S. continues to grapple with troubling racial tensions. The focus of most recent concern lies in regular reports of police brutality against people of color, some of which have resulted in deaths of black men by law enforcement officers after little or no apparent provocation. Truly meaningful reforms to the criminal justice system cannot be accomplished without acknowledgement of racial and ethnic disparities in the prison system, and focused attention on reduction of disparities. Since the majority of people in prison are sentenced at the state level rather than the federal level, it is critical to understand the variation in racial and ethnic composition across states, and the policies and the day-to-day practices that contribute to this variance. Incarceration creates a host of collateral consequences that include restricted employment prospects, housing instability, family disruption, stigma, and disenfranchisement. These consequences set individuals back by imposing new punishments after prison. Collateral consequences are felt disproportionately by people of color, and because of concentrations of poverty and imprisonment in certain jurisdictions, it is now the case that entire communities experience these negative effects. Evidence suggests that some individuals are incarcerated not solely because of their crime, but because of racially disparate policies, beliefs, and practices, rendering these collateral consequences all the more troubling. An unwarranted level of incarceration that worsens racial disparities is problematic not only for the impacted group, but for society as whole, weakening the justice system's potential and undermining perceptions of justice.

Details: Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project, 2016. 35p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 10, 2016 at: http://www.sentencingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/The-Color-of-Justice-Racial-and-Ethnic-Disparity-in-State-Prisons.pdf

Year: 2016

Country: United States

URL: http://www.sentencingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/The-Color-of-Justice-Racial-and-Ethnic-Disparity-in-State-Prisons.pdf

Shelf Number: 146680

Keywords:
Ethnic Disparities
Prison Population
Prisoners
Racial Disparities

Author: Chauhan, Preeti

Title: Trends in Admissions to the New York City Department of Correction: 1995-2015

Summary: The Misdemeanor Justice Project (MJP) is pleased to publish this report focused on individuals admitted into the custody of the New York City Department of Correction (DOC). This is the fifth report released by the MJP, a research initiative at John Jay College of Criminal Justice dedicated to promoting a better understanding of the enforcement of low-level offenses such as misdemeanors, summonses, and pedestrian stops. Our goal is to inform the current public and policy discourse surrounding interactions between the public and the criminal justice system. To date, our reports have focused on trends in police enforcement practices. We have published reports examining misdemeanor arrests, criminal summonses, pedestrian stops, and the mobility of individuals arrested for misdemeanors. With this report, we now shift our attention to trends in corrections, specifically the New York City DOC which houses individuals charged with crimes and awaiting trial, serving short sentences, being held on warrants, or for other reasons. The City's correctional system serves as another critical point of contact between the public and the criminal justice system, but compared to police activities, is often neglected in policy discussions about crime and justice in New York City. Our focus on corrections will result in two reports. This report will examine the "front door" of the correctional system to provide a better understanding of the longitudinal trends in admissions to the DOC. This report is split into two sections. The first section provides an in-depth portrait of admissions to corrections in 2015, breaking out the data by demographics (i.e. gender, age, and race), legal status, and criminal charges. The second section contextualizes 2015 admissions by examining these characteristics (demographics, legal status, and charges) longitudinally to see how they have changed during the two decades of our study (1995 to 2015).

Details: New York: John Jay College of Criminal Justice, 2016. 100p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 22, 2017 at: http://misdemeanorjustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/DOC_Trends_Final.pdf

Year: 2016

Country: United States

URL: http://misdemeanorjustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/DOC_Trends_Final.pdf

Shelf Number: 141176

Keywords:
Misdemeanors
Prison Population
Prisoners
Prisons

Author: Loi, Valerio

Title: Tendencies in World Imprisonment for Drug Related Crime

Summary: The latest estimates on the world prison population indicate that 10.35 million people are incarcerated worldwide, according to calculations presented in February 2016. The assertion this figure can be correlated to the effects and outcomes of the global drug prohibition regime is the starting point of this chapter, which will try to give an overview of to what extent the use of criminal law has contributed to this figure on a global scale. Drug control policies with a strong emphasis on criminal law became a global reality particularly after the adoption of the 1988 UN Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychoactive Substances, which requires countries to suppress the illicit production, supply and consumption of drugs through criminal law. As an indirect result, it can be one of the main causes of imprisonments worldwide, as many countries have adopted legislation with prison sentences for all drugs related offences after signing this treaty. This emphasis on criminal law to deal with the drugs market has provoked thirty three countries to prescribe the death penalty for drug offences. And last but certainly not least, hundreds of thousands of people are locked up without any trial for lengthy periods of time in the name of drug treatment. The 2014 UNODC "World crime trends and emerging issues and responses in the field of crime prevention and criminal justice", of April 2014, shows the global trend on drug offences remains on the increase: drug trafficking grew by 11%, while offences related to drug possession increased over 18%, in the period 2003-2012. It is of high relevance to stress that most legislations do not distinguish between possessions of and traffic in drugs, possibly altering these figures even more towards the latter. Although exact figures lack, the 2014 World Drug Report indicates that, "worldwide, the large majority of drug use offences are associated with cannabis"; an indication that a large share of penal prosecutions globally is geared towards the cannabis market. Meanwhile, policy debates in different parts of the world reflect certain recognition of both the ineffectiveness of the current penal focus, especially for non-violent offences, such as possession for personal use and use, but sometimes including small scale traffic; and the degree of injustice being done to certain vulnerable population groups, such as single mothers, and people imprisoned abroad. This has lead in some countries to legislative reform and changing practice in the criminal justice system. Questioning the exclusive penal model is no longer taboo, and the need to restore the balance between punishment and care is long overdue. The following chapter will basically focus on the impact of the present drug laws enforcement in the world's prison systems. It won't be a mere recount of the share of detainees for drug crimes within the overall inmates' population, as far as data for that is available, according to geographical macro-regions. While assessing the main trends, we want to highlight the challenges and possible reform proposals of the present prison systems.

Details: El Colectivo de Estudios Drogas y Derecho (CEDD), 2016. 33p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 2, 2017 at: http://www.drogasyderecho.org/pses/restoi.pdf

Year: 2016

Country: International

URL: http://www.drogasyderecho.org/pses/restoi.pdf

Shelf Number: 145234

Keywords:
Drug Control
Drug Enforcement
Drug Offenders
Drug Trafficking
Drugs and Crime
Imprisonment
Prison Population
Prisoners

Author: Halloran, Nick

Title: The NSW Prison Population Simulation Model: A policy analysis tool

Summary: Aim: To describe a simulation model of the NSW prison system and demonstrate its utility as a tool for examining the effects of changes to the criminal justice system that influence the number of prisoners in custody Method: The model consists of four states (bail, remand, custody and parole) and a set of parameters governing flows into and out of those states as well as lengths of stay in each state. Data for the model were sourced from police, court and correctional databases. Results: The prison system is extremely sensitive to changes in the percentage of persons refused bail. A one percentage point change in the percentage of persons refused bail by a court increases the remand population by 7.66 per cent, the sentenced prisoner population by 6.03 per cent and the parole population by 6.15 per cent. Conclusion: It is feasible to build a simple model of the prison system which is easy to maintain but nonetheless useful in analysing the likely consequences of changes in arrest, bail and sentencing policy.

Details: Sydney: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, 2017. 12p.

Source: Internet Resource: Contemporary Issues in Crime and Justice Number 203; Accessed May 10, 2017 at: http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/Documents/CJB/Report-2017-NSW-Prison-Population-Simulation-Model-CJB203.pdf

Year: 2017

Country: Australia

URL: http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/Documents/CJB/Report-2017-NSW-Prison-Population-Simulation-Model-CJB203.pdf

Shelf Number: 145396

Keywords:
Bail
Criminal Justice Policy
Criminal Justice Systems
Inmates
Parole
Prison Population

Author: Sentencing Project

Title: Federal Prisons at a Crossroads

Summary: The number of people incarcerated in federal prisons has declined substantially in recent years. In fact, while most states enacted reforms to reduce their prison populations over the past decade, the federal prison system has downsized at twice the nationwide rate. But recently enacted policy changes at the Department of Justice (DOJ) and certain Congressional proposals appear poised to reverse this progress.

Details: Washington, DC: Sentencing Project, 2017. 6p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 15, 2017 at: http://www.sentencingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Federal-Prisons-at-a-Crossroads.pdf

Year: 2017

Country: United States

URL: http://www.sentencingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Federal-Prisons-at-a-Crossroads.pdf

Shelf Number: 146181

Keywords:
Federal Prisons
Inmates
Prison Population
Prisoners

Author: Western Australia, Office of the Inspector of Custodial Services

Title: Western Australia's Prison Capacity

Summary: Western Australia's prison population has risen very rapidly over recent years. Two new prisons have opened in the last four years (West Kimberley and Eastern Goldfields Regional Prisons) but the system has largely absorbed the extra numbers by adding bunk beds to single cells and by adding new accommodation units to existing prisons. This has led the Opposition and the WA Prison Officers Union (WAPOU) to claim our prisons are overcrowded to the point of crisis, posing risks to staff and prisoners. However, the government and the Department of Corrective Services (the Department) say the system is not overcrowded, the risks are overstated, and there is actually still spare capacity. Based on a snapshot date of 30 June 2016, this report evaluates: - different tests of prison capacity - prison occupancy rates - whether prisoners' living conditions meet Australian and international standards - risks arising from current population levels. Our conclusions This review is supported by the evidence contained in our inspection reports on individual prisons. It concludes that: - most of our prisons are very crowded (too many prisoners for the available space and facilities) - the Department's method of reporting has hidden the extent of the problem - too many prisoners are held in cells that do not comply with Australasian standards and even International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) standards - occupying cells above intended capacity is: -compromising prisoners' rights to privacy and decent treatment - generating risks to safety and rehabilitation - services to prisoners are increasingly stretched - staff, management and prisoners deserve the community's appreciation for the way they have coped with these pressures. Some of the pressures at some sites will be temporarily relieved when the new Eastern Goldfields Regional Prison is filled and when the 'new' women's prison at the Hakea site ('Melaleuca') opens in December. However, most prisons will continue to operate above intended capacity and the new facilities will not meet future demand. A new prison is needed. It should be designed with the flexibility to cater for different groups but the most obvious need is for a large metropolitan remand prison for men.

Details: Perth: Office of the Inspector of Custodial Services, 2016. 59p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 2, 2017 at: http://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/WebCMS/WebCMS.nsf/resources/file-tp---oics-wa-prison-capacity/$file/OICS%20WA%20Prison%20Capacity.pdf

Year: 2016

Country: Australia

URL: http://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/WebCMS/WebCMS.nsf/resources/file-tp---oics-wa-prison-capacity/$file/OICS%20WA%20Prison%20Capacity.pdf

Shelf Number: 147012

Keywords:
Prison Overcrowding
Prison Population
Prisoners
Prisons

Author: Roodman, David

Title: The impacts of incarceration on crime

Summary: When it comes to locking people up, the United States is a world champion. In 1970, 196,000 people resided in American prisons, and another 161,000 in jails, which worked out to 174 inmates per 100,000 people. In 2015, 1.53 million people languished in US prisons and 728,000 in jails, or 673 per 100,000. Only North Korea, among major nations, may surpass the US in this regard. Such statistics are almost always invoked and graphed when initiating discussions of criminal justice reform. Figure 1 and Figure 2 depict them afresh with photographs taken at the Eastern State Penitentiary in Philadelphia. That fortress-like complex is now a museum, a window onto a criminal justice reform movement of some two centuries ago that sought to replace corporal punishment with solitary confinement, which was seen as humane and rehabilitative. The Open Philanthropy Project has joined a latter-day criminal justice reform movement. It too is motivated by the belief that something is wrong with the state's use of punishment to combat crime. Something is wrong, in other words, with those pictures. Higher incarceration rates and longer sentences, along with the "war on drugs," have imposed great costs on taxpayers, as well as on inmates, their families, and their communities. Yet even though the 59% per-capita rise in incarceration between 1990 and 2010 accompanied a 42% drop in FBI-tracked "index crimes," researchers agree that putting more people behind bars added modestly, at most, to the fall in crime. Yet even if rising incarceration has not been a major factor behind falling crime, it might still have been a factor - and enough so that it ought to give pause to those pushing to reverse the rise. This report works to check that possibility, by reviewing empirical research on the impacts of incarceration on crime. It asks whether decarceration should be expected to increase or decrease crime. With the Open Philanthropy Project making grants for criminal justice reform, this review of the research is an act of due diligence. Any discussion of the impacts of incarceration should specify the alternative: incarceration as opposed to what? This review focuses mainly on studies that compare incarceration to ordinary freedom or traditional supervised released (probation and parole), as distinct from alternatives such as in-patient drug treatment and restorative justice conferences. Those options may offer promise, and deserve more research and evidence reviews. Nevertheless, as a practical matter, if incarceration falls substantially in this country, ordinary and traditional supervised release will probably emerge as the main alternatives. That appears to have been the case in trend-setting California after decarceration reforms in 2011 and 2014. Thus this review remains highly relevant to likely policy choices. For manageability, this review restricts it to "high-credibility" studies: ones that exploit randomized experiments, or else "quasi-experiments" that arise incidentally from the machinations of the criminal justice system and ideally produce evidence nearly as compelling as experiments do. Further, in distilling generalizations and performing cost-benefit analysis, the review relies more heavily on the eight studies that I could replicate by accessing the underlying data and computer code. Replication and subsequent reanalysis of these eight revealed significant econometric concerns in seven and led to major reinterpretations of four. That experience led to an unexpected conclusion about the conduct of social science generally. For it raised doubts about the rest of the high-credibility studies included in this review, the ones that could not be so closely examined. It forced me to conclude that even the best studies on incarceration and crime are less reliable than they appear. And, like a car whose brakes fail once, this raises questions about the reliability of published social science generally. To put that more constructively, the scrutiny that research undergoes to appear in social science journals falls short of the optimum for policymaking. Perhaps the gap needs to be filled outside the normal academic research process, such as through reviews like this one.

Details: San Francisco: Open Philanthropy Project, 2017. 142p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 27, 2017 at: http://blog.givewell.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/The-impacts-of-incarceration-on-crime-10.pdf

Year: 2017

Country: United States

URL: http://blog.givewell.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/The-impacts-of-incarceration-on-crime-10.pdf

Shelf Number: 147466

Keywords:
Alternatives to Incarceration
Costs of Criminal Justice
Criminal Justice Reform
Inmates
Mass Incarceration
Prison Population
Prisoners

Author: 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 Corrections
Criminal Justice Reform
Justice Reinvestment
Prison 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 Corrections
Criminal Justice Reform
Justice Reinvestment
Mental Health Services
Mentally Ill Offenders
Prison Population

Author: Sentencing Project

Title: Can We Wait 75 Years to Cut the Prison Population in Half?

Summary: While most states have downsized their prison populations in recent years, the pace of decarceration is insufficient to undo nearly four decades of unrelenting growth. The U.S. prison population grew by more than 600% between 1973 and 2009-from 200,000 people to 1.6 million. Tough-on-crime policies expanded the number of imprisoned people even while crime rates plunged to 40% below their levels in the 1990s. In recent years, policymakers and criminal justice professionals have implemented reforms to correct the punitive excesses of the past. By yearend 2016 the number of people held in U.S. prisons had declined by 6% since a 2009 peak, and crime rates have continued to decline. But the overall impact of reforms has been quite modest. With 1.5 million people in prison in 2016, the prison population remains larger than the total population of 11 states. If states and the federal government maintain their recent pace of decarceration, it will take 75 years-until 2093-to cut the U.S. prison population by 50%. Expediting the end of mass incarceration will require accelerating the end of the Drug War and scaling back sentences for serious crimes.

Details: Washington, DC: Sentencing Project, 2018. 6p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 16, 2018 at: https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/can-wait-75-years-cut-prison-population-half/

Year: 2018

Country: United States

URL: https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/can-wait-75-years-cut-prison-population-half/

Shelf Number: 149495

Keywords:
Mass Incarceration
Prison Population
Prisoners

Author: American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey

Title: A Vision to End Mass Incarceration in New Jersey

Summary: THE United States and New Jersey face a mass incarceration crisis. Between 1970 and 2010, the number of people incarcerated in the United States grew by 700 percent. As a result, the United States now incarcerates almost 25 percent of the world's prisoners while having only five percent of the world's population. Although New Jersey has seen a recent decline in its incarcerated population, close to 35,000 people are still housed in its prisons and jails. In fact, despite the recent decline, the size of New Jersey's prison population increased by 278 percent between 1975 and 2015. The sheer number and proportion of incarcerated people is a major problem. But New Jersey also suffers from other problems that plague the criminal justice system across the nation: the erosion of due process protections, deplorable conditions of confinement, and the overrepresentation of people of color in arrests and imprisonment.

Details: Newark, NJ: ACLU of New Jersey, 2017. 24p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 28, 2018 at: https://www.aclu-nj.org/files/5915/1318/4660/2017_12_13_mass_incarceration_vision.pdf

Year: 2017

Country: United States

URL: https://www.aclu-nj.org/files/5915/1318/4660/2017_12_13_mass_incarceration_vision.pdf

Shelf Number: 149955

Keywords:
Criminal Justice Reform
Mass Incarceration
Prison Population
Prisoners

Author: Rope, Olivia

Title: Global Prison Trends 2018: a global view on the state of prisons

Summary: Every year, Global Prison Trends by Penal Reform International (in collaboration with the Thailand Institute of Justice) provides us with a global view on the state of prisons. And, every year, this report is, unfortunately, hardly a surprise - we read about the degrading conditions in which people are imprisoned, and about their growing number. Yet the level of crime in most societies is constantly decreasing. The question that remains unanswered, therefore, is why our societies focus their response to unlawful behaviours so often on prison? Where is the proportionality in sentencing when we punish nonviolent offences with lengthy prison sentences? Is this the only response we can offer? The chapter on drugs and imprisonment in this report highlights that a high number of prisons in the world are overcrowded due to the incarceration of people for drug-related offences, in particular non-violent offences involving use and possession for personal use. This directly reflects our contemporary addiction to punishment and showcases the disproportionality of punishment in relation to the offence. The use of harsh prison sentences for people who use drugs or for those who play a minor role in the drug trade also shows the inefficiency, limitations and perverse effects of current drug control policies. Not only are punishment and incarceration becoming the sole instruments used to enforce the law, but also they are serving to implement moral norms which have no link with the reality of the offence that they are supposed to punish. This trend of over-incarceration and punishment of people who use drugs is seen on every continent. The deep impact it has on prison systems and on people in prison and their communities has sparked the current global debate on drug policy reform. In recent years, more and more countries have been introducing amendments to their drug laws; for example, by decriminalising the use of drugs in Norway and Colombia, and by replacing prison terms with monetary fines in Ghana and Tunisia or with community service, as envisaged in Senegal. Other countries have gone even further. Ecuador gave an amnesty to drug couriers and released thousands of prisoners. Countries that have traditionally adopted harsh stances on drugs, such as Malaysia and Iran, are reviewing their death penalty policies for drug offences, and removing people from death row. These changes and reforms are being discussed and implemented in a global environment that remains highly stigmatising, where drugs are still considered 'evil' and prohibition approaches prevail. They are therefore born out of a real need - the need for societies to stop exposing their citizens to greater risks from arrests related to drug use than come from the act of using drugs

Details: London: Penal Reform International; Bangkok: Thailand Institute of Justice, 2018. 60p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 23, 2018 at: https://www.penalreform.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/PRI_Global-Prison-Trends-2018_EN_WEB.pdf

Year: 2018

Country: International

URL: https://www.penalreform.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/PRI_Global-Prison-Trends-2018_EN_WEB.pdf

Shelf Number: 150332

Keywords:
Drug Offenders
Drugs and Crime
Offender Reentry
Offender Rehabilitation
Prison
Prison Population
Prisoners

Author: Hinds, Oliver

Title: People in Prison in 2017

Summary: Assessing and targeting criminal justice reforms requires an up-to-date view of the number of people in state and federal prisons. The Bureau of Justice Statistics collects this data, but their reports lag prison populations by a year or more. In order to get an earlier glimpse at these numbers, Vera researchers collected information directly from states and the federal Bureau of Prisons to estimate the number of people in prison at the end of 2017. The data revealed that the recent trend of decreasing prison incarceration continued in 2017, with the total U.S. prison population dropping below 1.5 million for the first time since 2004. Despite the overall declines, 20 states increased their prison population, leaving 10 states with all-time-high numbers of people in prison. Despite the national reduction in the prison population, more work is required to unwind mass incarceration

Details: New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2018. 10p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 25, 2018 at: https://storage.googleapis.com/vera-web-assets/downloads/Publications/people-in-prison-2017/legacy_downloads/people-in-prison-2017.pdf

Year: 2018

Country: United Kingdom

URL: https://storage.googleapis.com/vera-web-assets/downloads/Publications/people-in-prison-2017/legacy_downloads/people-in-prison-2017.pdf

Shelf Number: 150648

Keywords:
Inmates
Mass Incarceration
Prison Population
Prisoners

Author: Rose, Felicity

Title: An Examination of Florida's Prison Population Trends

Summary: In 2016, the Florida Legislature appropriated funding for "a comprehensive review of Florida's criminal justice system, including but not limited to criminal law and procedure, law enforcement, prosecution and defense of criminal offenses, the judicial and courts system, sentencing, and corrections." This report aims to provide a comprehensive overview of trends in Florida�s criminal justice system over the last decade, and illuminate those trends with data from across the system. After 30 years of growth, the last decade has seen Florida's prison population plateau and its community supervision population decline. Two competing trends have led to the stabilized prison population: a decline in prison admissions, driven by major reductions in crime rates, arrests, and criminal prosecutions, balanced out by longer sentences for those who are sent to prison. This report explores how Florida sentencing and release policies have shaped these competing trends, and looks beneath the statewide numbers at cases that defy these trends. Key findings include: - Florida's imprisonment rate is 23 percent higher than the national average, and 10th overall in the nation. - In the last decade, Florida's violent and property crime rates and drug arrests have all dropped approximately 30 percent, although the total crime rate remains 15 percent higher than the national average. - Prison admissions declined 28 percent in the last decade, driven by the declines in crime as well as declining revocations from supervision after Florida Department of Corrections (FDC) policy shifts in how violations are addressed. - In the same period, average sentence length increased 22 percent, balancing out the admissions decline and leading to a mostly stable prison population. - Trends in admissions and prison population vary widely across the state. In general, southern and eastern Florida counties send people to prison at a lower rate than northern, central, and western counties. - Due to mandatory minimum sentences, sentence enhancements, and statutory time served requirements, prisoners in Florida serve significantly longer periods in prison than in other states, including for nonviolent crimes. - Long sentences and few release options are the main driving force of the growth of the elderly population in Florida's prisons. - Most offenders leave prison with little or no post-prison release supervision. Due to the time constraints of this project, as well as unavailability of data, there is still a great deal about the Florida criminal justice system that is unknown. Development of or access to further information on court processes and sentences, violations and revocations, problemsolving courts, and community supervision are needed to better understand the system.

Details: Boston: Crime and Justice Institute, 2017. 71p.

Source: Internet Resource: accessed August 13, 2018 at: http://www.oppaga.state.fl.us/MonitorDocs/Reports/pdf/17-CRJ.pdf

Year: 2017

Country: United States

URL: http://www.oppaga.state.fl.us/MonitorDocs/Reports/pdf/17-CRJ.pdf

Shelf Number: 151119

Keywords:
Correctional Institutions
Prison Population
Prisoners
Prisons

Author: Sentencing Project

Title: Capitalizing on Mass Incarceration: U.S. Growth in Private Prisons

Summary: The War on Drugs and harsher sentencing policies, including mandatory minimum sentences, fueled a rapid expansion in the nation's prison population beginning in the 1980s. The resulting burden on the public sector led to the modern emergence of for-profit private prisons in many states and at the federal level. Table of Contents: Overview; Trends in Privatization; Challenges of Private Prisons; Private Contractors and their Expanding Reach Recommendations; Appendix: State Profiles in Prison Privatization

Details: Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project, 2018. 22p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 29, 2018 at: https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/capitalizing-on-mass-incarceration-u-s-growth-in-private-prisons/

Year: 2018

Country: United States

URL: https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/capitalizing-on-mass-incarceration-u-s-growth-in-private-prisons/

Shelf Number: 151302

Keywords:
Mass Incarceration
Prison Population
Private Prisons
Privatization

Author: FWD

Title: Every Second: The Impact of the Incarceration Crisis on America's Families

Summary: Executive Summary On any given day, there are more than 1.5 million people behind bars in state or federal prisons in the United States. Admissions to local jails have exceeded 10 million each year for at least the past 20 years. These figures are staggering, but the long reach of incarceration extends well beyond the jail and prison walls to the families on the other side. New research from FWD.us and Cornell University shows that approximately one in two adults (approximately 113 million people) has had an immediate family member incarcerated for at least one night in jail or prison. One in seven adults has had an immediate family member incarcerated for at least one year, and one in 34 adults has had an immediate family member spend 10 years or longer in prison. Today, an estimated 6.5 million people have an immediate family member currently incarcerated in jail or prison (1 in 38). The negative effects that individuals experience after being incarcerated are well documented, but much less is known about the incredible direct and indirect harms and challenges that families face when a loved one has been taken away. This report examines this important but understudied aspect of mass incarceration and provides new estimates on the prevalence of family incarceration for parents, siblings, spouses, and children. The findings reinforce the need to significantly reduce incarceration and support the families that are left behind. Despite limited recent declines in the jail and prison population, an unprecedented number of people continue to be impacted by incarceration and the collateral consequences of that experience which can last a lifetime. Research has shown that even short periods of incarceration can be devastating to people�s lives and additional punishments such as fines and fees, restrictions on employment and housing, and the loss of basic human rights limit opportunities for success long after individuals have completed their sentences. Our study shows that incarceration impacts people from all walks of life � for example, rates of family incarceration are similar for Republicans and Democrats � but the impact is unevenly borne by communities of color and families who are low-income. Black people are 50 percent more likely than white people to have had a family member incarcerated, and three times more likely to have had a family member incarcerated for one year or longer. People earning less than $25,000 per year are 61 percent more likely than people earning more than $100,000 to have had a family member incarcerated, and three times more likely to have had a family member incarcerated for one year or longer. The remainder of this report examines the prevalence of family incarceration for different demographic groups and communities, the impact of incarceration on family outcomes, and the policies that exacerbate the harmful effects of having a loved one incarcerated. The findings show just how pervasive and entrenched incarceration has become in America, and the results should convince decision-makers and the public to take a hard look at the policies that drive incarceration and the opportunities to strengthen families rather than tear them apart.

Details: New York, NY: 2018. 55p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 16, 2019 at: https://everysecond.fwd.us/downloads/EverySecond.fwd.us.pdf

Year: 2018

Country: United States

URL: https://everysecond.fwd.us/downloads/EverySecond.fwd.us.pdf

Shelf Number: 154183

Keywords:
Communities of Color
Families
Family Incarceration
Incarceration Crisis
Jail
Jail Population
Low-Income Communities
Mass Incarceration
Prison
Prison Population

Author: Santos, Thandara

Title: Levantamento Nacional de Informacoes Penitenciarias Infopen Mulheres (National Survey of Penitentiary Information Infopen Women)

Summary: Introduction This report, which seeks to systematize the information available on the women incarcerated in Brazil, was carried out from the survey data National Penitentiary Information System - Infopen, whose reference period was the month of June 2014, and accessed records provided by 1,424 prison units in every state and federal penitentiary system. The statistical information system of the Brazilian penitentiary system, created in 2004, passed in 2014 for important reformulations in their methodology and collection mechanisms, in order to qualify the information provided to society. However, despite the continued efforts of the National Penitentiary improvement of procedures for collecting information at the units the gaps in the information provided by units and thus to base our analyzes and inferences on the available data, always pointing to the caveats of its scope. In the survey carried out for the period of June 2014, the last data available, the information regarding the state of Sao Paulo could not be obtained through the collection system developed by DEPEN and were collected directly from the Secretariat of Administration State Penitentiary in April 2015. In this effort, general information about the state for the types of establishments, number of places and total prison population. All other profile information about people deprived of their liberty and the infrastructure of the prison system for the state of Sao Paulo were excluded from the present survey. In the general summary of the prison population in June 2014, published by The National Penitentiary Department also includes information on persons custodians of police stations or similar establishments managed by by the Secretariats of Public Security. Information on this population was collected from the National Secretariat of Public Security, the Ministry of Justice and a total of 27,950 people in custody. Added to the data collected together to Infopen, we have a total prison population of 607,731 people deprived of throughout the country in June 2014. When analyzing the characteristics of this population with a gender cut, In this report's focus, it is necessary to highlight the gaps in the information collected different sources. If we analyze the historical series from 2000 to 2014, it is identify the absence of gender-disaggregated data for persons in custody in precincts and precincts in the years 2003 and 2014, as summarized in Figure 1 below. With regard to information on women in custody in managed units Security Secretariats, it is necessary to consider the data gaps for the years of 2003 and 2014, which prevent us from using the information for the analysis of the series historical. In this sense, for the purposes of this report, only the information from Infopen, informed by prisons through online surveys and disaggregated by gender. For analysis of the historical series, information from all states of the Federation shall be considered. In order to analyze the profile of the female population incarcerated in 2014, however, disregarded the information of the state of Sao Paulo, since the state did not participated in the survey.

Details: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: DEPEN, 2014. 42p.

Source: Internet Resource (in Portuguese): Accessed January 16, 2019 at: http://www.justica.gov.br/news/estudo-traca-perfil-da-populacao-penitenciaria-feminina-no-brasil/relatorio-infopen-mulheres.pdf

Year: 2014

Country: Brazil

URL: http://depen.gov.br/DEPEN/depen/sisdepen/infopen-mulheres

Shelf Number: 154201

Keywords:
Brazil
Female Prison Population
Gender
Incarcerated Women
Incarceration
National Penitentiary Department
National Penitentiary Information System
Prison
Prison Population
Women Offenders

Author: Schleifer, Rebecca

Title: Drug Courts in the Americas

Summary: Executive Summary Drug courts in the United States are presented as an alternative to incarceration for people arrested for minor drug offenses where drug use is considered an underlying cause of the crime, thus theoretically serving as a tool for reducing prison and jail populations. The United States has nearly thirty years of experience with these courts, which have spread to all fifty states as well as US territories. Many countries around the world have looked to the United States' experience with drug courts as a model to be adopted, and the US government has also promoted them abroad as an alternative to incarceration. Perhaps the most organized efforts to expand this policy are those currently underway in Latin America and the Caribbean. The considerable influence of the United States on the region's drug control policies has certainly encouraged many of its countries to view drug courts as such an alternative, and the growing number of countries implementing them signals that these efforts are moving ahead with full force there. The Canadian government has also worked to support the expansion of drug courts, particularly in the Caribbean, but this report does not focus on the Canadian model. Proponents of drug courts assert that they are cost-effective; they reduce recidivism as well as time spent in detention (prison or jail); and they offer drug treatment as an alternative to incarceration to people whose drug use fuels their criminal activity. To evaluate these assertions, this report reviews key findings from the United States' experience which, despite major institutional, legal, and cultural differences, may usefully inform debates about drug courts, along with other alternatives to incarceration for low-level drug crimes, in other countries - in particular, in countries in Latin America and the Caribbean that have either established, or are looking to establish, drug courts. This report also presents a brief overview of where and how drug courts have been implemented in Latin America and the Caribbean to identify, to the extent possible, the different experiences and challenges faced by those countries. One main difficulty in this exercise is the limited availability of data that would allow strong parallels to be drawn. As is the case with the United States, with rare exceptions, drug courts in Latin America and Caribbean are not independently monitored and evaluated, and most were established relatively recently. Nevertheless, we have found the information available points to fundamental problems with the implementation of drug courts; the findings from the United States experience could, at the very least, offer insight into whether and under what circumstances they provide a more desirable option than incarceration. The US section is based on review of the existing research on drug courts and treatment for substance use disorders and evaluations of drug court efficacy conducted and published by the US government, major research institutions, advocacy organizations, and leading scholars whose work focuses on drug courts specifically or on criminal justice, substance use disorders, drug treatment, and drug policy more broadly. The Latin America and Caribbean sections are based on a review of their available information on drug courts (which is significantly more limited than the vast literature available in the United States), as well as on research on criminal justice, incarceration, drug treatment, and drug policy, responses to requests for information, and interviews. Also reviewed for each country are laws, official documents (including memoranda of understanding, government documents and web pages, judiciary reports, PowerPoint presentations made by authorities, and international organization documents, among others), studies and evaluations (when available), and, in a few cases, news reports. The substantial diversity among drug court models complicates efforts to evaluate their impact on the problems they aim to address, but our review of the existing evidence shows the claim that drug courts provide an alternative to incarceration is debatable. We found that drug courts, as implemented in the United States, are a costly, cumbersome intervention that has limited, if any, impact on reducing incarceration. Indeed, for many participants, they may have the opposite effect by increasing criminal justice supervision and subjecting those who fail to graduate to harsher penalties than they might otherwise have received, thus becoming an adjunct rather than an alternative to incarceration. Moreover, evidence about their effectiveness in reducing cost, recidivism, and time spent in prison is mixed. The financial and human costs to drug court participants are also steep and disproportionately burdensome to the poor and racial minorities. The evidence also does not support drug courts as an appropriate public health intervention. Drug court judges are empowered to make treatment decisions that should be the domain of health care professionals, choosing from limited or counterproductive options that may threaten the health and lives of participants as well as expose confidential information about their health and drug use. One of the main stated objectives of drug courts is to ensure access to comprehensive substance abuse treatment for those who need it. Our review of the available evidence shows, however, that, in practice, many drug court participants do not need treatment; at the same time, treatment may be unavailable to or inappropriate for those who do. Evidence we have found indicates the resort to drug courts may be an appropriate measure for certain offenders - that is, people charged with serious crimes linked to their drug dependence who would otherwise serve prison terms. What is often not considered is that most drug courts do not meet this definition. More important, we must remember that drug dependence treatment is a type of medical care. People who are dependent on drugs have a right, under international human rights law, to relevant health care services that are available, physically and economically accessible without discrimination, gender appropriate, culturally and ethically acceptable, designed to respect confidentiality, scientifically and medically appropriate, and of good quality. By mediating treatment through the criminal justice system, drug courts aggressively insert the penal system into people's private and family lives and into their decisions about their health and medical care, reproducing and perpetuating the criminalization of people who use drugs and those involved in low-level drug-related crimes. As an overall framework through which to think about drug courts, we should not lose sight of the fact that no individuals, regardless of their criminal records, should be punished for their medical conditions, nor should they have to allow courts to make their medical decisions for them or rely on the criminal justice system for access to treatment that could perhaps have prevented their incarceration in the first place. The primary lessons learned from US drug courts that should be considered by other countries in the Americas as they look at this model are the following: Drug courts are not an alternative to incarceration: - Defendants remain in criminal proceedings at every step in the drug court program, risk incarceration, both as a sanction while in the program and for failure to complete it, and, in some cases, spend more time behind bars than they would have had they chosen to pursue criminal justice proceedings instead of drug court. Drug courts may increase the number of people under supervision of the criminal justice system in the following ways: - By requiring them to plead guilty as a condition of getting access to drug court. - By processing discretionary crimes that police might have not enforced had drug court not been an option. - By mediating treatment through the criminal justice system. Drug courts are not a rights-based health intervention: - Drug court judges maintain control over treatment decisions for drug court participants, in some cases ordering treatment that is at odds with accepted medical practice. - Participants who fail drug court risk incarceration and face abrupt interruption of treatment and other health risks attendant to incarceration. - Access to treatment comes at the cost of forfeiting fundamental legal and human rights. Drug courts may perpetuate racial bias in the criminal justice system: - Drug courts point to drug dependence as the factor that puts people at risk of criminal justice involvement, ignoring the racial bias in drug policing and prosecution in the United States that leads African Americans and Latinos into long-term criminal justice supervision at much higher rates than their white counterparts. Further complicating this scenario is the concerted effort to export drug courts as a model that should be adopted by other countries. Despite the evidence from the United States experience cited above, countries in Latin America and the Caribbean have embraced drug courts as a promising solution to the over-incarceration problem that plagues the region. This development is problematic not only because governments in the region apparently are not conducting proper investigations before adopting drug courts as a public policy model, but also because the very specific social, economic, and political context of Latin American and Caribbean countries immediately complicates the adoption of public policies designed by other, more developed countries with different legal systems. The lack, for example, of scientifically and medically appropriate treatment options and the reliance on private providers is a serious issue in the Latin America and Caribbean region, where numerous cases of abuse and human rights violations by treatment providers have been documented. Furthermore, health systems do not have enough capacity to provide health and social services to all the people who need them; in these cases, private and religious institutions with scarce knowledge about drug dependence, treatment, and medical standards are used. A reliance on abstinence-based treatment programs and drug testing is also of concern. On the criminal justice side of the issue, many drug courts in the region still focus on simple drug possession as a crime, contributing to the criminalization and stigmatization of people who use drugs. Research about drug courts in Latin America and the Caribbean also underscores the need for a more rigorous data management system that can provide sufficient information for a comprehensive assessment of their effectiveness in the region. Currently, research is too dependent on anecdotal evidence and not focused on evidence-based analysis. This report's main findings about drug treatment courts in Latin America are as follows: - Generally speaking, detailed and current data are lacking in almost all the Latin American countries studied, and independent evaluations are scarce. - The model is more advanced in three countries (Chile, Mexico, and Costa Rica) and in a pilot phase in four others (Argentina, Panama, Dominican Republic, and Colombia). Ecuador and Peru are also considering whether to establish drug courts. - Most programs in the region were established in 2012 or later, except for the Chilean model, which was implemented in 2004. - Drug courts in Latin America function as specific programs within the legal jurisdictions where they have been established rather than as special courts. They function under the conditional suspension of criminal proceedings mechanism and adopt a pre-plea approach that diverts participants before conviction. - Candidates must meet two basic requirements to enter the programs: they must be prosecuted for an eligible offense, and they must receive a diagnosis of problematic drug use related to the commission of the crime. - Only people charged with what the local jurisdictions consider to be minor and/or nonviolent rimes (charges carrying sentences of no more than three to five years in prison) are accepted in the programs. - Many programs carry harsh penalties as sanctions during the course of treatment. - In most programs, participants must be first-time offenders. - In contrast to the US experience, Latin American drug treatment courts graduate few participants. - The drug courts in the region most commonly address crimes against property, domestic violence, and drug possession. Based on available information, simple possession is one of the most frequent crimes in drug court programs that include drug offenses (those in Chile, Dominican Republic, Mexico, and Panama). - Most participants in drug court programs are male. - Juvenile courts have been established in Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, and Mexico, and other countries plan to create such programs. - Much as in the United States, participation in Latin American drug courts typically requires that participants remain drug free and sometimes sanction them for positive drug tests. - Most countries clearly lack the capacity to provide appropriate treatment to all program participants. This report's main findings about drug treatment courts in the English-speaking Caribbean are as follows: - Much as in Latin America, detailed and current data are lacking in almost all the Caribbean countries studied, and no independent evaluations of drug courts have been done. The information available is mostly from government sources. - The earliest drug court programs in the Caribbean were established in 2001 in Bermuda and Jamaica (making these the oldest programs in the Latin America and Caribbean region), with other countries (the Cayman Islands, Trinidad and Tobago, Barbados, and Belize) establishing drug courts in 2012 or later. - The drug court model is more advanced in three countries (Bermuda, Jamaica, and the Cayman Islands) and in an initial phase in three others (Trinidad and Tobago, Barbados, and Belize). The Bahamas seems to be interested in establishing drug courts. - Drug courts in the Caribbean are not specialized courts as in the United States but, rather, operate as specific programs under local lower (parish/magistrate�s) courts, as in Latin America. The drug treatment courts in Caribbean countries operate under different legal structures. Bermuda, the Cayman Islands, and Jamaica have enacted specific legislation, while Barbados, Belize, and Trinidad and Tobago have signed memoranda of understanding with the Organization of American States' Inter-American Drug Abuse Control Commission (CICAD). The Canadian government has directly supported the implementation of drug courts in a few Caribbean countries. - The basic requirements for admission to drug court are to be charged with an eligible offense and receive a diagnosis of problematic drug use related to the commission of the crime. - Only people charged with what the local jurisdictions consider to be minor and/or nonviolent crimes are accepted in the programs, with the exception of Jamaica, where people charged with certain more serious crimes may be eligible. Participants must be first-time offenders. - Jamaica is the only country in the English-speaking Caribbean where a guilty plea is not a requirement for admission. - The information available suggests that few participants graduate from Caribbean drug courts. - The drug courts in the region most commonly address crimes against property and drug possession. Based on available information, simple possession is one of the most frequent crimes in drug court programs that include drug offenses. - Most participants in drug court programs are male. - Juvenile courts have been established in Jamaica, and reports indicate the Cayman Islands and Trinidad and Tobago are exploring the possibility of establishing such programs. - Many programs carry harsh penalties as sanctions during the course of treatment. - Participation in Caribbean drug courts typically requires that participants remain drug free, and they rely on drug testing to assess compliance, with sanctions imposed for positive drug tests. - Information about treatment standards and options available is scarce, but our research suggests most countries in the region lack the capacity to provide appropriate treatment to all program participants. Undoubtedly, the creation of alternatives to the criminal justice system for drug-related offenses is urgently needed, and countries should focus on moving away from an excessive reliance on incarceration as a panacea. Nonetheless, a close examination of the United States as a case study does not support the drug court model as the most appropriate solution for governments genuinely focused on addressing this issue, since in some respects it continues to criminalize drug consumption and prioritize a criminal approach to drug dependence over a health approach. Hence, this report presents a series of recommendations that should be seriously considered by countries concerned with mass incarceration and intent on moving away from over-reliance on criminal justice responses to drug use. We developed the recommendations with two groups in mind: countries that have not established drug courts or in which they are in early stages, and countries in which drug courts are more established and their continuation is overwhelmingly supported, thus making it difficult (but not impossible) to address the issues raised here.

Details: New York, NY: Social Science Research Council, 2018. 126p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 20, 2019 at: https://www.ssrc.org/publications/view/drug-courts-in-the-americas/

Year: 2018

Country: International

URL: https://s3.amazonaws.com/ssrc-cdn1/crmuploads/new_publication_3/DSD_Drug+Courts_English_online+final.pdf

Shelf Number: 154312

Keywords:
Alternatives to Incarceration
Caribbean
Data Management System
Drug Courts
Drug Crimes
Drug Offenses
Drug Possession
Drug Treatment Courts
Inter-American Drug Abuse Control Commission (CICA
Jail Population
Latin America
Prison Population
Public Health Intervention
Racial Bias
Recidivism
Substance Use
Supervision
Treatment

Rutgers - School of Law, Newark

Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.

Results for prison population