Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: November 22, 2024 Fri
Time: 11:33 am
Time: 11:33 am
Results for prison overcrowding
50 results foundAuthor: Greene, Judith Title: Downscaling Prisons: Lessons from Four States Summary: This report summarizes reforms and policies that have helped reduce prison populations in New York, Michigan, New Jersey, and Kansas. Policies discussed include sentencing reforms, alternatives to prison, reducing time served, and evaluation of parole policies. Details: Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project, 2010. 61p. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 117707 Keywords: ImprisonmentPrison OvercrowdingPrison SentencesPrisonersPrisons |
Author: Baker, Jordan Title: A Solution to Prison Overcrowding and Recidivism: Global Positioning System Location of Parolees and Probationers Summary: The research of the Innovative Tracking Systems team focuses on location and data management technology for use in the criminal justice system, with an emphasis on monitoring probationers and parolees. Faced with an overwhelming prison population and an unprecedented amount of people recently released from prison, the need to curb recidivism is stronger than ever before. A Global Positioning System (GPS) based technological solution will better equip corrections officers to monitor offenders in the community and also provide a highly visible deterrent. This thesis explores the philosophy of incarceration and parole, current trends in correctional manpower and technology, officer burnout, case law, and privacy concerns. Specific evaluation is made of existing and on-the-horizon location technology for use in probation monitoring. In light of current problems in the corrections field, the thesis proposes and evaluates the efficacy of a novel technology – the Sentinel Location System - for use in probationer and parolee monitoring programs. Details: Baltimore, MD: Gemstone Program, University of Maryland, 2002. 131p. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2002 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 118538 Keywords: Global Positioning System (GPS)ParoleParoleesPrison OvercrowdingProbationProbationers |
Author: Boylan, Richard T. Title: Intended and Unintended Consequences of Prison Reform Summary: Since the 1970s, U.S. federal courts have issued court orders condemning state prison crowding. However, the impact of these court orders on prison spending and prison conditions is theoretically ambiguous because it is unclear if these court orders are enforceable. We examine states' responses to court interventions and show that these interventions generate higher per inmate incarceration costs, lower inmate mortality rates, and a reduction in prisoners per capita. If states seek to minimize the cost of crime through deterrence, an increase in prison costs should lead states to shift resources from corrections to other means of deterring crime such as welfare and education spending. However, we find that court interventions, that are associated with higher corrections expenditures, lead to lower welfare expenditures. This suggests that the burden of increased correctional spending is borne by the poor. Furthermore, states do not increase welfare spending after their release from court order; making the reduction in welfare spending permanent. Thus, our results suggest that states do not respond to prison reform in the manner prescribed by the deterrence model. States' responses to prison reform are most consistent with the predictions in the empirical public finance literature that indicate stickiness in expenditure categories and that increases in spending in programs that affect the poor generate declines in expenditures in other program that are also targeted to the poor. Details: Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2009. 34p. Source: Internet Resource; NBER Working Paper Series; Working Paper 15535 Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 117359 Keywords: Costs of Criminal JusticePrison OvercrowdingPrison ReformPrisons |
Author: Weatherburn, Don Title: Prison Populations and Correctional Outlays: The Effect of Reducing Re-Imprisonment Summary: "Between 1998 and 2008, the Australian imprisonment rate (per capita) rose 20 per cent. In 2008, net recurrent and capital expenditure on prisons in Australia exceeded $2.6 billion per annum. Efforts to reduce the prison population through the creation of alternatives to custody have not been very successful. This bulletin explores the potential savings in prison costs and prison numbers of reducing the rate at which prisoners return to custody. The results of our analysis suggest that modest reductions in the rate at which offenders are re-imprisoned would result in substantial savings in prisoner numbers and correctional outlays. A ten per cent reduction in the overall re-imprisonment rates would reduce the prison population by more than 800 inmates, saving $28 million per year. Comparable reductions in the number of new sentenced prisoners also produce benefits but they are smaller. The potential benefits of reducing the rate of re-imprisonment among subgroups of offenders with a high re-imprisonment rate are particularly noteworthy. A 10 per cent reduction in the Indigenous re-imprisonment rate, for example, would reduce the Indigenous sentenced prisoner population by 365 inmates, resulting in savings of more than $10 million per annum." Details: Sydney: New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, 2009. 11p. Source: Internet Resource; Contemporary Issues in Crime and Justice, No. 138; Accessed August 8, 2010 at http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/cjb138.pdf/$file/cjb138.pdf Year: 2009 Country: Australia URL: http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/cjb138.pdf/$file/cjb138.pdf Shelf Number: 119575 Keywords: Costs of CorrectionsInmatesPrison OvercrowdingPrison Population (Australia)PrisonsRecidivism |
Author: International Crisis Group Title: Haiti: Prison Reform and the Rule of Law Summary: Haiti's overcrowded, understaffed and insecure prisons are powder kegs awaiting a spark. Any explosion of violence or mass prisoner escape could undermine recent steps by the government and UN peacekeepers (MINUSTAH) to combat urban gangs and organised crime. The immediate needs are to ensure that the most dangerous prisoners, including newly arrested kidnap suspects, are held in maximum security cells; there are more guards to protect and ensure minimum care for prisoners; and a fast-track government/donor-financed plan to build more secure prisons begins. As President Rene Preval's government nears the end of its first year, failure to respond with greater urgency and resources to the prison crisis not only would complicate police and justice reform but could add to national insecurity. Details: Port-au-Prince/Brussels: International Crisis Group, 2007. 11p. Source: Internet Resource: Latin America/Caribbean Briefing No. 15: Accessed September 2, 2010 at: http://www.crisisgroup.org/~/media/Files/latin-america/haiti/b15_haiti_prison_reform_and_the_rule_of_law.ashx Year: 2007 Country: Haiti URL: http://www.crisisgroup.org/~/media/Files/latin-america/haiti/b15_haiti_prison_reform_and_the_rule_of_law.ashx Shelf Number: 119729 Keywords: Prison OvercrowdingPrisons |
Author: Huenke, Chuck Title: Delaware's House Bill 210: A Tradeoff of Lighter Drug Trafficking and Repeat Drug Selling Sentences for Harsher Sentences for Serious Person and Property Crimes Summary: In terms of criminal justice policy, House Bill 210 is surpassed in importance only by such changes as the establishment of the Sentencing Accountability Commission in 1987 (SENTAC) and Truth in Sentencing in 1990. When House Bill 210 became law on June 30, 2003 the expectation was that the impact of the significant reductions in the controversial drug trafficking and repeat drug selling mandatory sentences would be offset by the increased penalties for serious crimes such as Robbery 1st, Assault 1st, Burglary 1st, and Burglary 2nd. It was estimated that initially there would be a short-term savings due to the decrease in the number of Department of Correction (DOC) beds used for drug dealers and that over the long-run more beds would be needed for the longer violent offenders’ terms. Eventually the combination of the shorter drug and longer violent crime sentences would result in a bed neutral DOC impact. This goal would have been met, if all other things besides sentence length had remained constant between 2003 and 2007. However, as this study documents, criminal justice practice and crime volume shifts cannot always be anticipated resulting in unexpected outcomes. The initial HB 210 study (DelSAC, October 2005) showed a significant decrease in the need for DOC beds. At this early stage, not only were 298 DOC beds saved due to shorter drug selling sentences, but also fewer than expected Robbery 1st Degree cases received the new 3-year minimum term, resulting in an additional 57 DOC bed savings. Overall in the initial phases of HB 210 there was a surprising 355 bed savings. This bed savings contributed to the no-growth period in the DOC prison population in 2003 and 2004. In this follow-up study, the 2006 HB 210 sentence lengths – longer for violent crimes and shorter for drug selling – for the most part conformed to the new law. However, instead of a bed saving as was initially experienced, or a bed neutral result that was originally expected, by 2006 – 2007 there was a need for at least 338 more DOC beds. This increased bed demand was caused more by changes in crime volume, conviction rates and plea-bargaining than deviations from the expectations for HB 210. Of special note is the significant increase in the use of habitual sentences in place of the shorter HB 210 drug sentences. While there was speculation that this might happen, this is the first documentation that such a change actually occurred. These changes since 2004, many of them unanticipated, contributed to the increased 2006 and 2007 DOC prison populations. Brief summaries of the complex changes associated with HB 210 cases are provided below prior to the report’s detailed analysis. Details: Dover, DE: Delaware Office of Management and Budget, Statistical Analysis Center, 2008. 16p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 8, 2010 at: http://sac.omb.delaware.gov/publications/documents/HB210_Jan_2008.pdf Year: 2008 Country: United States URL: http://sac.omb.delaware.gov/publications/documents/HB210_Jan_2008.pdf Shelf Number: 120416 Keywords: Drug Laws (Delaware)Prison OvercrowdingSentencing Reform |
Author: Metaal, Pien Title: Systems Overload: Drug Laws and Prisons in Latin America Summary: A comparative study on the impact of drug policies on the prison systems of eight Latin American countries – Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico, Peru, and Uruguay – reveals that drug laws have contributed to the prison crises these countries are experiencing. The study Systems Overload: Drug Laws and Prisons in Latin America, published by the Transnational Institute (TNI) and the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA), found that the persons who are incarcerated for drug offenses tend to be individuals caught with small amounts of drugs, often users, as well as street-level dealers. The drug laws impose penalties disproportionate to many of the drug offenses committed, do not give sufficient consideration to the use of alternative sanctions, and promote the excessive use of preventive detention. The weight of the law falls on the most vulnerable individuals, overcrowding the prisons, but allowing drug trafficking to flourish. Details: Washington, DC: Washington Office on Latin America; Amsterdam: Transnational Institute, 2011. 100p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 8, 2011 at: http://www.druglawreform.info/images/stories/documents/Systems_Overload/TNI-Systems_Overload-def.pdf Year: 2011 Country: Central America URL: http://www.druglawreform.info/images/stories/documents/Systems_Overload/TNI-Systems_Overload-def.pdf Shelf Number: 121288 Keywords: Drug Control Policy (Latin America)Drug OffensesDrug TraffickingDrugsPrison Overcrowding |
Author: Ball, W. David Title: Tough on Crime on the State's Dime Summary: California’s prisons are dangerously and unconstitutionally overcrowded; as a result of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Plata v. Schwarzenegger, the state must act to reduce its prison population or face court-ordered prisoner releases. The state’s plans to reduce overcrowding are centered around what it calls criminal justice “realignment”, whereby California will send a portion of the state prison population to county facilities. The plan faces opposition from county officials, who see it as pushing the state’s problem on to the counties. But what if state prison overcrowding is really a county problem? I argue that state prison overcrowding is due in large part to county decisions about how to deal with crime. Using data from 2000-2009, I will show that California’s counties use state prison resources at dramatically different rates, and, moreover, that the counties which use state prisons the most have below-average crime rates. The contribution the Article makes, then, is twofold. First, it reinforces that incarceration in state prisons is one policy choice among many, not an inexorable reaction to violent crime. Counties can and do make different choices about how to respond to violent crime, including the extent to which they use prison. Second, the Article demonstrates why localities are crucial - and critically underexamined - contributors to state prison populations. Decisions are made at local levels about prosecution, investigation, plea bargaining, and sentencing, and these decisions are made by officials who are either elected locally (such as DA’s, judges, and sheriffs) or appointed locally (police and probation officers). Local policies and policymakers affect the state’s corrections budget, even though the state has no say in designing or implementing these policies. State officials must take these local differences into account, and create incentives for counties to behave differently. The problem is that it is difficult to distinguish between justifiable, crime-driven incarceration and optional, policy-driven incarceration. I propose a new metric for distinguishing between these two types of incarceration, one which defines justified incarceration in terms of violent crime. This would allow the state to manage local usage of state prison resources without either penalizing crime-ridden areas or rewarding prison-happy ones. This Article is the first of two articles dealing with the state/county prison relationship. While this Article quantifies the ways in which the extent of local prison admissions is not necessarily a function of the violent crime rate, a second Article will examine whether, given these differences, it makes sense for the state to subsidize county commitments to prison. Details: Unpublished Working Paper, 2011. 67p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 10, 2011 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1871427 Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1871427 Shelf Number: 122349 Keywords: Criminal Justice PolicyDecision-MakingPrison OvercrowdingPrisons (California)Violent Crime |
Author: Diroll, David J. Title: Prison Crowding: The Long View, With Suggestions Summary: Most of this report takes you through the recent history of Ohio’s prison population (see A Short Primer on Prison Crowding, beginning on p. 4). As Ohio faces record deficits and record prison populations, that primer should be worth 15 minutes of your time. The table on p. 6 is especially useful. Several informed suggestions designed to ease the problem begin on p. 14. Here are a few of the report’s highlights: • Ohio prisons now hold about 50,500. That’s 6½ times the number held in 1974. That puts the prison system 31% over its rated capacity, with about 12,500 more inmates than the prisons were built to hold (p. 4). • Crowding gives the state a perverse bargain. Extra inmates add relatively little to total costs. Adding inmates in an over-capacity system only costs about $16/day in food, clothing, and medical care. To save the $60+ “total” prison costs—including construction, debt service, and added staff—the population will have to move below capacity. Many different ideas will have to be considered (p. 4). • Ohio undertook an expensive prison construction project from the mid-‘80s to the mid-‘90s, adding over 17,000 beds. But the number of inmates and their sentence lengths continually grew to exceed the system’s expanded capacity (p. 7). • For years, the prison population increased as prison intake grew. However, recent growth in Ohio’s prison population—even with mandatory sentences and scores of bills that increase penalties for particular offenses—is not driven primarily by intake (although it is a factor). It’s largely fueled by increases in inmates’ average length-of-stay (pp. 4-14). • In the past 35 years, the only period in which the Ohio prison population remained relatively static was the first decade under S.B. 2, from 1997-2006. That bill increased the actual time served for high level offenders but made tradeoffs for others, including meaningful checks on length-of-stay (pp. 8-10). • A peculiar line of U.S. Supreme Court cases led the Ohio Supreme Court to strike down S.B. 2’s key length-of-stay restrictions in 2006. Even when accounting for other factors, these decisions led to an increase in average time served of almost 5 months per inmate. The cumulative “Blakely/Foster effect” so far has been well over 4,000 beds. None of this growth came from tough-on-crime legislation (p. 14). • Sentencing Commission suggestions include: o Reenact a constitutional alternative to Foster (pp. 15); o Seriously consider the changes proposed in S.B. 10 (p. 15-16); o Treat drug and non-drug cases alike within the same sentencing range (pp. 16-17); o A sampling of other ideas begins on p. 18. • Separately, simplify the Revised Code (p. 20) and address the “missing” elements in various criminal statutes (p. 20). Details: Columbus, OH: Ohio Criminal Sentencing Commission, 2011. 21p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 26, 2011 at: http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/Boards/Sentencing/resources/Publications/MonitoringReport2011.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/Boards/Sentencing/resources/Publications/MonitoringReport2011.pdf Shelf Number: 122550 Keywords: Prison OvercrowdingPrisons (Ohio)Sentencing |
Author: Title: Reforming Pakistan's Prison System Summary: A corrupt and dysfunctional prison system has contributed to – and is a manifestation of – the breakdown of the rule of law in Pakistan. Heavily overpopulated, understaffed and poorly managed, the prisons have become a fertile breeding ground for criminality and militancy, with prisoners more likely to return to crime than to abandon it. The system must be examined in the context of a deteriorating criminal justice sector that fails to prevent or prosecute crime, and protects the powerful while victimising the underprivileged. Yet, while domestic and international actors alike are devoting more resources to improve policing and prosecution, prisons continue to be largely neglected. The Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP)-led government at the centre and the four provincial governments, as well as the country’s international partners, should make penal reform a central component of a criminal justice reform agenda. Pakistan lacks a systematic program for the capacity building of prison staff, while existing regulations on postings, transfers and promotions are frequently breached because of nepotism and political interference. Given weak accountability mechanisms for warders and prison superintendents, torture and other brutal treatment are rampant and rarely checked. Moreover, with out-dated laws and procedures, bad practices and poor oversight, the criminal justice system is characterised by long detentions without trial. As a result, prisons remain massively overcrowded, with nearly 33,000 more prisoners than the authorised capacity. The large majority of the total prison population – around 50,000 out of 78,000 – are remand prisoners awaiting or on trial. With more than two dozen capital offences, including many discriminatory provisions that carry a mandatory death penalty, the death-row population is the largest in the world, though the current government has placed an informal moratorium on executions. Circumventing the justice system, the military has detained thousands of people, ostensibly suspected of terrorism but including thousands of political dissidents and others opposed to the military’s policies, especially in Balochistan, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KPK) and the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA). Its methods include torture, collective justice and extrajudicial killings. By swelling public resentment, such practices are more likely to create terrorists than counter them. Instead of establishing parallel, unaccountable and illegal structures, countering militancy requires the reform of a dysfunctional criminal justice system. The separation of low-level offenders and suspects, particularly impressionable youth, from the criminal hardcore is particularly urgent. In violation of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance (JJSO), children continue to be arrested for petty offences and illegally detained for days and even months; in the absence of adequate facilities, their exposure to hardened criminals, including jihadis, makes them more likely to embrace crime, including militancy, after they are released than before they were imprisoned. Yet, with jails overflowing, it is nearly impossible to isolate hardened criminals, including militants, from remand prisoners, juveniles and low-level or first-time offenders. Provincial governments are trying to reduce overcrowding by constructing more prisons and barracks. This strategy is not sustainable. The problem is not simply one of inadequate infrastructure. The prison population will continue to increase so long as bail rights are rarely granted, and accused persons are seldom brought to court on their trial dates. Recent legislation under the current government that makes it easier to obtain bail is a step in the right direction, but only if consistently applied by the courts. There is, however, an acute shortage of probation and parole officers and no systematic programs to rehabilitate released prisoners. In addition to improving police and judicial functioning, the national and provincial governments should invest in establishing an effective probation regime; creating alternatives to imprisonment for petty crimes, such as fines, community service, community confinement and mental health and drug treatment; and providing free legal aid to those who cannot afford it, including by fully resourcing public defenders’ offices. Strong action should also be taken against police and prison officials for often failing to get prisoners to court on their trial dates, or often only doing so after bribes have been paid. Like the police and courts, the prison system is a major contact point between citizen and state, reflecting the public’s access to justice. Major reforms are necessary to restore public confidence in the government’s ability to enforce the rule of law while protecting the rights of all citizens. Having ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (UNCAT) in June 2010, the government should allocate the necessary human and financial resources and meet its obligations under these international treaties, so as to ensure that torture and other ill-treatment of detainees are stopped and that officials and institutions responsible for such practises are held accountable. If Pakistan’s prison system remains brutal, opaque and unaccountable, it will continue to aggravate rather than help resolve the country’s major internal security challenges. RECOMMENDATIONS To the Federal Government of Pakistan and Provincial Governments: 1. Repeal the Actions (in Aid of Civil Power) Regulation 2011 for the Federally Administered Tribal Areas and Provincially Administered Tribal Areas, and replace the Frontier Crimes Regulations (FCR) 1901, with an updated Penal Code, Criminal Procedure Code and Evidence Act, in accordance with Article 8 of the constitution and internationally accepted human rights standards. 2. Commit to the abolition of torture and other ill-treatment of detainees in all places of detention, and with the necessary financial and human resources take tangible steps to implement international conventions that Pakistan has ratified, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (UNCAT). 3. Address overcrowding in prisons by: a) enforcing existing bail laws, and urging the high judiciary to hold trial court judges accountable for failing to grant bail according to the law; b) passing a new law requiring judges to allow bail unless there are reasonable grounds to believe the prisoner would abscond or commit further offences; and c) reforming the sentencing structure for non-violent petty crimes and first-time offenders to include alternatives to imprisonment, such as fines, probation, community service and psychological and drug treatment. 4. Implement the federal Public Defender and Legal Aid Office Act and pass and implement provincial equivalents without delay; and fund and support NGOs providing free legal aid to prisoners until such offices are established. 5. Improve the quality of prison staff by: a) making the inspectorate of prisons an autonomous organisation instead of an attached department of the provincial home ministry; b) raising salaries, and linking salaries and privileges to those of the police; c) ensuring recruitment on merit and streamlining promotion mechanisms to allow the most deserving to be rewarded with career advancement opportunities; d) building a training institution in each of the four provinces; and e) improving the quality of instruction provided to prison staff through the introduction of modern curricula, based on international standards. 6. Crack down on criminality and improve prison security by: a) taking action against prison officials for failing to enforce security-related regulations; b) preventing access to mobile phones; taking steps to reduce substance abuse and other criminal activity within prisons; and taking action against prison staff responsible for providing prohibited material to inmates; c) training prison staff to more effectively quell riots and repel attacks by prisoners and providing the staff with adequate equipment; and d) installing jamming devices and CCTVs in all major prisons. 7. Improve conditions for prisoners and ensure that they are consistent with legal requirements by: a) constituting criminal justice coordination committees at the national, provincial and district levels, as mandated by Police Order (2002), and authorising them to regularly visit prisons to examine conditions, determine prison administrators’ adherence to law and raise prison-related issues with responsible government officials and policymakers; b) constituting public safety commissions at the national, provincial and district levels, as mandated by Police Order (2002), and extending their authority to hold prison officials accountable for failure to uphold prisoners’ rights and to maintain required standards in prison administration; c) ending the practice of putting condemned prisoners in death row cells while their appeals are still pending, shifting them instead to general barracks; d) investing in better medical care for inmates by allocating more resources and engaging with philanthropists and NGOs to provide better facilities; e) building separate detention facilities for women prisoners and ending the practice of housing them in separate barracks within male prisons; f) eliminating the practice of keeping juveniles in regular prisons, including by establishing functional borstal institutions in each province; and g) amending the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA), 1997, to require juveniles charged under it to be tried in juvenile courts. 8. Take steps toward the reintegration and rehabilitation of released prisoners by: a) investing in education services and vocational training for inmates, particularly youth and women, to inculcate skills needed to re-enter the workforce; b) improving the functioning of probation and reclamation departments by developing specialised training and curriculums for probation officers and prison staff in the National Academy for Prisons Administration (NAPA), the Punjab Prisons Staff Training Institute and other training institutes; c) directing each provincial home ministry to assess the number of probation and parole officers required by existing and expected caseloads and to increase their numbers accordingly, while providing them with proper offices and adequate facilities, including transport; and d) engaging with probationers’ family members and encouraging community involvement in their rehabilitation and reintegration. 9. End military-devised “de-radicalisation” programs, developing instead a holistic policy aimed at preventing jihadi recruitment, including separating juveniles and other minor and first-time offenders from the adult prison population; making bail the norm rather than the exception; and establishing an effective probation and rehabilitation regime along the lines suggested above. To the International Community, in particular the U.S.: 10. Support the government’s reform agenda, allocating a substantial portion of civilian law enforcement assistance to prison reform, with a focus on: a) improving training programs for prison staff based on revised curriculums that bring existing prison procedures in line with international standards; b) supporting the computerisation of prison and probation records; c) working with training institutes to improve training for probation personnel and with reclamation officials/departments to rehabilitate and reintegrate released prisoners into society and the workforce; and d) supporting NGOs that provide legal aid, education, and vocational training to prisoners, particularly juveniles. 11. Urge the Pakistan military to provide international and domestic humanitarian agencies, including the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), complete access to the estimated thousands of detainees, including juveniles, under its custody, including that of its intelligence agencies, in Balochistan, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and FATA. 12. Condition military assistance on the Pakistani military immediately ending practices that violate international conventions and basic international legal standards, including illegal detention, collective justice, torture, and extrajudicial killings; and scrutinise the military’s actions when reporting on Pakistan’s compliance with the ICCPR, UNCAT and other treaties. Details: Islamabad, Brussels: International Crisis Group, 2011. 41p. Source: Internet Resource: Asia Report No. 212: Accessed October 18, 2011 at: Year: 2011 Country: Pakistan URL: Shelf Number: 123053 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationPrison OvercrowdingPrison ReformPrisonersPrisons (Pakistan) |
Author: Mills, Helen Title: Reducing the numbers in custody: Summary: This is the second and final paper in the Reform Sector Strategies project funded by the Esmée Fairbairn Foundation. The two papers produced as part of this work intend to generate debate among those committed to reducing the prison population on how to tackle prison expansion in England and Wales and bring about a reduction in the prison population in the longer term. The first paper in the series, Community Sentences: a solution to penal excess?, was published earlier this year. The paper reflected on the limitations of attempts to reduce prison numbers by reforming community sentences, one of the major interventions undertaken by those opposing the high numbers imprisoned in England and Wales in the period since the late 1990s. The paper concluded that attempts to reduce the numbers in prison to below 80/85,000 would require looking for solutions outside the confines of a debate about more and better community sentences. This second paper moves from ‘looking back’ to ‘looking forward’ to what might inform a debate about how to reduce the use of custody in the future. Its main aim is to contribute to such a debate by considering the potential of a perspective which suggests that the challenge of addressing prison numbers can be assessed rather differently than it is in many campaign strategies challenging the use of imprisonment, that of socio-economic explanations for the numbers we imprison. The term ‘socio-economic explanations’ is used to describe an account that locates answers to the question of why we imprison the numbers we do in a wider set of social arrangements and conditions. Its innovation is in bringing together two fields typically regarded as peripheral or even of separate concern to each other: wider socio-economic circumstances and the use of imprisonment. The intention here is to consider a perspective that locates prison and criminal justice system as institutions among a wider set of social and economic arrangements. Socio-economic explanations are also applied to questions about those caught up in the criminal justice system, such as why some people are more (so called) ‘criminal’ than others or why some individuals and not others end up in the criminal justice system. These are not the questions explored here. Locating the challenges for criminal justice change in a wider social context is something the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies (CCJS) has had an interest in for a number of years. This paper is a further conntribution to understanding this perspective and focuses on the new question of what the implications of this perspective are for those engaged in work to reduce the use of custody. Details: London: Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, 2012. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed on January 29, 2012 at http://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/opus1899/Reducingthenumbersincustody.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/opus1899/Reducingthenumbersincustody.pdf Shelf Number: 123880 Keywords: Community SentencesPrison OvercrowdingPrison Population (U.K.)Prison Sentences |
Author: U.S. Government Accountability Office Title: Bureau of Prisons: Eligibility and Capacity Impact Use of Flexibilities to Reduce Inmates’ Time in Prison Summary: The Department of Justice’s Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) is responsible for the custody and care of federal offenders. BOP’s population has increased from about 145,000 in 2000 to about 217,000 in 2011 and BOP is operating at 38 percent over capacity. There is no longer parole for federal offenders and BOP has limited authority to affect the length of an inmate's prison sentence. BOP has some statutory authorities and programs to reduce the amount of time an inmate remains in prison, which when balanced with BOP’s mission to protect public safety and prepare inmates for reentry, can help reduce crowding and the costs of incarceration. GAO was asked to address: (1) the extent to which BOP utilizes its authorities to reduce a federal prisoner’s period of incarceration; and (2) what factors, if any, impact BOP's use of these authorities. GAO analyzed relevant laws and BOP policies; obtained nationwide data on inmate participation in relevant programs and sentence reductions from fiscal years 2009 through 2011; conducted site visits to nine BOP institutions selected to cover a range of prison characteristics and at each, interviewed officials responsible for relevant programs; and visited four community-based facilities serving the institutions visited. Though not generalizable, the information obtained from these visits provided insights. GAO recommends that BOP establish a plan, including time frames and milestones, for requiring contractors to submit prices of RRC beds and home detention services. BOP concurred with this recommendation. Details: Washington, DC: GAO, 2012. 44p. Source: Internet Resource: GAO-12-320: Accessed February 13, 2012 at: http://www.gao.gov/assets/590/588284.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.gao.gov/assets/590/588284.pdf Shelf Number: 124115 Keywords: Costs of Criminal JusticeEarly ReleaseFederal Prisons (U.S.)InmatesPrison Overcrowding |
Author: Hopper, Allen Title: Public Safety Realignment: California at a Crossroads Summary: California is at a criminal justice crossroads. After decades of “tough on crime” policies and draconian sentencing practices, the state correctional system—one of the largest incarcerators in the largest incarcerating country in the world—finally buckled under its own weight. Faced with a historic U.S. Supreme Court order requiring the state to reduce overcrowding, California made a momentous decision: it would no longer take into state facilities or under state custody most people convicted of low-level, non-violent offenses, instead tasking counties with dealing with these individuals at the local level. Legislatively codified as the Public Safety Realignment Act, or Assembly Bill 109 (AB 109), this major policy shift has put California’s 58 counties in the driver’s seat. Each county will choose its own path, but their futures are intertwined. Poor implementation in one county will inevitably affect others. All will affect California taxpayers. The ACLU has conducted an in-depth review of all 53 available county realignment implementation plans, and we have analyzed the statutory changes and related state laws and budget allocations. We have identified four major interrelated themes: • A troubling lack of state monitoring, data collection, outcome measurements and funding incentives to help counties successfully implement realignment. • A dramatic increase in spending on county jails—facilitated by billions of dollars in state funding—particularly in those counties that have historically sent more people to state prison for low-level, non-violent offenses. • A shockingly high number of people who present no real threat to public safety being held in county jails before having their day in court, incarcerated without trial simply because they cannot afford bail. • A promising commitment—though not yet realized—by many counties to adopt alternatives to incarceration and evidence-based practices to reduce recidivism. A few counties are adopting innovative programs and approaches that can serve as models for the rest of the state, but all too often our analysis revealed few, if any, resources allocated for such programs. Details: San Francisco: American Civil Liberties Union of California, 2012. 112p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 23, 2012 at: http://aclusandiego.org/article_downloads/001251/Public%20Safety%20Realignment%20FINAL%20.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://aclusandiego.org/article_downloads/001251/Public%20Safety%20Realignment%20FINAL%20.pdf Shelf Number: 124645 Keywords: Criminal Justice Systems (California)Prison OvercrowdingPrisons |
Author: California. Office of the Inspector General Title: Special Report: California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation's Implementation of the Non-Revocable Parole Program Summary: On October 11, 2009, a major change occurred in California statutory parole requirements with the passage of Senate Bill X3 18. This landmark legislation was intended to help alleviate the endemic overcrowding within California prisons – and the numerous constitutional violations and budgetary demands occasioned by such overcrowding – by providing a system whereby non-violent parole offenders would not be returned to prison unless they were convicted of another felony offense. On April 4, 2011, additional significant legislation was enacted with the passage of Assembly Bill 109. When funded, this legislation will ultimately shift non-violent parolees from oversight by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to oversight by local governmental agencies. Consequently, the nonrevocable parole program established by Senate Bill X3 18 can now be viewed as an interim measure that will be in place only until such time as local governmental agencies assume supervision over non-violent parolees. Effective January 25, 2010, CDCR began placing eligible convicted felons on non-revocable parole, commonly referred to as NRP, in compliance with Penal Code section 3000.03. Before the law’s enactment, when these types of inmates were released from California prisons, they were typically subject to parole terms of one to three years and were under some level of supervision by CDCR. Since the enactment of Penal Code section 3000.03, however, paroled inmates who meet certain criteria must be placed on non-revocable parole. Parolees on non-revocable parole are not supervised. Moreover, unlike supervised parolees, they are not subject to arrest or reincarceration in prison for parole violations. The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation has very little authority over offenders once they are placed on non-revocable parole. In the interest of public safety, then, and to comport with the legislative intent that only qualified, non-violent offenders be placed on non-revocable parole, the screening process used to determine an inmate’s eligibility for non-revocable parole must be accurate. The screening process for non-revocable parole excludes the following inmates and parolees: registered sex offenders; offenders with current or prior serious, violent or sexually violent felony convictions; offenders who are known prison gang members; and other offenders determined to have a high risk to reoffend. To determine an inmate’s risk of reoffending, CDCR has developed a validated risk assessment instrument referred to as the California Static Risk Assessment (CSRA).1 However, flaws in the CSRA’s implementation have resulted in flawed assessments. The CSRA has understated some offenders’ risk of reoffending; some of these high-risk offenders have been placed on nonrevocable parole. The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) estimates that approximately 23.5 percent of the offenders assessed for possible placement on non-revocable parole between January and July 2010 were scored inaccurately, and that approximately 15 percent of the more than 10,000 offenders placed on non-revocable parole were inappropriately placed on non-revocable parole during that same time period.2 Over 450 of these ineligible offenders carry a high risk for violence, and some of these ineligible offenders may have already been discharged from nonrevocable parole after completing 12 months of parole, thereby precluding CDCR from taking action to correct the parolee’s inappropriate placement on non-revocable parole. It should be noted, however, that CDCR reports it has improved scoring tables used in the automated scoring process and that these corrections would have reduced the error rate from approximately 23.5 percent to approximately eight percent if these corrections had been in place before July 2010. Details: Sacramento: Office of the Inspector General, 2011. 34p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 17, 2012 at: http://www.oig.ca.gov/media/reports/BOI/Special%20Report%20California%20Department%20of%20Corrections%20and%20Rehabilitations%20Implementation%20of%20the%20Non-Revocable%20Parole%20Program.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.oig.ca.gov/media/reports/BOI/Special%20Report%20California%20Department%20of%20Corrections%20and%20Rehabilitations%20Implementation%20of%20the%20Non-Revocable%20Parole%20Program.pdf Shelf Number: 125319 Keywords: Alternatives to ImprisonmentParoleParole RevocationParolees, JuvenilesPrison OvercrowdingRisk Assessment (California) |
Author: Shelden, Randall G. Title: Collateral Consequences of Interstate Transfer of Prisoners Summary: In 2011, the Supreme Court ordered the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to immediately take actions to reduce its state prison overcrowding to 137% capacity. As a result California has embarked on sweeping criminal justice reforms which realign responsibility for low level offenders to the counties, through passage of Assembly Bill 109. Prior to the Supreme Court mandate, California had been addressing overcrowding concerns by utilizing out-of-state private prisons, the majority of which are operated by the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA). The temporary transfer of California inmates to other states began in late 2006, rose to a peak of 10,400 in early 2011, and declined to under 10,000 by mid-2011. Continued utilization of private out-of-state facilities is slated under the 2011-2012 budget to fall by nearly half by June 2012. In light of California’s extensive budget crisis, in early 2012, CCA offered to purchase California state prisons and operate them through a 20-year management contract. In exchange CCA requested an assurance that the prisons would remain at least 90% capacity (CCA, 2012). California not only declined the offer, but CDCR released plans in April 2012, to return out-of-state inmates to state facilities and terminate its contracts with private out-of-state facilities by FY 2015- 16. This proposal estimates savings of $318 million. In addition to cost savings, returning out-of-state inmates is a sound public policy decision. The purpose of this publication is to provide an overview of the effects of out-of-state transfers on inmates and families, to evaluate the potential public safety and policy merits of CDCR’s proposal. Details: San Francisco: Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, 2012. 9p. Source: Internet Resource: Research Brief: Accessed August 2, 2012 at: http://www.cjcj.org/files/Out_of_state_transfers.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.cjcj.org/files/Out_of_state_transfers.pdf Shelf Number: 125842 Keywords: Costs of Criminal JusticeCriminal Justice ReformPrison OvercrowdingPrisoners, Interstate Transfer (California)Private Prisons |
Author: U.S. Government Accountability Office Title: Bureau of Prisons: Growing Inmate Crowding Negatively Affects Inmates, Staff, and Infrastructure Summary: The Department of Justice’s Bureau of Prisons’ (BOP) 9.5 percent population growth from fiscal years 2006 through 2011 exceeded the 7 percent increase in its rated capacity, and BOP projects continued population growth. Growth was most concentrated among male inmates, and in 2011, 48 percent of the inmates BOP housed were sentenced for drugs. From fiscal years 2006 through 2011, BOP increased its rated capacity by about 8,300 beds as a result of opening 5 new facilities and closing 4 minimum security camps, but because of the population expansion, crowding (or population in excess of rated capacity) increased from 36 to 39 percent. In 2011 crowding was most severe (55 percent) in highest security facilities. BOP’s 2020 long-range capacity plan projects continued growth in the federal prison population from fiscal years 2012 through 2020, with systemwide crowding exceeding 45 percent through 2018. According to BOP, the growth in the federal inmate population has negatively affected inmates, staff, and infrastructure, but BOP has acted within its authority to help mitigate the effects of this growth. BOP officials reported 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, taken together, contribute to increased inmate misconduct, which negatively affects the safety and security of inmates and staff. BOP officials and union representatives voiced concerns about a serious incident occurring. To manage its growing population, BOP staggers meal times and segregates inmates involved in disciplinary infractions, among other things. The five states in GAO’s review have taken more actions than BOP to reduce their prison populations, because these states have legislative authority that BOP does not have. These states have modified criminal statutes and sentencing, relocated inmates to local facilities, and provided inmates with additional opportunities for early release. BOP generally does not have similar authority. For example, BOP cannot shorten an inmate’s sentence or transfer inmates to local prisons. Efforts to address the crowding issue could include (1) reducing the inmate population by actions such as reforming sentencing laws, (2) increasing capacity by actions such as constructing new prisons, or (3) some combination of both. Why GAO Did This Study BOP operates 117 federal prisons to house approximately 178,000 federal offenders, and contracts with private companies and some state governments to house about another 40,000 inmates. BOP calculates the number of prisoners that each BOP run institution can house safely and securely (i.e., rated capacity). GAO was asked to address (1) the growth in BOP’s population from fiscal years 2006 through 2011 and BOP’s projections for inmate population and capacity; (2) the effects of a growing federal prison population on operations within BOP facilities, and the extent to which BOP has taken actions to mitigate these effects; and (3) actions selected states have taken to reduce their prison populations, and the extent to which BOP has implemented similar initiatives. GAO analyzed BOP’s inmate population data from fiscal years 2006 through 2011, BOP’s 2020 long-range capacity plan, and BOP policies and statutory authority. GAO visited five federal prisons chosen on the basis of geographic dispersion and varying security levels. The results are not generalizable, but provide information on the effects of a growing prison population. GAO selected five states based on actions they took to mitigate the effects of their growing prison populations—and assessed the extent to which their actions would be possible for BOP. GAO makes no recommendations in this report. BOP provided technical clarifications, which GAO incorporated where appropriate. Details: Washington, DC: GAO, 2012. 92p. Source: Internet Resource: GAO-12-743: Accessed September 17, 2012 at: http://www.gao.gov/assets/650/648123.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.gao.gov/assets/650/648123.pdf Shelf Number: 126353 Keywords: Elderly InmatesPrison AdministrationPrison OvercrowdingPrisonersU.S. Federal Bureau of Prisons |
Author: Lofstrom, Magnus Title: Evaluating the Effects of California’s Corrections Realignment on Public Safety Summary: In response to a court order to reduce the population in its seriously overcrowded prisons, California began implementing a major new corrections realignment plan in October 2011. The plan shifts responsibility for a substantial number of non-serious, non-violent, non-sexual felony offenders from the state to its 58 counties. Ultimately, this reform is projected to reallocate about 30,000 low-risk felons from state prisons to either county jails or an alternative form of community corrections. Additionally, county probation departments will take on the supervision of roughly 60,000 additional offenders on Post-Release Community Supervision (PRCS). Although the counties receive funding to cover the cost of supervising these felons, the state has not established any statewide standards, nor provided any funding, for evaluating county policies and practices in managing this new program. This report provides guidelines on how to monitor the effects of realignment—most fundamentally, is it achieving the goals of assuring public safety and doing so efficiently? It also presents a brief review of the various data that can be used to monitor the effects and evaluate the success of realignment at the local level. Finally, it describes several research designs for accomplishing these tasks. Details: San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California, 2012. 18p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 1, 2012 at: http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_812MLR.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_812MLR.pdf Shelf Number: 126534 Keywords: Correctional SystemPrison OvercrowdingPrison ReformPrisons (California, U.S.) |
Author: Victoria. Auditor General Title: Prison Capacity Planning Summary: Corrections Victoria (CV) is a service agency within the Department of Justice (DOJ) that is responsible for directing, managing and operating Victoria’s corrections system. As in other correctional jurisdictions, DOJ has set operating parameters for CV to manage the prisoner population to within 90 to 95 per cent utilisation of the prison system’s operational capacity. This is currently equivalent to 5 318 prison beds. These parameters are necessary to maximise the efficiency of the system while allowing CV flexibility to adequately manage the rehabilitation, human rights and welfare of prisoners. CV is required to plan for and forecast the impact of any future growth, and take appropriate steps so that the system is capable of accommodating and providing services to future prisoner populations. In doing so, CV must factor in the long lead time required to construct new prisons and expand existing facilities. Planning for future prison capacity has been made more complex by the large growth in prisoner numbers, which increased by 38 per cent or 1 344 prisoners between 30 June 2002 and 30 June 2012. There were 5 024 prisoners in the prison system as at 30 September 2012. While long-term planning is important, this large growth in prisoner numbers and the periodic spikes in these numbers require the implementation of short-term measures—such as use of temporary beds—to quickly respond to capacity constraints. This audit focused on the prison infrastructure and support services—it has not examined the human resource implications arising from additional prisoner numbers. Details: Melbourne: Victorian Government Printer, 2012. 66p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 10, 2012 at: http://www.audit.vic.gov.au/publications/20121128-Prisons/20121128-Prisons.pdf Year: 2012 Country: Australia URL: http://www.audit.vic.gov.au/publications/20121128-Prisons/20121128-Prisons.pdf Shelf Number: 127202 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationPrison CapacityPrison OvercrowdingPrisons (Australia) |
Author: Males, Mike Title: Beyond Realignment: Counties’ Large Disparities in Imprisonment Underlie Ongoing Prison Crisis Summary: This publication analyzes the changes in state prison commitments by county since the implementation of the Public Safety Realignment Act of 2011 (AB 109), which redirects people convicted of low-level, non-violent crimes from state to county supervision. AB 109, commonly referred to as Realignment, is intended to reduce unconstitutional levels of prison overcrowding, save money, encourage counties to develop and implement best practices and alternatives to incarceration, and reserve state prisons for people convicted of serious offenses. However, while many counties have followed the mandate and dramatically reduced their prison commitments for low-level offenses, others continue to sentence high rates of these offenders to state prison. Details: San Francisco: Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, 2013. 8p. Source: Internet Resource: Research Brief: Accessed April 6, 2013 at: http://www.cjcj.org/files/Beyond_Realignment_March_2013.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.cjcj.org/files/Beyond_Realignment_March_2013.pdf Shelf Number: 128313 Keywords: Criminal Justice ReformPrison OvercrowdingPrison ReformPrisonersPrisons (California) |
Author: California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Office of Research Title: Realignment Report: A One-year Examination of Offenders Released from State Prison in the First Six Months of Public Safety Realignment Summary: One-year arrest rates are down and conviction rates are virtually static for offenders released after completing their state prison sentences post-Realignment, according to a report released today by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). For this Realignment Report, CDCR identified all offenders who had served their full sentence and were released from prison during the first six months after the implementation of Realignment (October 2011 through March 2012). Researchers then tracked the offenders, which include those released to state parole supervision and those released to county probation supervision, for one year to see if they were re-arrested, convicted of a new crime, or returned to state prison. CDCR then compared those results with all offenders released during October 2010 to March 2011 (pre-Realignment) and tracked them for one year in the same manner. Key findings include: • Post-Realignment offenders were arrested at a lower rate than pre-Realignment offenders (62 percent pre-Realignment and 58.7 percent post-Realignment). • The rate of post-Realignment offenders convicted of new crimes is nearly the same as the rate of pre-Realignment offenders convicted of new crimes (21.3 percent pre-realignment and 22.5 percent post realignment). • Post-Realignment offenders returned to prison at a significantly lower rate than pre-Realignment offenders, an intended effect of Realignment as most offenders are ineligible to return to prison on a parole violation. (42 percent pre-Realignment and 7.4 percent post-Realignment) Under California’s Public Safety Realignment Act of 2011, no offenders receive an early release from state prison. The law, which was passed by the Legislature in response to a federal court order to reduce California’s prison population, has achieved dramatic reductions by stemming the flow of low-level inmates and parole violators into prison. The intent of Realignment is to encourage counties to develop and implement evidenced-based practices and alternatives to incarceration to limit future crimes and reduce victimization. Prior to Realignment, more than 60,000 felon parole violators returned to state prison annually, with an average length of stay of 90 days. Beginning on October 1, 2011, most parole violations are now served in county jails. Also, offenders newly convicted of certain low-level offenses serve their time in county jail. Under another component of Realignment, inmates who have served their full state prison sentence for a non-serious, non-violent or non-sexual offense are now supervised upon their release by county probation rather than state parole. Realignment provides a dedicated, constitutionally protected, and permanent revenue stream to the counties. Details: Sacramento: California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, 2013. 31p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 1, 2013 at: http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/realignment/docs/Realignment%206%20Month%20Report%20Final_5%2016%2013%20v1.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/realignment/docs/Realignment%206%20Month%20Report%20Final_5%2016%2013%20v1.pdf Shelf Number: 128887 Keywords: California RealignmentCosts of CorrectionsParoleesPrison OvercrowdingPrisoners (California)Recidivism |
Author: Samuels, Julie Title: Stemming the Tide: Strategies to Reduce the Growth and Cut the Cost of the Federal Prison System Summary: The federal prison population has escalated from under 25,000 inmates in 1980 to over 219,000 today. This growth has come at great expense to taxpayers and other important fiscal priorities. As policymakers consider the array of options to stem the tide of inmates, our research concludes that a combination of strategies is the best way to make a real impact. In this report, we evaluate various policy options for cutting the size and costs of the burgeoning federal prison system. The short explanation for the rapid prison population growth is that more people are sentenced to prison and for longer terms. In fiscal year (FY) 2011, more than 90 percent of convicted federal offenders were sentenced to prison, while about 10 percent got probation. By comparison, in 1986, only 50 percent received a prison sentence, over 37 percent received probation, and most of the remainder received a fine. Though the number of inmates sentenced for immigration crimes has also risen, long drug sentences are the main driver of the population's unsustainable growth. In 2011, drug trafficking sentences averaged 74 months, though they have been falling since 2008. Mandatory minimums have kept even nonviolent drug offenders behind bars for a long time. The average federal prison sentence in 2011 was 52 months, generally higher than prison sentences at the state level for similar crime types. This difference is magnified by the fact that, at the federal level, all offenders must serve at least 87 percent of their sentences, while, at the state level, most serve a lower percentage and nonviolent offenders often serve less than 50 percent of their time. Federal prisons are currently operating at between 35 and 40 percent above their rated capacity; this overcrowding is greater in high-security facilities, which, in FY 2012, were operating at 51 percent over capacity, and medium-security facilities, which were operating at 47 percent over capacity. In both medium- and high-security facilities, most inmates have histories of violence. This crowding is projected to continue to grow, with the federal prison system over capacity by at least 50,000 inmates each year through 2020. Absent any new policy changes (including bringing new prisons online), we estimate overcrowding to rise to 55 percent by 2023. Prison staffing has not kept up with population growth. The ratio of inmates to staff has grown from four to one in FY 2000 to a projected five to one in FY 2014. The US Bureau of Prisons (BOP) has found that high inmate-to-staff ratios are closely connected to increases in serious assaults. Overcrowding makes it hard to provide programs designed to keep inmates from re-offending, and it strains essential prison infrastructure, such as plumbing, through overuse. Further, the average cost of keeping an inmate behind bars is $29,000 a year. Most of these costs are fixed, so one inmate more (or less) is a difference of $10,363. The federal prison system's budget request for FY 2014 is $6.9 billion, which is more than a quarter of the Department of Justice's (DOJ's) budget. That share is projected to grow, taking resources away from other public safety priorities. Options for reform include changes that reduce the number of people entering the BOP and their sentence length (front-end options) and changes that can lead to early release or transfer to community corrections for people already in BOP custody (back-end options). The estimated impact of each of the options described below is detailed in tables ES.1 and ES.2. The underlying assumptions and methodology for the estimates are summarized in the Methodology section at the end of this report and presented in more detail in Appendix B (available online: http://www.urban.org/publications/412932.html). The cost estimates for dollars saved are based on the average marginal cost of imprisoning one inmate for one year; they do not reflect cost savings that could accrue from averted prison construction or prison closures, including staffing changes or other structural changes within the BOP. Details: Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 2013. 63p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 7, 2013 at: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412932-stemming-the-tide.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412932-stemming-the-tide.pdf Shelf Number: 131604 Keywords: Federal PrisonsPrison ConditionsPrison OvercrowdingPrisons (U.S.) |
Author: Victorian Ombudsman Title: Investigation into Deaths and Harm in Custody Summary: The State owes a duty of care to every person detained in custody to ensure their safety and wellbeing. For example, in the Victorian prison system the Secretary of the Department of Justice has a statutory duty to ensure the safe custody and welfare of prisoners and offenders in the Secretary's custody. There are a number of rights that are engaged under the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 when a person is detained in custody, including a person's right to humane treatment and the right not to be arbitrarily deprived of life. The Victorian community should have confidence in what happens behind the closed doors of custodial facilities - that detainees are managed in a fair and consistent manner; that they are treated with dignity and respect for their human rights; and that those responsible for caring for detainees are held accountable for their actions. Many people in custody are vulnerable, often with complex social, legal and medical histories. Each year a number of people die in custody, while many more experience some form of harm, injury or illness. For over 40 years, the welfare of people in custody has been a concern of the Victorian Ombudsman. In a number of my reports to Parliament I have identified concerns about the treatment of people in custody and made recommendations to address such concerns. Given continuing overcrowding in Victorian prisons and police cells, coinciding with an increase in the number of prisoner deaths in 2012-13, I decided that an own motion investigation into deaths in Victorian custodial facilities was warranted. My investigation focussed on Victorian prisons, police cells, the youth justice precincts and the secure psychiatric hospital for people with serious mental illness admitted under the Mental Health Act 1986. Details: Melbourne: Victorian Ombudsman, 2014. 152p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 21, 2014 at: https://www.ombudsman.vic.gov.au/getattachment/2998b6e6-491a-4dfe-b081-9d86fe4d4921/reports-publications/parliamentary-reports/investigation-into-deaths-and-harm-in-custody.aspx Year: 2014 Country: Australia URL: https://www.ombudsman.vic.gov.au/getattachment/2998b6e6-491a-4dfe-b081-9d86fe4d4921/reports-publications/parliamentary-reports/investigation-into-deaths-and-harm-in-custody.aspx Shelf Number: 132095 Keywords: Deaths in CustodyInmate DeathsMental Health ServicesPrison OvercrowdingPrisonersSuicide |
Author: Lofstrom, Magnus Title: Is Public Safety Realignment Reducing Recidivism in California? Summary: California has had one of the highest recidivism rates in the nation for more than a decade. This contributed to overcrowding in the state's expensive prison system and helped to motivate wide-ranging corrections reform legislation in 2011, commonly referred to as public safety realignment. Realignment essentially halted the practice of sending parole violators back to state prison and instead made counties responsible for supervising and sanctioning most released offenders. It also cut in half the maximum sentence for a supervision violation-from one year to six months. How are these changes affecting the state's recidivism rates? We find that the post-realignment period has not seen dramatic changes in arrests or convictions of released offenders. In the context of realignment's broad reforms to the corrections system, our findings suggest that offender behavior has not changed substantially. Overall arrest rates of released offenders are down slightly, with the proportion of those arrested within a year of release declining by 2 percentage points. At the same time, the proportion of those arrested multiple times has increased noticeably, by about 7 percentage points. These higher multiple arrest rates may reflect the substantial increase in the time that released offenders spend on the streets-a result of counties' limited jail capacity (Lofstrom and Raphael 2013). Convictions among released offenders have increased, but this increase does not appear to reflect changes in offender behavior so much as changes in arrest procedures and prosecutorial approaches. The likelihood that an arrest will lead to a conviction has increased by roughly 3 percentage points. Furthermore, the proportion of released offenders who are actually convicted has increased about 1.2 percentage points-a small but statistically significant rise-and nearly all of these new convictions are for felonies. Together, these findings suggest that new offenses are increasingly being processed through the courts as formal felony charges and convictions, rather than as technical violations through the Board of Parole Hearings. Finally, our analysis shows that realignment has, as intended, led to a considerable 33 percentage point drop in the proportion of released inmates who are returned to state prison. This demonstrates that realignment has made substantial progress in one of its main goals: reducing the use of prison as a sanction for parole violations and minor criminal offenses. Taken together, our findings suggest that county efforts are at least partly offsetting the effects of increased street time among released offenders. Changes in arrest and conviction rates have been modest-but these rates remain high in the post-realignment period. State and local authorities need to develop more effective, targeted policies aimed at both deterring crime and connecting released offenders to rehabilitative services. California needs such strategies to bring recidivism rates down to levels that will relieve pressure on state prison and county jails, and help the state reach the federally mandated prison population threshold. Details: Sacramento: Public Policy Institute of California, 2014. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 17, 2014 at: http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_614MLR.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_614MLR.pdf Shelf Number: 132704 Keywords: Criminal Justice PolicyCriminal Justice ReformParole SupervisionParoleesPrison OvercrowdingPublic Safety RealignmentRecidivism |
Author: Quan, Lisa T. Title: Reallocation of Responsibility: Changes to the Correctional System in California Post-Realignment Summary: On October 1, 2011, California's long troubled correctional system began operating under a new framework created by Assembly Bill 109 (AB 109). Formally known as the 2011 Public Safety Realignment Act, AB 109 was largely a result of the state's failure to control overcrowding and its consequences for inmates in California's 33 state prisons. In 2009, a three-judge federal panel ordered the state to reduce its prison population to 137.5% of design capacity-a reduction of about 30,000 people-within two years. In mid-2011, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that order in Brown v. Plata. By signing the Realignment bill, Governor Jerry Brown put the state on the path toward compliance with the court order. More broadly, his action launched a titanic policy shift in California criminal justice, perhaps the most sweeping such change since the adoption of determinate sentencing in the 1970's. Once known as a state that relied heavily on prison to punish parole violators and other lower-level offenders, California under Realignment began shifting responsibility for most non-serious, non-violent, non-sexual (N3) felons from the state to the counties. Through the initiative's first two years, counties have received more than $2 billion to manage the new load of offenders in jails, on probation, and through evidence-based programs in the community. While several other states have also begun favoring the use of local sanctions over prison for less serious offenders, the scale of California's effort makes it an experiment of unparalleled national significance. Although it is too early to draw solid conclusions about Realignment's effects on long-term crime and recidivism, at least one outcome is clear: As the Legislature intended, AB 109 has shifted a large share of correctional control from the state to the local level. Two years after the law's implementation, the majority of California adults in the correctional system has been "realigned" and now undergoes local supervision as jail inmates and probationers. As a result, California now ranks below the national average in the proportion of adults it imprisons and places on parole. The state's probation population, meanwhile, has ballooned, with the number of probationers per 100,000 jumping 30% from 2010 to 2012. Details: Stanford, CA: Stanford Law School, Stanford Criminal Justice Center, 2014. 45p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 25, 2014 at: https://www.law.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/publication/458403/doc/slspublic/CC%20Bulletin%20Jan%2014.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: https://www.law.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/publication/458403/doc/slspublic/CC%20Bulletin%20Jan%2014.pdf Shelf Number: 132777 Keywords: Corrections (California)Criminal Justice PolicyCriminal Justice ReformPrison OvercrowdingProbationersPublic Safety Realignment Sentencing |
Author: Weisberg, Robert Title: Assessing Judicial Sentencing Preferences After Public Safety Realignment: A Survey of California Judges Summary: Public Safety Realignment ("AB 109") made drastic changes to California's criminal justice system by transferring authority for the supervision of most non-violent, nonserious, and non-sexual offenders from the state to the 58 counties. This study aims to better examine the perceived effect of AB 109 on Superior Court (trial) judges in California who sentence offenders. Through the use of a modified factorial survey, we queried judges on their sentencing choices between felony probation and new California Penal Code 1170(h) county jail sentences. We received responses from 112 judges throughout California, representing 35 counties or 96% of the state population, including the 10 most populous counties in California. The responses revealed judicial preferences that emphasize a desire to deploy sentencing to manage offenders. The preferences generally aim at a combination of a "taste of jail" and rigorous community supervision, whether that is a traditional felony probation sentence or an 1170(h) split sentence. Our study found that more than half of judges surveyed preferred to give an 1170(h) sentence over a felony probation sentence, except when the judge was aware of an offender's substance abuse problem or mental illness, or when the judge was trying to lengthen the period of incarceration or mandatory supervision. In addition, when judges chose an 1170(h) sentence, they selected a split sentence over a straight jail sentence almost half the time. However, among judges who chose split sentences, there was a tremendous variation in the chosen fraction as between jail time and supervision. Drawing from our findings, we strongly recommend that the California Legislature and/or the California judiciary clarify the relationship between traditional felony probation and an 1170(h) split sentence, and develop guidance and consensus on when and how to use split sentences. In addition, counties should enhance and increase the availability of effective community-based treatment resources, because improved treatment programs will likely increase judges' confidence in embracing these sentencing options. Details: Stanford, CA: Stanford Law School, Stanford Criminal Justice Center, 2014. 142p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 25, 2014 at: https://www.law.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/publication/443996/doc/slspublic/Judges%20Report%20Feb%2028%202014%20Final.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: https://www.law.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/publication/443996/doc/slspublic/Judges%20Report%20Feb%2028%202014%20Final.pdf Shelf Number: 132779 Keywords: CorrectionsCriminal Justice PolicyCriminal Justice ReformJudgesPrison OvercrowdingProbationPublic Safety Realignment (California)Sentencing |
Author: Petersilia, Joan Title: Voices From the Field: How California Stakeholders View Public Safety Realignment Summary: Passage of California's Public Safety Realignment Act (AB 109) initiated the most sweeping correctional experiment in recent history. Launched on October 1, 2011, Realignment shifted responsibility for most lower-level offenders from the state to California's 58 counties. By mid-2013, more than 100,000 felons had been diverted from state prison to county jail or probation. This report summarizes the results of interviews conducted with California stakeholders responsible for implementing the law. Over the past nine months, Stanford Law School researchers conducted 125 interviews in 21 counties to produce a snapshot of how California is faring under Realignment so far. We talked with police, sheriffs, judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, probation and parole agents, victim advocates, offenders, and social service representatives. Our goal was to determine how Realignment had influenced their agency's work and what changes they would make to the law. Our interviews revealed a justice system undergoing remarkable changes, arguably unprecedented in depth and scope. Stakeholders' opinions varied widely, and their comments reflected their role in the system more than the county they represented. Overall, probation officials were the most enthusiastic champions of Realignment, welcoming the momentum the legislation provided their rehabilitation focus. Probation departments have opened day reporting centers, expanded the use of risk assessment tools, and worked hard with community partners to establish quality evidence-based programs for offenders. Public defenders are also optimistic but expressed concerns about the longer county jail terms their clients face and the conditions under which they are served. Conversely, prosecuting attorneys generally gave Realignment negative reviews, lamenting their loss of discretion under the law. Judges expressed mixed opinions, although most were concerned about a loss of discretion and said AB 109 had greatly increased the courts' workload. Law enforcement-both front line police and sheriffs-varied more than any other group in their assessment of Realignment, with their opinions largely influenced by local jail capacity. While most police applauded the spirit of Realignment, including the expansion of local control and treatment options for offenders, all of those interviewed worried about declining public safety. Sheriffs were challenged by overloaded county jails, which in many counties have been strained by a flood of inmates and a tougher criminal population that has increased the likelihood of jail violence. Sheriffs also noted that longer jail stays were challenging their ability to provide adequate medical and mental health care, and that crowding was forcing them to release some offenders early. On the positive end of the spectrum, most stakeholders said Realignment had spawned increased collaboration at all levels of the criminal justice system and a more holistic view of offender management. Details: Stanford, CA: Stanford Law School, Stanford Criminal Justice Center, 2014. 244p. Source: Internet Resource: Working Paper: Accessed July 28, 2014 at: https://www.law.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/publication/443439/doc/slspublic/Petersilia%20VOICES%20no%20es%20Final%20022814.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: https://www.law.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/publication/443439/doc/slspublic/Petersilia%20VOICES%20no%20es%20Final%20022814.pdf Shelf Number: 132783 Keywords: Criminal Justice PolicyCriminal Justice ReformPrison OvercrowdingPublic Safety Realignment (California) |
Author: Males, Mike Title: California's 58 Crime Rates: Realignment and Crime in 2012 Summary: California must reduce its prison population to 137.5 percent of rated capacity (approximately 110,000 individuals), due to a court-ordered mandate. One measure to achieve an institutional population reduction was the adoption of Public Safety Realignment, under Assembly Bill (AB) 109, in October 2011, whereby counties assumed responsibility for individuals convicted of low-level, nonviolent, non-sexual offenses who might have previously been sent to state prison. Counties also are responsible for managing said individuals who are released from prison on Post Release Community Supervision (PRCS). California's crime rate increased slightly in 2012. Previous CJCJ analysis found no correlation between the crime rate increase and Realignment (CJCJ, 2013a), and the purpose of this publication is to analyze newly available data for 2012. This report further addresses recent research by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC, 2013) that concluded Realignment was associated with an increase in property offenses, particularly motor vehicle theft, but not violent offenses in the first year of the policy. The present analysis finds California's 58 counties vary dramatically in their implementation of Realignment and in their respective crime rates. There are no conclusive trends demonstrating a causal relationship between Realignment and crime, even among counties in close geographic proximity. Additionally, there may be non-Realignment factors that inform an increase in certain crimes. Given this varied implementation, some counties continue as models for innovative policies worthy of recognition and replication. Details: Sacramento: Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, 2014. 9p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 31, 2014 at: http://www.cjcj.org/uploads/cjcj/documents/CJCJ_2014_Realignment_Report.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.cjcj.org/uploads/cjcj/documents/CJCJ_2014_Realignment_Report.pdf Shelf Number: 132851 Keywords: Crime RatesCrime StatisticsCriminal Justice PolicyCriminal Justice ReformPrison OvercrowdingPublic Safety Realignment (California) |
Author: Natapoff, Alexandra Title: Misdemeanor Decriminalization Summary: As the U.S. rethinks its stance on mass incarceration, misdemeanor decriminalization is an increasingly popular reform. Seen as a potential cure for crowded jails and an overburdened defense bar, many states are eliminating jail time for minor offenses such as marijuana possession and driving violations, and replacing those crimes with so-called "nonjailable" or "fine-only" offenses. This form of reclassification is widely perceived as a way of saving millions of state dollars - nonjailable offenses do not trigger the right to counsel - while easing the punitive impact on defendants, and it has strong support from progressives and conservatives alike. But decriminalization has a little-known dark side. Unlike full legalization, decriminalization preserves many of the punitive features and collateral consequences of the criminal misdemeanor experience, even as it strips defendants of counsel and other procedural protections. It actually expands the reach of the criminal apparatus by making it easier - both logistically and normatively - to impose fines and supervision on an ever-widening population, a population who ironically often ends up incarcerated anyway when they cannot afford the fines or comply with the supervisory conditions. The turn to fine-only offenses and supervision, moreover, has distributive implications. It captures poor, underemployed, drug-dependent, and other disadvantaged defendants for whom fines and supervision are especially burdensome, while permitting well-resourced offenders to exit the process quickly and relatively unscathed. Finally, as courts turn increasingly to fines and fees to fund their own operations, decriminalization threatens to become a kind of regressive tax, turning the poorest populations into funding fodder for the judiciary and other government budgets. In sum, while decriminalization appears to offer relief from the punitive legacy of overcriminalization and mass incarceration, upon closer inspection it turns out to be a highly conflicted regulatory strategy that preserves and even strengthens some of the most problematic aspects of the massive U.S. penal system. Details: Los Angeles: Loyola Los Angeles School of Law, 2014. 63p. Source: Internet Resource: Loyola-LA Legal Studies Paper No. 2014-43 : Accessed September 11, 2014 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2494414 Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2494414 Shelf Number: 133276 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationDecriminalizationJail OvercrowdingMass IncarcerationMisdemeanors (U.S.)Prison OvercrowdingPunishment |
Author: Davis, Ashly Nikkole Title: The Effect of Realignment on Mentally Ill Offenders Summary: With the recent Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Plata, "realignment" seems to be California's new criminal justice buzzword. Underlying the Court's decision in Brown, however, lay two important class action suits - Coleman v. Brown and Plata v. Brown - that served as the driving forces behind the Court's decision. These cases alleged Eighth Amendment violations in California's prison system based on deficiencies in mental health care and medical care, respectively. With the Court crediting the Constitutional violations and lack of adequate care alleged in Coleman and Plata to an oversized prison population, overcrowding emerged as the issue of the day. State legislators responded to the Court's directive to rapidly decrease California's prison population with AB 109, public safety realignment legislation geared toward ameliorating prison overcrowding. Ironically, though they were the impetus behind this legislation, the mentally ill have largely been left out of the realignment conversation. Little mention - if any - has been made of how AB 109 improves or even addresses the treatment of the mentally ill. This paper will analyze AB 109 to determine how closely it rings true to the spirit behind the Brown v. Plata litigation - namely, providing mentally ill offenders with adequate medical and psychiatric care - and what impact the bill will have on the mentally ill. More specifically, this paper will assess whether AB 109 marks yet another in a long series of failed attempts by the state to appropriately address the treatment of mentally ill individuals in state custody. One of the basic themes behind this paper is a recognition of the importance of mentally ill offenders in California, not only in terms of the litigation that sparked realignment, but also from a general corrections standpoint. Research shows that mentally ill offenders recidivate at a much higher rate than non-mentally ill offenders. Therefore, it is crucial from a public safety perspective to determine where realignment is going to place these individuals. Further, AB 109 is not the first alignment of state and local fiscal and administrative responsibility in California that implicates the treatment of the mentally ill. It is necessary to attempt to determine what effects realignment will have on California's mental health resources, which have been scarce for much of the state's history. While not the focus of this paper, underlying much of the discussion will be the disturbing, yet generally accepted fact that prisons and jails in the United States largely operate as de facto mental hospitals. In California in particular, well-intentioned efforts to deinstitutionalize the mentally ill from state hospitals have had disastrous consequences, with the result being that many mentally ill individuals have ended up in the one place that accepts almost everyone: the criminal justice system. If there is one thing that most people seem to agree on, it is that many of the state's previous attempts to address this population have been ineffective. Mentally ill offenders are likely to struggle in the correctional system, whether at the state or local level. This paper explores, but does not intend to answer important questions such as: How do you hold mentally ill offenders accountable? Is this a population that we should even be seeking to imprison? Details: Stanford, CA: Stanford Law School, Criminal Justice Center, 2012. 37p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 25, 2014 at: https://www.law.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/child-page/183091/doc/slspublic/Davis_AB109_And_Mentally_Ill_Offenders.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: https://www.law.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/child-page/183091/doc/slspublic/Davis_AB109_And_Mentally_Ill_Offenders.pdf Shelf Number: 134245 Keywords: Correctional ReformMental Health TreatmentMentally Ill Offenders (California)Prison Health CarePrison OvercrowdingPrisonersPublic Safety Realignment |
Author: Urban Institute Title: Drivers of Growth in the Federal Prison Population Summary: The federal prison population has grown by 750 percent since 1980, resulting in rapidly increasing expenditures for incarceration and dangerous overcrowding. In response, Congress created the Charles Colson Task Force on Federal Corrections to examine trends in correctional growth and develop practical, data-driven policy responses. The biggest driver of this growth is the population of drug offenders doubling in the last 20 years. This increase is compounded by the length of their sentences. While the number of imprisoned drug offenders has been fairly constant, the population has increased due to these offenders serving longer statutory mandatory minimum penalties. Details: Washington, DC: Urban Institute and CCTF, 2015. 2p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 26, 2015 at: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/2000141-Drivers-of-Growth-in-the-Federal-Prison-Population.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/2000141-Drivers-of-Growth-in-the-Federal-Prison-Population.pdf Shelf Number: 135066 Keywords: Drug Offenders Federal Prison System (U.S.) Federal Prisoners Prison Overcrowding |
Author: Lofstrom, Magnus Title: Realignment, Incarceration, and Crime Trends in California Summary: When California's historic public safety realignment was implemented in October 2011, many were concerned about the impact it would have on crime rates. In a 2013 report, we found that realignment did not increase violent crime in its first year, but that it did lead to an increase in auto thefts. In this report, we assess whether these trends continued beyond realignment's first year. We find that both the prison and jail populations increased slightly since 2012, which means that the number of offenders on the street did not rise from the 18,000 during realignment's first year. This is likely to change with the implementation of Proposition 47, which further reduces California's reliance on incarceration. Our analysis of updated state-level crime data from the FBI confirms our previous findings. Violent crime rates remain unaffected by realignment, and although California's property crime rate decreased in 2013, it did not drop more than in comparable states-so the auto theft gap that opened up in 2012 has not closed. Research indicates that further reductions in incarceration may have a greater effect on crime trends; the state needs to implement effective crime prevention strategies-and it can learn about alternatives to incarceration successfully implemented by the counties as well as other states. Details: Sacramento: Public Policy Institute of California, 2015. 10p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 27, 2015 at: http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_515MLR.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_515MLR.pdf Shelf Number: 135791 Keywords: Crime RatesCriminal Justice Policy Criminal Justice Reform Parole SupervisionParolees Prison Overcrowding Public Safety Realignment Recidivism |
Author: Turner, Susan Title: Public Safety Realignment in Twelve California Counties Summary: Following long bouts of litigation among inmates, prison guards, and state officials, in May 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of a three-judge panel that imposed a cap on California's prison population and ordered the state to reduce its prison population to 137.5 percent of "design capacity" within two years. The primary basis for the court ruling was that the overcrowded prison system violated inmates' constitutional right to adequate health care. In response to the 2011 Supreme Court decision, California adopted two measures, Assembly Bill (AB) 109 and AB 117, collectively known as realignment. These measures shift responsibility for certain low-level offenders, parole violators, and parolees, previously the state's responsibility, to California counties. Realignment gives counties a great deal of flexibility in how they treat these offenders and allows them to choose alternatives to custody for realignment offenders. As time has passed since realignment began in October 2011, several studies have evaluated various aspects of the planning and implementation of realignment. The study reported here focused on the flexibility that the state granted counties in implementing realignment. In particular, the authors wanted to determine whether counties essentially continued and expanded what they were already doing in county corrections or whether they used realignment as an opportunity to change from "business as usual." Key Findings Counties Encounter Unanticipated Challenges and Find That There Are Many Unknowns About Strategies' Effects - Realignment appears to have shifted the responsibility for, but not the total numbers of, offenders in the system (at least those under the primary forms of supervision and incarceration). Many Things That Are Being Implemented Are Enhancements of Existing Programs or Policies - Both probation and sheriff's department representatives mentioned a focus on providing services and expanding evidence-based practices, although clearly sheriff's departments often focused on adding jail capacity. Every county voiced concern about realigned offenders' increased risk levels and need profiles: They required more mental and other health services, and high proportions were rated as high risk on assessment instruments. There Is Evidence of Movement Toward Co-locating Service Provision - A movement toward the delivery of services in a one-stop location was evident in both probation and sheriff's departments. Reentry units - specialized areas in the jails - are gaining momentum for inmates near the ends of their sentences in an effort to provide them with the skills, services, and connections to outside agencies. Recommendations - Longer-term follow-up will be able to provide a more comprehensive analysis of system changes. Details: Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2015. 79p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 21, 2015 at: http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR800/RR872/RAND_RR872.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR800/RR872/RAND_RR872.pdf Shelf Number: 136837 Keywords: Criminal Justice Policy Criminal Justice ReformOffender SupervisionParole Supervision Parolees Prison Overcrowding Public Safety Realignment |
Author: Lofstrom, Magnus Title: Public Safety Realignment and Crime Rates in California Summary: Public safety realignment substantially reduced the state's prison population. Between 2011 and 2012, property crime increased in California as a result of this policy change. Auto theft increased most dramatically, by 14.8 percent-or about 24,000 per year. By contrast, violent crime rates did not appear to be affected Details: San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California, 2013. 24p., app. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 30, 2015 at: http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_1213MLR.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_1213MLR.pdf Shelf Number: 136924 Keywords: Crime RatesCriminal Justice PolicyPrison OvercrowdingPrisonersPrisonsPublic Safety Realignment |
Author: Lofstrom, Magnus Title: Public Safety Realignment: Impacts So Far Summary: Prompted by a federal court order to reduce prison overcrowding, California's 2011 historic public safety realignment shifted many correctional responsibilities for lower-level felons from the state to counties. The reform was premised on the idea that locals can do a better job, and it was hoped that incarceration rates and corrections costs would fall. At the same time, critics predicted crime would rise. Four years since its implementation, realignment has made several important impacts: Realignment significantly reduced the prison population, but the state did not reach the court-mandated population target until after the passage of Proposition 47 in November 2014, which reduced penalties for many property and drug offenses. The reform challenged county jails and probation departments by making them responsible for a greater number of offenders with a broader range of backgrounds and needs. The county jail population did not rise nearly as much as the prison population fell, reducing the total number of people incarcerated in California. Realignment did not increase violent crime, but auto thefts rose. Research so far shows no dramatic change in recidivism rates. State corrections spending remains high, but there is reason to believe expenditures could drop in the future. Realignment has largely been successful, but the state and county correctional systems face significant challenges. The state needs to regain control of prison medical care, which is now in the hands of a federal receiver. And the state and counties together must make progress in reducing stubbornly high recidivism rates. Details: San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California, 2015. 10p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 30, 2015 at: http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_915MLR.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_915MLR.pdf Shelf Number: 136925 Keywords: Costs of CorrectionsCrime RatesCriminal Justice Policy Criminal Justice Reform Jails Prison Overcrowding Public Safety Realignment Recidivism |
Author: Ball, W. David Title: The New Normal? Prosecutorial Charging in California After Public Safety Realignment Summary: On April 4, 2011, Governor Jerry Brown signed Assembly Bill 109, the 2011 Public Safety Realignment Act ("Realignment" or "AB 109"), into law. AB 109 was one response to the 2009 Three-Judge Court Order for California to significantly reduce its prison population to 110,000 people, or 137.5% of design capacity, by year-end 2013. Affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2011 in Brown v. Plata, the Three-Judge Court Order determined prison overcrowding to be "the primary cause of the state's unconstitutional failure to provide adequate medical and mental health care to California prisoners," concluding that population reduction was the most narrowly drawn, least intrusive remedy. Realignment shifts the responsibility of supervising, tracking and imprisoning specified non-serious, non-violent, non-sexual ("triple-nons" or "N3 felonies" or "non-non-nons") offenders previously bound for state prison to county jails and probation (see Overview of Public Safety Realignment. The law states that "the purpose of justice reinvestment is to manage and allocate criminal justice populations more cost-effectively, generating savings that can be reinvested in evidence-based strategies that increase public safety while holding offenders accountable." The implementation of Realignment in California is the largest correctional experiment of its kind. Through AB 109, the Legislature has allocated over $2 billion in the first two years of implementation to assist California's 58 counties in carrying out the legislation's provisions. In addition, more than 100,000 offenders have had their sentences altered through mid-2013. The advent of Realignment, of course, affected the decision-making of all the official actors in the criminal justice system. But the prosecutor's role is unique in one clear sense: Prosecutors have, in formal legal terms, virtually un-reviewable autonomy in the choice to charge or not charge an offender (so long as any charge matches provable facts with statutory elements). Traditionally, in deciding whether to charge as high as the provable facts allow, they consider contextual aspects of the commission of the offense itself but also any relevant background aspects and criminal record of the offender. How does this power operate in the wake of AB 109? On the one hand, AB 109 simply classified a large number of pre-existing felonies under California Penal Code S1170(h) because they were deemed "triple-nons." In that sense, prosecutors in theory might be indifferent to the change; they would continue to charge these felonies according to the same factors as they always had, and the changes in site of incarceration and possible change in de facto length of sentences would happen of their own accord. In a sense, the only mandated change in prosecutorial choice here had to do with sentence recommendation: Because judges now have the power to impose a split sentence for an AB 109 conviction - fractioning the sentence between jail time and community supervision - when prosecutors exercise their usual function of recommending sentences, they now have to build the matter of split versus straight sentences into that responsibility. Prosecutors have also always been free to consider such resource factors as their own and other agencies' budgets and crowding in jails and prisons. But many aspects of AB 109 were likely from the start to weigh significantly on the decisions made by prosecutors as they exercise their traditional charging and recommendation choices after October 2011. The most salient aspects were the change in site and de facto length of incarceration, as well as the secondary effects of new county responsibilities for post-release supervision of many prisoners returning home. In particular, in exercising discretion, prosecutors might be influenced by their views on the differences in the severity of experience of incarceration in jail as opposed to prison, or by their concerns about jail crowding or the extra costs that county jails and other county agencies might have to absorb under AB 109. Details: Stanford, CA: Stanford Criminal Justice Center, Stanford Law School, 2014. 187p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 28, 2015 at: http://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/default/files/publication/513777/doc/slspublic/DA%20report%20Feb%202014.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/default/files/publication/513777/doc/slspublic/DA%20report%20Feb%202014.pdf Shelf Number: 137169 Keywords: CorrectionsCriminal Justice ReformJustice ReinvestmentPrison OvercrowdingPrison ReformPrisonsProsecutionProsecutorial DiscretionProsecutorsPublic Safety Realignment |
Author: Stanford Justice Advocacy Project Title: Proposition 47 Progress Report: Year One Implementation Summary: Since the enactment of Proposition 47 on November 14, 2014, the number of people incarcerated in California[s prisons and jails has decreased by approximately 13,000 inmates, helping alleviate crowding conditions in those institutions. Proposition 47 has also reduced the number of jail inmates released from custody early due to overcrowding and should generate over $150 million in state savings this fiscal year. County governments stand to save even more money: over $200 million annually, in aggregate. Details: Stanford, CA: Stanford Justice Advocacy Project, Stanford Law School, 2015. 11p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 16, 2015 at: https://2pe0o743k0s82lo5l6trs9j1-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Prop-47-report.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: https://2pe0o743k0s82lo5l6trs9j1-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Prop-47-report.pdf Shelf Number: 137299 Keywords: Costs of CorrectionsEarly ReleasePrison OvercrowdingPrison PopulationPrisonersProposition 47 |
Author: San Mateo County (California) Title: Can an Electronic Monitoring Program for Pre-Trial Detainees Help to Reduce Jail Overcrowding? Summary: The Maguire Correctional Facility (men's jail) located in Redwood City is populated beyond its State-rated capacity, and has been for many years. Since it appears that the jail facilities will continue to be overcrowded for the foreseeable future, the Grand Jury questioned whether electronic monitoring devices are being used for pre-trial detainees (PTDs) and if electronic monitoring devices can be used to alleviate overcrowding in our jail. From 2002 to 2007 approximately 50 percent of the male jail population consisted of pre-trial detainees. The other 50 percent were individuals who had received a trial or pled guilty and were serving a prescribed sentence. Since 2008, this ratio has steadily changed, with pre-trial detainees reaching about 76% of the jail population in 2011. The Grand Jury looked at the alternatives offered to this growing population of untried, unsentenced individuals to determine if there were opportunities to reduce the number of inmates awaiting trial. A potential alternative to serving time in jail awaiting trial is to release carefully selected persons into an Electronic Monitoring Program (EMP). The Grand Jury found that utilizing electronic monitoring devices for pre-trial detainees is not part of the current classification process in San Mateo County, no EMP exists for pre-trial detainees, and consequently no persons awaiting trial wear an electronic monitoring device. Several of those interviewed acknowledge that electronic monitoring devices for specific individuals could be a useful tool in reducing jail populations. Expanding EMP efforts to the pre-trial detainee population would require some investment in staff and training, as well as modification of eligibility guidelines. This investment could be partially or wholly offset by cost savings in reducing jail headcount. The Grand Jury found that significant daily cost savings of approximately $100 per inmate/per day are available if selected pre-trial detainees are released into an EMP. The Grand Jury recommends that the Sheriff's Office do the following: 1) conduct an objective analysis and issue a report regarding the feasibility of an EMP for selected pre-trial detainees; 2) should the objective analysis and the results of the report indicate that an EMP for selected pre-trial detainees be feasible, prepare an implementation plan to expand EMP for pre-trial detainees for full implementation within 12 months. The objective analysis would include a review of best-practices in adjoining counties and statewide to evaluate the impact and usefulness of electronic monitoring and its effect on the jail population. It would also include the introduction of a risk assessment tool, such as the Virginia Risk Assessment, for determining defendant eligibility for EMP for pre-trial detainees. Implementing a non-jail confinement program for some classes of pre-trial detainees could be an important contribution to addressing overcrowded conditions in the men's jail in San Mateo County at a cost savings to the taxpayer. Details: San Mateo, CA: San Mateo County, 2012. 23p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 22, 2016 at: https://www.sanmateocourt.org/documents/grand_jury/2011/emp.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: https://www.sanmateocourt.org/documents/grand_jury/2011/emp.pdf Shelf Number: 137927 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCosts of CorrectionsElectronic MonitoringJailsPretrial DetentionPrison Overcrowding |
Author: Union of Canadian Correctional Officers Title: A critical review of the practice of double bunking within corrections. The implications on staff, inmates, correctional facilities and the public Summary: There is an increasing prevalence of double bunking within the Correctional Service of Canada. This paper seeks to investigate the impact double bunking has on the health and safety of staff, inmates and the public, as well as the impact it will inevitably have on the physical condition of institutions. Through a review of available research from academic and correctional professionals, this paper addresses and refutes the prevailing notion that further double bunking and overcrowding will have little impact in and on the field of corrections. Details: St. Leonard's, ONT: UCCO, 2015. 17p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 9, 2016 at: http://ucco-sacc-csn.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Double-Bunking-Research-Paper-08-03-201111.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Canada URL: http://ucco-sacc-csn.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Double-Bunking-Research-Paper-08-03-201111.pdf Shelf Number: 138140 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationDouble BunkingPrison ConditionsPrison Overcrowding |
Author: Walshe, Kieran Title: Independent Investigation into the Metropolitan Remand Centre Riot: Final Report Summary: On 30 June 2015, approximately 400 prisoners at the MRC launched the largest prison riot in Victoria's history. Armed with makeshift weapons, prisoners threw rocks at staff, rammed internal gates with vehicles, damaged accommodation units and security cameras, broke down cell doors and lit numerous fires. All in all, it took 15 hours to restore order and secure all prisoners. ESTABLISHING THE INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION - On 2 July 2015, the Hon Wade Noonan MP, Minister for Corrections and Minister for Police, appointed former Victoria Police Deputy Commissioner, Kieran Walshe, to undertake an independent investigation ('the Investigation') into the MRC riot and submit a report to the Minister by 4 December 2015. The Investigation's Terms of Reference (Appendix A) are as follows: - to consider the events of 30 June and 1 July 2015 - to review the state's response to, and preparedness for, the incident and the management of the emergency, giving specific consideration to joint agency operations - to identify any learnings from the incident and make recommendations for future improvements. THE SMOKING BAN IN VICTORIAN PRISONS In 2014, the former government passed legislation making it an offence to smoke in Victorian prisons from 1 July 2015. With over 80% of prisoners being smokers, the ban was the most significant change in recent Victorian prison history. Recognising its significance, Corrections Victoria (CV) developed the 'Smoke Free Prisons Project Plan' and the MRC 'Site Implementation Plan', which provided opportunities to participate in QUIT programs, access Quitline and make use of nicotine replacement therapies. FACTORS THAT CONTRIBUTED TO THE RIOT While the smoking ban was definitely the catalyst, there were several other contributing factors that fermented discontent and tension within the prison population. Firstly, the MRC is predominantly a maximum-security facility for remand prisoners. As many remand prisoners had only been there for a short period of time, they had less time to prepare for the smoking ban, meaning they felt its impact more intensely and immediately. Overcrowding was another contributing factor. The MRC was built in 2006 to house 613 prisoners but the opening count on 30 June 2015 was 918. To accommodate this surge, double bunks were installed and additional units constructed, which resulted in a reduction of recreational yard space. The increase of prisoners over time placed a greater strain on facilities, e.g. recreation facilities, together with difficulties in scheduling prisoner visits and access to programs. As a consequence, there was increased anxiety and frustration within the prison population. Significantly, the prisoners' ability to breach internal fences and the Central Movement Control (CMC) gates gave them unfettered access to many parts of the prison and facilitated an escalation in riotous activity. This was a significant contributing factor to the riot. The Investigation recommends that immediate action be taken to strengthen internal fences and gates. Details: Victoria, AUS: The Author, 2015. 52p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 12, 2016 at: http://assets.justice.vic.gov.au/corrections/resources/198d00c1-c2ad-4089-98c6-bffc074880c3/mrc_riot_final_report.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Australia URL: http://assets.justice.vic.gov.au/corrections/resources/198d00c1-c2ad-4089-98c6-bffc074880c3/mrc_riot_final_report.pdf Shelf Number: 138208 Keywords: Prison OvercrowdingPrison RiotsPrison SecurityPrisoner Misconduct |
Author: New South Wales. Inspector of Custodial Services Title: Full House: The growth of the inmate population in NSW Summary: This first inspection by the office of the Inspector was undertaken in response to a rapid rise in the prison population in NSW in 2014. While long-term trends show a consistent rise in the number of people being incarcerated, this number peaked at 11,021 in May 2014, giving rise to significant overcrowding. NSW has the lowest number of hours out-of-cell each day for inmates, and this, combined with overcrowding, presents significant risks to the correctional system. Confining two or three inmates to cells designed for one or two for prolonged periods, where they shower, eat and defecate, inevitably raises tensions in an already volatile population. The experience in other jurisdictions has been that this potentially increases the risk of assault, self-harm and suicide and more general prison disorder. Rehabilitation outcomes are also compromised when inmate numbers are increased without a commensurate increase in appropriate resources. Overcrowding limits opportunities for parole because access to required programs is constrained. Reduced access to work and limited contact with families contribute to the creation of an unproductive environment. While it is difficult to define 'overcrowding', for the purposes of this inspection the term has been used to define a situation where a centre is holding a number of inmates that exceeds the original capacity that the centre was designed to accommodate. In NSW, 21 of 44 correctional centres are currently operating over design capacity. Prison overcrowding has the potential to negatively impact on all aspects of custodial life, from the initial reception of an inmate through to their transition back into the community upon release. Accordingly, this inspection examined the impact of overcrowding as it relates to three key areas: - Security and safety; - Health and wellbeing; - Resources and services. This inspection examined three metropolitan centres: Parklea Correctional Centre (the second largest centre in NSW and a privately operated centre), the Metropolitan Remand and Reception Centre (the largest centre in NSW which receives over 40 percent of all new receptions to the correctional system), and the Metropolitan Special Programs Centre Area 2 (which accommodates a variety of inmate groups and offers a range of therapeutic programs). In July 2014, these centres were operating at a level of between 4.5 to 71 percent over their design capacity. Details: Sydney: Inspector of Custodial Services, 2015. 77p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 15, 2016 at: http://www.custodialinspector.justice.nsw.gov.au/Documents/Full%20House%20-%20Final%20report%20April%202015.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Australia URL: http://www.custodialinspector.justice.nsw.gov.au/Documents/Full%20House%20-%20Final%20report%20April%202015.pdf Shelf Number: 138247 Keywords: InmatesPrison OvercrowdingPrisonersPrisons |
Author: Cate, Matthew Title: Beyond Litigation: A Promising Alternative to Resolving Disputes Over Conditions of Confinement in American Prisons and Jails Summary: In 1976, Governor Jerry Brown and the California Legislature passed a series of laws creating the state's determinate sentencing structure. Over the next 30 years, a tough-on-crime mindset drove legislators and voters to lengthen sentences and reduce opportunities for parole, resulting in a prison system packed to more than 200 percent of its design capacity. By 2006, overcrowding in California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) facilities was so bad that more than 168,000 inmates were packed into a prison system designed for only 84,000.To cope with the population boom, the state built 22 mega-prisons and hired staff at a rapid rate. But those new prisons immediately became overcrowded as well, and it became increasingly difficult for the state to properly care for inmates while maintaining order and discipline. As a result, the CDCR became the target of a series of class-action lawsuits focusing on nearly every aspect of its treatment of inmates in prison and on parole. As these cases were filed, the state chose to defend itself primarily through traditional prison litigation strategies. The approach was largely unsuccessful. Details: Stanford, CA: Stanford Law School, Stanford Criminal Justice Center, 2014. 14p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 14, 2016 at: https://www-cdn.law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Beyond-Litigation-Cate-and-Weisberg-Final.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: https://www-cdn.law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Beyond-Litigation-Cate-and-Weisberg-Final.pdf Shelf Number: 138673 Keywords: Prison ConditionsPrison OvercrowdingPrisons |
Author: Entorf, Horst Title: The Analysis of Prison-Prisoner Data Using Cluster-Sample Econometrics: Prison Conditions and Prisoners' Assessments of the Future Summary: The study investigates whether and how strong prison conditions contribute to the perceived propensity to recidivate after controlling for personal characteristics and criminal background. In order to combine different sources of information on personal characteristics of prison inmates and administrative prison data in an efficient way, we propose the use of matched prison-prisoner data and application of cluster-sample methods such as GEE (generalized estimating equations). Estimated average partial effects based on GEE and random-effects Probit modeling reveal that prison conditions show significant effects on the perceived likelihood of future reincarceration. Particularly, we find that inmates facing prison overcrowding show a reduced likelihood of recidivism. Details: Bonn, Germany: Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA), 2016. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: IZA Discussion Paper No. 10209: Accessed September 14, 2016 at: http://ftp.iza.org/dp10209.pdf Year: 2016 Country: Germany URL: http://ftp.iza.org/dp10209.pdf Shelf Number: 147869 Keywords: Prison OvercrowdingPrisonersPrisonsRecidivism |
Author: Rogers, Ashley Title: The First Fifty: A Study of Summary: Assembly Bill 109 ("AB 109") and the subsequent amending legislation (collectively, "The 2011 Realignment Legislation Addressing Public Safety" or "Realignment") seismically shifted the way California structures and manages its criminal justice system. Effective October 1, 2011, AB 109 redefined more than 500 felonies and "realigned" responsibility for the incarceration and supervision of a significant population of specified adult felony offenders from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR") to county-based corrections programs. In brief, AB 109 altered both sentencing and post-prison supervision for the newly statutorily classified "non-serious, non-violent, non-sex" offenses and offenders. While the legislation is comprehensive and complex, two major groups are affected by these changes. First, offenders convicted of qualifying felonies are now incarcerated in county jails instead of in state prisons. Second - and perhaps most critically-released prisoners who would have previously been placed on state parole but now qualify as so-called "non-non-non" offenders are diverted to the supervision of county probation departments under "Post Release Community Supervision ("PRCS"). Because of its import and controversial surrounding it, the latter population-prisoners released under PRCS-is the focus of this paper. On October 1, 2011, California counties assumed responsibility for supervising approximately 60,000 offenders from 33 California prisons who qualified for PRCS. While some have remained neutral, responses to the PRCS component of AB 109 have been largely as passionate as they have been mixed. Supporters note that, because the offenders were to be released into counties anyway, PRCS simply shifts who will do the supervising. They assert that the shift is more technical than substantive: because the offenders to be supervised by PRCS were incarcerated for a relatively low-level "non-non-non" felony, probation offers should be equipped to handle the risks and needs of a population nearly identical to those they already supervise. Prior to AB 109's implementation, Governor Brown expressed confidence that counties were prepared to assume the targeted populations, adding, "It's bold, it's difficult and it will continuously change as we learn from experience. But we can't sit still and let the courts release 30,000 serious prisoners. We have to do something, and this is the most-viable plan that I've been able to put together." Critics of AB 109, however, assert with equal confidence that the plan as it relates to PRCS is far from "viable." They emphasize that under AB 109, offenders are classified only by the present committed offense, meaning that it is possible that a person with a history of violent, serious, or sex offenses-or even a lengthy criminal history-may technically qualify as a "non-non-non" offender under AB 109. The shift in supervisory responsibility from parole to probation departments becomes important. Probation officers, critics argue, may be ill-equipped to address the great risks and significant needs of a potentially a dramatically different population than that contemplated by the legislature. Indeed, several counties have asserted that they are unprepared and under-financed, and some are even bracing for a spike in crime. (See "Part II: The Counties' Responses to AB 109" for further discussion.) b. Scope of the Paper What is missing from these charged debates, however, is data. Speculation about the population is insufficient to spur any informed changes, and a lack of data could lead to rash, harmful decisions based on isolated incidents or conjecture alone. Answers to critical questions - Who are these offenders to be supervised by PRCS? What are their risks? What are their needs? - must be answered. This paper examines these questions in the context of one county - Santa Clara County. In this paper, we first provide an overview of the history and legislative rationale of AB 109, the provisions governing the scope of PRCS, and the CDCR's procedures regarding the determination screening process and data provided to the counties ("Part I: The Legislative Intent of AB 109 and Post-Release Community Supervision"). Second, we provide further context on the various responses to AB 109 as depicted in the media ("Part II: The Counties' Responses to AB 109"). Third, we answer the aforementioned questions (Who are these offenders? What are their risks? What are their needs?) by analyzing the demographics, risks, and needs of the first fifty offenders released to Santa Clara County under PRCS ("Part III: Describing the PRCS Population: The First Fifty Released in Santa Clara"). We then compare the results of the study with the legislative intent and the counties' various responses and predictions ("Part IV: Comparing the First Fifty to the Legislative Intent and Counties' Responses"). Finally, we offer an analysis of the limitations of the study ("Part V: Limitations of the Study") and offer conclusions on the implications of the findings ("Conclusion: Implications of the Study"). Details: Stanford, CA: Stanford Law School, 2012. 80p. Source: Internet Resource: Draft report: Accessed May 13, 2017 at: http://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/default/files/child-page/183091/doc/slspublic/The_First_Fifty_Rogers.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/default/files/child-page/183091/doc/slspublic/The_First_Fifty_Rogers.pdf Shelf Number: 131360 Keywords: Community CorrectionsCommunity SupervisionCriminal Justice Policy Criminal Justice Reform Prison Overcrowding Probation Public Safety Realignment Recidivism |
Author: John Howard Association of Illinois Title: Reforming Illinois' Prison System from the Inside-Out: A Blueprint for the Implementation of Risk Assets Needs Assessment and System Change in the Illinois Department of Corrections Summary: Illinois has two public safety problems. It has one of the most crowded adult prison systems in the United States, and despite spending $1.3 billion annually on the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC), there are not enough resources to effectively house, supervise, and provide rehabilitative programming to the approximately 49,000 men and women who are in state prisons or the additional 25,000 who are on Mandatory Supervised Release under IDOC's Parole Division. These problems have led to an increasingly dangerous situation for inmates and correctional staff, with prisoners being housed in prison gymnasiums and reports of increased violence inside facilities. This makes for hazardous conditions not only inside prisons, but also for Illinois' communities. Every year, Illinois releases more than 30,000 people from its prisons. While there is no evidence to suggest that exposure to harsh and overcrowded conditions makes inmates less likely to commit new crimes, research has shown that these kinds of environments can make inmates worse and more likely to reoffend when they are released. Given these conditions, coupled with the Parole Division's chronically low resources and the multiple barriers former prisoners face returning home, it should come as no surprise that almost half of the inmates who leave the IDOC return to prison within three years of their release, creating a vicious and costly cycle. To address these problems, Illinois needs to safely decrease the number of people under state correctional supervision. This will require an on-going commitment to comprehensive criminal justice reform, including investing in crime prevention programming to strengthen communities, expanding alternatives to incarceration for low-level offenders, reforming overly punitive criminal sentences, and removing unfair obstacles to reentry. Just as importantly, Illinois must ensure that IDOC has the capacity it needs to make the most effective use possible of its limited resources both inside and outside of its facilities, so that when inmates are released they are less likely to return to custody because they are re-integrated safely and successfully back into their communities. Inside the IDOC, the most important initiative to reduce Illinois' over-reliance on incarceration is the implementation of a new and more effective inmate assessment tool called RANA, which stands for Risk Assets Needs Assessment. The problem with the IDOC's current assessment system is that it relies primarily on offenders' committing offenses to make security and programming decisions. So, for instance, if a person is convicted of a low-level offense, he or she will more than likely be treated the same as all other low-level offenders, be housed in a minimum-security facility, and be paroled under the same conditions of release. This kind of assessment system is based on the false assumption that offenders convicted of similar kinds of crimes need the same kind of treatment and supervision. It is also limited in that it ignores the importance of evaluating and developing positive vocational, social, and psychological strengths and assets that lead offenders to turn away from crime. While the IDOC's current approach to inmate assessment may make a certain amount of intuitive sense, it does not provide the agency with a reliable means to provide rehabilitative programming targeted to address the precise needs of individual prisoners that will discourage future criminal activity or encourage pro-social behaviors and attitudes. Using its current assessment system, the IDOC ends up spending its limited security and programming resources on inmates without any certainty that its actions will reduce recidivism. The implementation of RANA will improve upon the IDOC's current assessment system by enabling the agency to focus on the factors that lead people under correctional supervision to return to prison. As mandated, RANA requires the IDOC to adopt an evidence-based assessment tool that will evaluate risks, assets, and needs that are proven to influence recidivism and to create individual case plans that address these factors inside and outside facilities. The benefits of reform are not speculative. Research and the experience of other states indicate that the implementation of a RANA-like system can lead to more efficient use of programming and security resources, reduce recidivism, and ultimately decrease the costly number of people under state correctional supervision. Details: Chicago: The Association, 20113. 27p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 16, 2017 at: http://www.thejha.org/sites/default/files/JHA%20Blueprint%20Reforming%20IL%20Prison%20System%20from%20the%20Inside%20Out.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.thejha.org/sites/default/files/JHA%20Blueprint%20Reforming%20IL%20Prison%20System%20from%20the%20Inside%20Out.pdf Shelf Number: 131202 Keywords: Correctional ReformCorrectional SupervisionOffender SupervisionPrison OvercrowdingPrison Reform |
Author: Western Australia, Office of the Inspector of Custodial Services Title: 2016 Inspection of Casuarina Prison Summary: This is the report of an inspection of Casuarina Prison conducted in late 2016. It concludes that the prison is meeting reasonable expectations in relation to security, and the safety of staff and prisoners. It is, however, over-stretched at almost every point. As a result, despite the best efforts of staff, it is not meeting expectations in relation to prisoner health and support, purposeful activity, rehabilitation or resettlement. Staff are doing what they can with what they have, but Casuarina is too stretched to meet demand or need. Pressure points include: - a population increase of 100 per cent in the last ten years, and 22 per cent in the last two years - serious overcrowding, with almost all prisoners now forced to share single cells - insufficient investment in supporting infrastructure. There are critical deficiencies in the kitchen and health centre and shortfalls in many other areas. - a far more transient and less settled population. Over 40% are on remand, and many of the sentenced prisoners are just 'in transit' to another prison. - a growing number of prisoners with serious health and mental health problems - a growing number of young prisoners for whom there are few opportunities for rehabilitation - sentenced and remand prisoners routinely sharing cells, in contravention of national and international standards Details: Perth: Office of The Inspector, 2017. 93p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 1, 2017 at: http://apo.org.au/system/files/104806/apo-nid104806-423736.pdf Year: 2017 Country: Australia URL: http://apo.org.au/system/files/104806/apo-nid104806-423736.pdf Shelf Number: 146996 Keywords: Correctional Institutions Prison Conditions Prison OvercrowdingPrisons |
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 OvercrowdingPrison PopulationPrisonersPrisons |
Author: Great Britain. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons Title: Life in prison: Living conditions Summary: Some people may feel a sense of deja vu or world-weariness when they hear repeated accounts of poor conditions in our prisons. Many reports from HM Inspectorate of Prisons (HMI Prisons) have pointed out that, all too often, prisoners are held in conditions that fall short of what most members of the public would consider as reasonable or decent. I would urge readers not to assume this paper is simply another account of some dilapidated prisons, but to look at the details of what we describe, and then ask themselves whether it is acceptable for prisoners to be held in these conditions in the United Kingdom in 2017. It is, of course, right to point out that not every prison holds its prisoners in poor conditions. On the whole, high security prisons, women's prisons and open prisons provide decent conditions and some good facilities. However, in many of the local prisons and training prisons, the picture is bleak. The details of what we have found are set out in this paper, but some of the headlines make for grim reading. Prisoners cannot benefit from education or training if they are confined in their cells for long periods, and they inevitably become frustrated, angry or turn to drugs to ease the tedium. We have found that in local prisons 31% of prisoners report being locked in their cells for at least 22 hours a day, rising to 37% at young adult prisons (holding prisoners aged 18-21). We found large numbers of prisoners at some jails who were locked up for more than 22 hours a day, or throughout the working day. The cells in which prisoners are confined for these excessive periods of time vary greatly in their condition, but poor conditions are exacerbated by overcrowding. Her Majesty's Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) themselves report that in 2016/17 nearly 21,000 prisoners out of some 85,000 in total were held, by their own definition, in overcrowded conditions. This proportion rises in local prisons to over 15,000 of the 31,800 held in such establishments - or 48%. Overcrowding often occurs when two or more prisoners are held in a cell designed to hold one. These often have an unscreened or inadequately screened lavatory, frequently without a lid, or sometimes with a makeshift lid made of cardboard, pillowcases or food trays. In these same cells, prisoners are frequently required to eat all their meals - in what are obviously insanitary, unhygienic and degrading conditions. The risks to health inherent in flushing open lavatories in confined spaces which have to serve as a bedroom and dining room (and sometimes as a kitchen) are described in this report and deserve close attention. The accounts from prisoners of what it feels like to eat and sleep in what is, in effect, a shared lavatory make for compelling reading. To compound all of this, our surveys suggest that in only around half of our prisons are prisoners able to get cleaning materials for their cells every week, and ventilation of too many cells is poor. In terms of personal hygiene, most prisoners say they are able to have a shower every day, but this falls to 51% in those prisons holding young adults. There is a mixed picture for other issues that have an impact of the everyday lives of prisoners, with about two-thirds of prisoners saying they can get clean sheets each week, and access to telephones is obviously dependent upon prisoners having enough time out of their cells to be able to queue and make a call. The concerns and recommendations set out in this paper need to be taken seriously. The aspirations of the prison reform programme will not be met if prisoners are confined in conditions that embitter and demoralise, leaving them unable to access rehabilitative activities and, all too often, turning to illicit drugs to break the boredom born of long periods locked in their cells. Details: London: The Inspectorate, 2017. 29p. Source: Internet Resource: A findings paper: Accessed October 19, 2017 at: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2017/10/Findings-paper-Living-conditions-FINAL-.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2017/10/Findings-paper-Living-conditions-FINAL-.pdf Shelf Number: 147731 Keywords: Correctional InstitutionsPrison AdministrationPrison OvercrowdingPrisons |
Author: Prison Reform Trust Title: Bromley Briefings Prison Factfile: Autumn 2017 Summary: This year's Bromley Briefings open with a brand new section which we have called "The long view". The Prison Reform Trust has built its reputation over more than three decades on presenting accurate evidence about prisons and the people in them. In a world where ministers feel compelled to respond to issues with ever greater immediacy, "The long view" offers an antidote to the latest Twitter storm or early morning grilling in the media. We have chosen to concentrate in this briefing on the issue of overcrowding. What the evidence shows is that the core of the current government's approach-to spend more building more prison spaces-is identical to the actions of all its predecessors since the early 1990s. There is every possible indication that it will meet the same fate. So PRT has commissioned two pieces of expert independent analysis relevant to any serious strategic policy to solve the problem of overcrowding. First, we asked a former Director of Finance for the prison service, Julian Le Vay, to analyse the published data on the Ministry of Justice's spending review settlement with the Treasury and its plans for future investment in new prisons. He concluded that the capital cost of a policy based on building more prisons since 1980 has been L3.7bn, and generated an additional annual running cost of L1.5bn-enough to have built 25,000 new homes, and to be employing 50,000 more nurses or teachers. But he also concludes that the ministry's current ambitions are inadequately funded to the tune of L162m in 2018/19, rising to $463m in 2022/23. On current population projections, there is no prospect of any impact on overcrowding before 2022, and a further new programme of building will be needed from 2026. Secondly, we asked Dr Savas Hadjipavlou, of Justice Episteme, to run a scenario on the sophisticated model he has created. This uses what we know about the typical life histories of people who end up in the criminal justice system, together with what we know about how that system operates, to assess the impact of demographic or other changes on key criminal justice outcomes-including the likely size of the prison population. The scenario removed the statutory changes that have inflated sentencing since 2003, and suggests that we would now have a prison population of 70,000 had those changes not been made- in other words, a population several thousand below the system's current uncrowded capacity Details: London: PRT, 2017. 64p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 9, 2018 at: http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/Portals/0/Documents/Bromley%20Briefings/Autumn%202017%20factfile.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/Portals/0/Documents/Bromley%20Briefings/Autumn%202017%20factfile.pdf Shelf Number: 149078 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationPrison AdministrationPrison ConditionsPrison OvercrowdingPrisonersPrisons |
Author: Aebi, Marcelo Title: Council of Europe Annual Penal Statistics. SPACE 1 - Prison Populations Survey 2016 Summary: European prisons are on average close to full capacity, with inmates occupying over 9 out of ten available places, according to the Council of Europe Annual Penal Statistics (SPACE) for 2016, published today. The survey shows that the incarceration rate grew from 115.7 to 117.1 inmates per 100,000 inhabitants from 2015 to 2016. This rate had previously fallen every year since 2012, when it reached 125.6 prisoners per 100,000 inhabitants. The incarceration rate is mainly influenced by the length of the sanctions and measures imposed. In that perspective, the average length of detention, which can be seen as an indicator of the way criminal law is applied, increasing slightly to 8.5 months. The countries where the incarceration rate grew the most were Bulgaria (+10.8%), Turkey (+9.5%), the Czech Republic (+7.6%), Serbia (+6.6%) and Denmark (+5.5%). The prison administrations where it fell the most were Iceland (-15.9%), Northern Ireland (-11.8), Lithuania (-11.1%), Belgium (-10.1%) and Georgia (-6.7%). On the other hand, overcrowding remained a serious problem in many countries. Thirteen out of 47 prison administrations reported having more inmates than places to host them. The highest levels of overcrowding were observed in "The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" (132 prisoners per 100 places available), Hungary (132), Cyprus (127), Belgium (120), France (117), Portugal (109), Italy (109), Serbia (109), Albania (108), the Czech Republic (108), Romania (106) and Turkey (103). The SPACE survey is conducted for the Council of Europe by the University of Lausanne. The SPACE I 2016 survey contains information from 47 out of 52 prison administrations in the 47 Council of Europe member states (see the executive summary). The SPACE II contains information from 47 out of 52 probation agencies. Details: Strasbourg: Council of Europe, 2018. 148p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 10, 2018 at: http://wp.unil.ch/space/files/2018/03/SPACE-I-2016-Final-Report-180315.pdf Year: 2018 Country: Europe URL: http://wp.unil.ch/space/files/2018/03/SPACE-I-2016-Final-Report-180315.pdf Shelf Number: 149751 Keywords: Correctional InstitutionsInmatesPrison OvercrowdingPrisonersPrisons |
Author: Beyens, Kristel Title: Electronic Monitoring in Belgium Summary: Key findings - Electronic monitoring (EM) is used in Belgium as an alternative for pre-trial detention and as a way of implementing prison sentences. In 2016, it will be introduced as an autonomous stand-alone sentence and as a way of imposing restrictions on offenders with a mental illness. - The increasing use of EM is strongly linked to the persistent problem of prison overcrowding. - The rehabilitative potential of EM has been limited by the increasing use of EM as a stand-alone order. - Where EM is used for the implementation of prison sentences, it is organised as a two-track system, creating substantial differences between sentences of 3 years or less and more than 3 years. The system is standardised for the former, whereas a highly individualised system with the supervision of a Justice Assistant is used for the latter. - The reduction or lack of supervision by Justice Assistants was reported to have reduced the effectiveness of EM. - Respondents were critical of the policy relating to obtaining the consent of cohabitants of monitored people because a lack of informed consent can lead to difficulties during the EM period. - The operation of EM is highly bureaucratic. The introduction of the SISET workflow system has facilitated information exchange between the agencies involved in EM, improved transparency and increased the speed of work processes. - The mean cost of one day under EM is L25 (staff costs included). - The mean period under EM in 2015 was 109 days (3.6 months) but it varies considerably between the different modalities. - Private sector involvement in EM is currently limited to the provision and maintenance of the equipment. Details: Brussels: Department of Criminology, Research Group Crime & Society, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, 2016. 92p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 12, 2018 at: http://28uzqb445tcn4c24864ahmel.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/files/2016/06/EMEU-Electronic-monitoring-in-Belgium.pdf Year: 2016 Country: Belgium URL: http://28uzqb445tcn4c24864ahmel.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/files/2016/06/EMEU-Electronic-monitoring-in-Belgium.pdf Shelf Number: 150839 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Electronic Monitoring Offender Supervision Pretrial Detention Prison OvercrowdingTagging |