State Efforts in Sentencing and Corrections Reform (2)

8/3/2019 State Efforts in Sentencing and Corrections Reform (2)

1/26

StateEffortsinSentencingandCorrectionsReform

Contact: Jeffrey S. McLeod

Policy Analyst

Homeland Security & Public Safety Division

202-624-5311

October 27, 2011

Executive Summary

States continue to struggle during what is the most difficult fiscal environment since the Great

Depression. Projections are that the economic recovery will be slow, forcing states to think long-

term about how to do more with less. Full economic recovery may not happen until the end of thedecade. With corrections among states largest expenditures, many are rethinking their

approaches to sentencing and corrections practices as they seek to constrain spending.

Between 2009 and 2010, at least 40 states made cuts to general fund expenditures for corrections.

They are reducing staff salaries, benefits, or overtime, eliminating prison programs, and making

food-service changes. Furthermore, states have been increasingly focused on finding ways to

decrease overall prison populations. Given that the average prison bed now costs $29,000 a year,

they are looking for ways to reduce the number of nonviolent and low-risk individuals going to

prison, to move offenders who can be safely managed in the community out of prison sooner, and

to keep ex-offenders out of prison through improved prisoner reentry practices. Ultimately, states

aim to reduce prison populations enough to allow them to close prisons.States are accomplishing reductions through sentencing reform, efforts to reduce offender

recidivism, and parole and probation reform. For example:

South Carolina approved a sentencing reform package in 2010 that the state estimateswill reduce the need to build and operate new prison beds by 1,786, saving up to $241

million by reducing incarceration of nonviolent offenders and more closely supervising

released inmates to reduce recidivism;

Nevada saved $38 million in operating expenditures by FY 2009 and avoided $1.2billion in new prison construction by making key sentencing reforms, including

expanding the number of credits inmates could earn for good time and the number of

credits those on community supervision could earn for complying with conditions; and

Kentucky passed legislation expected to save the state $422 million over the next decadeby diverting certain drug offenders into treatment rather than prison and reserving prison

space for violent and career criminals.

The challenge to states is to make cuts in corrections spending while maintaining public safety.

Fortunately, there now exists a significant body of research about which sentencing and

corrections practices work and which do not. Research shows that implementation of evidence-


2/26

Page - 2 -State Efforts in Sentencing and Corrections Reform

based practices leads to an average decrease in crime of between 10 percent and 20 percent.

Programs that are not evidence-based, on the other hand, tend to see no decrease or even a slight

increase in crime.

States can use that knowledge to make more informed decisions about which policies and

programs to support as they seek to reduce spending on corrections. This Issue Brief provides an

overview of the cost drivers behind corrections expenditures and identifies critical decision-pointsfor states to consider as they take action to reduce costs. It also examines challenges to enacting

reforms and makes recommendations for states looking to improve public safety with fewer

resources. Those recommendations include:

Pursue an approach to reform that involves coordination and collaboration among stateexecutive, legislative, and judicial branches;

Adopt evidence-based practices proven to reduce recidivism and eliminate programsshown to be ineffective or harmful;

Target high-risk offenders and tailor sentencing, treatment, and release decisions toindividual risk factors;

Support mandatory supervision and treatment in the community; and Use real-time data and information for decision-making.

Publication of this Issue Brief was made possible by funding from The Pew Center on the States.

It seeks to build on the successes of Pews Public Safety Performance Project and partner

organizations in leading sentencing and corrections reform around the nation.

What is Driving Corrections Costs?

Corrections costs are driven primarily by growing prison populations, with the majority of those

costs directly linked to staffing. Over the last 25 years, corrections spending has gone fromapproximately $16.5 billion to more than $50 billion (adjusted for inflation)an increase of 307

percent (See Figure 1). By some estimates, this rate of growth trails only state spending on

Medicaid.1 States are spending more because populations are higher, and populations are higher

because more individuals enter prison and stay longer. (See Appendix, Table 1: Adult

Incarceration Rates (Jail and Prison).)

In FY 2008 corrections spending peaked at around $52.85 billion in real terms and is projected to

decrease for a second straight year in FY 2010. While it is unclear whether this dip reflects a

permanent shift in corrections practices or a temporary response to declining state revenues,

projections are that the economic recovery will be slow and states will have to think long-term

about how to do more with less. Full economic recovery may not happen until the end of the

decade.2

If states want to reduce corrections costs, they must find ways to reduce prison populations. That

requires consideration of three essential decision-points.


3/26


Figure 1:

*Projected FY 2010 Expenditures

Source: National Association of State Budget Officers, State Expenditure Reports: 1987-2008

Who Goes to Prison?

In recent years, a higher percentage of low-risk, nonviolent offenders are being sentenced to

prison, as opposed to probation or other supervision options. According to a recent report,

nonviolent offenders make up more than 60 percent of prison and jail populations. 3 Furthermore,

nonviolent drug offenders account for about one-fourth of all offenders behind bars, up from less

than 10 percent in 1980.4

How Long Do Inmates Stay in Prison?

Another primary driver of corrections costs is the length of time inmates remain in prison. The

cost of housing a prisoner is significant, and many states are facing the increased fiscal

consequences of their sentencing policiessuch as truth-in-sentencing requirements, three

strikes laws, and mandatory minimum sentences. Over the last two decades, those policies have

led to a steady rise in the amount of time that an offender spends in prison. In 1993, the average

time state inmates served before their first release from prison was 21 months; in 2009, it was 29

months.5 According to the Pew Center on the States, in FY 2008 it cost an average of $78.95 per

day to incarcerate an individual. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, at year-end 2009there were approximately 1.3 million individuals incarcerated in state prisons.6 Using these

figures, the cost associated with housing prisoners for an additional 8-months is approximately

$25.3 billion.7

Additionally, the growing length of time prisoners remain behind bars is especially concerning

given the graying of the nations prison population. Between 1992 and 2001, the number of

state and federal inmates aged 50 or older rose 173 percent and they continue to make up a larger

proportion of the overall prison count.8 States devote approximately 10 percent of prison


4/26


spending to inmate health care.9 However, that figure alone does not reveal how much more they

spend to meet the needs of elderly prisoners compared to younger prisoners. States spend $29,000

per year on the average inmate but elderly prisoners cost an average of $70,000 annually to

incarcerate.10

How Many Offenders Return to Prison After They Are Released?

Corrections costs also are largely driven by offender recidivism, the rate at which offenders return

to prison after release. Nationally, approximately 45 percent of released inmates were

reincarcerated within a three-year period for committing a new crime or for a technical violation

of terms of their supervision, such as missing required drug tests or scheduled appointments.11

Some estimates suggest that at least one-third of all new prison admissions are for violations of

community supervision and, of those, one-third are for technical violations.12 By reducing

recidivism rates, states can reduce prison populations and save on the associated costs of

incarceration. In addition, communities stand to benefit from offenders who can pay child

support, taxes, and victim restitution.

State Responses to Increasing Corrections CostsBetween 2009 and 2010, at least 40 states reduced spending from their general funds for

corrections.13 As a result, corrections departments have had to make operational adjustments,

such as lowering salaries, benefits, or overtime for staff, eliminating prison programs, and

decreasing spending for food services.14 While operational adjustments have led to significant

savings for states, the largest cost savings only comes with closing prisons. In 2010, California

closed three minimum-security prisons for $15 million in savings per year, Georgia closed the

700-bed Bostick State Prison for annual savings of $6.7 million, Maryland approved the closure

of a 350-inmate minimum-security prison to save $12 million, and North Carolina authorized

the closures of seven minimum-security prisons for savings of $22 million.15 Since 2005,

Michigan has closed 19 facilities, saving the state around $315 million.16

In general, states have implemented reform efforts to reduce prison populations that focus on

each of the decision-points mentioned above (i.e., who goes to prison, how long they stay, and

how many individuals return to prison). Those actions fall into three broad categories:

Sentencing reform; Reducing offender recidivism; and Reforming parole and probation.

Sentencing Reform

A number of states have amended their sentencing laws, guidelines, and practices in an effort to

move nonviolent offenders out of the corrections system more quickly, while reserving prisonspace for offenders who pose a greater threat to public safety. Those reforms include adopting

alternatives to incarceration, revising criminal codes to downgrade offenses or reclassify specific

crimes, repealing or amending mandatory sentencing laws, and instituting earned time and

good time credits to accelerate the release of lower-risk offenders from prison.17

Florida, Louisiana, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington are states whose sentencing reforms

have included adopting alternatives to incarceration. Vermont passed legislation requiring a

sentence of probation for misdemeanors and nonviolent felonies.18Louisiana authorized courts to


5/26


sentence offenders to home confinement instead of prison time.19Florida appropriated funds to

help support a statewide program that diverts nonviolent offenders to employment assistance and

counseling services,20 and Washington developed the Family and Offender Sentencing

Alternative program, which incorporates parenting classes, substance abuse and mental health

treatment, and life skills classes for nonviolent offenders who have custody of children under

18.21

In Virginia, felony theft, fraud, and drug offenders are diverted from prison if they aredetermined to be low-risk based on a risk-assessment instrument that takes into account the basic

elements of their crimes and individual characteristics.22 More than 1,400 of those offenders were

sentenced to community supervision rather than prison in 2008.23

South Carolina revised its state criminal codes. In 2010, the state passed legislation that reduced

the maximum penalty for nonviolent second-degree burglary from 15 years to 10 years; increased

the property value threshold from $1,000 to $2,000 for all felony property crimes; and provided

that individuals convicted of a first or second drug offenseother than trafficking offensesare

eligible for probation or a suspended sentence, parole, work release, and good conduct and other

credits.24

States such as Delaware, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, and Rhode Island have amendedstate laws that imposed mandatory sentencing.25 New York overhauled its so-called Rockefeller

Drug Laws1970s-era statutes that led to an increase in drug convictions and a surge in the

states prison populationby eliminating mandatory minimums and reinstating judicial

discretion in low-level drug cases.26 Similarly, Minnesota allows judges to deviate from

mandatory-minimum sentences upon a motion by the prosecutor in low-level drug cases.27

Delaware passed legislation giving the court discretion to alter sentences of one year or less in

cases where an individual has a serious medical need, requires continuous treatment, and does not

pose a substantial risk to the community.28

Other states, such as Pennsylvania and Washington, have adopted earned time and good time

prison policies as part of their reform efforts.Inmates may be able to shorten their prison terms by

accruing earned time if they complete rehabilitation, vocational training, or other productiveactivities. Good time credits are awarded to individuals who demonstrate good behavior and

follow prison rules. Those incentives can improve inmate behavior, free up prison space, increase

the odds that individuals will not reoffend once they are released, and save taxpayer dollars.

Pennsylvania passed a law in 2008 allowing certain nonviolent offenders to reduce their

minimum sentence by up to 25 percent if they complete prescribed evidence-based programs

proven to reduce recidivism, demonstrate good conduct, and maintain a satisfactory work

record.29Washington increased the amount of good time available to certain nonviolent drug and

property offenders from 33 percent to 50 percent of the total sentence.30 Overall, the law is

estimated to have saved $7,200 per offender through shorter prison terms and avoided prison

operating and capital costs, lowered recidivism rates and the benefits of reduced crime, and thegreater productivity of released inmates who returned to the workforce.31 (For another example,

see text box, How Nevada Avoided the High Cost of State Prisons)

Indeed, as the Washington example illustrates above, sentencing reforms can mean significant

savings for states. South Carolina approved a sentencing reform package in 2010 estimated to

reduce the need to build and operate new prisons by 1,786 inmates, saving the state up to

$241 million by reducing incarceration of nonviolent offenders and more closely supervising

released inmates to reduce recidivism.32 Kentucky expects to save $422 million over the next


6/26


decade by, among other measures, diverting drug

offenders to treatment rather than to prison.33

Recently passed legislation reduces prison time for

low-risk, nonviolent drug offenders caught with

small amounts of drugs and reinvests savings from

reduced prison costs into drug treatment foroffenders who need help.34 At the same time, the

law seeks to strengthen probation and parole

policies by requiring that decisions be based on an

offenders individual risk factors.

In recent years, states have begun to see declines in

prison populations due to sentencing reform

efforts.35 Between 2008 and 2010 prison

populations declined in 26 states.36 Fortunately,

research shows that less incarceration does not

necessarily mean more crime. In fact, over the last

decade 19 states reduced both prison populations

and crime rates.37 A look at trends in New York

provides an example. In 2000, New York had a

prison population of approximately 70,000. Since

then, the population has dropped to below 60,000

while over the same period of time crime rates

declined by 29 percent.38

Reducing Offender Recidivism

To tackle recidivism rates, states have adopted a

variety of efforts to prevent offenders from

committing new crimes or violating terms of theirrelease. For example, Hawaiis HOPE program has

reduced probation violations by drug offenders and

others at high risk of recidivism through swift,

predictable, and immediate sanctions. If

probationers violate terms of their probation, they

are immediately arrested and receive a short jail

term. The length of stay increases for subsequent violations and repeat offenders are required to

attend residential treatment.39 Research shows that these types of programs can be effective in

reducing both recidivism rates and costs.40 (See text box, Hawaiis HOPE Program.)

Michigan targeted recidivism among its parolees and launched the Michigan Prisoner ReentryInitiative (MPRI) in 2003.41 MPRIs mission is to equip every released offender with the tools to

succeed in the community and it incorporates individualized programming, transition plans for

prisoners prior to parole, and graduated sanctions to manage parole violations after release.42 To

date, the program has helped the state reduce its prison population by 12 percent and close more

than 20 correctional facilities.43

How Nevada Avoided the High

Cost of State PrisonsIn 2007, Nevada projected a prisonpopulation increase of more than60 percent by 2012 that would have costtaxpayers more than $2 billion. But thelegislature voted to enact several policyreforms that in the end saved Nevada$38 million in operating expenditures byFY 2009 and helped it avoid $1.2 billionin new prison construction costs. Keyreforms included:

Increasing program creditsawarded for in-prison education,vocational, and substance abusetreatment;

Expanding the number of creditsinmates could earn for goodtime and the number of creditsthose on community supervisioncould earn for complying withconditions; and

Reinstating an advisorycommission to review sentencingand corrections policies foreffectiveness and efficiency.

Source: Prison Count 2010: State Population Declines

for the First Time in 38 Years, Pew Center On the

States, The Pew Charitable Trusts, March 2010, 4.


7/26


Oregon developed a comprehensive approach to

reducing offender recidivism that targets inmates

the day they enter prison.44 At intake, inmates

receive risk and needs assessments. During

incarceration, they receive targeted case

management. Within six months before release,inmates begin a detailed transition planning

process to get ready for life outside of prison. In

the community, parolees and probationers are

subject to swift and certain sanctions if they

violate the terms of their conditions. Rather than

immediate re-incarceration, probation and parole

violators face an array of graduated sanctions in

the community. Oregon experienced a 32 percent

drop in its recidivism rate between 1999 and

2004.45 Further, according to a report from The

Pew Charitable Trusts highlighting 41 states,Oregon recorded the lowest overall recidivism

rate in the country at 23 percent among offenders

released in 2004.46

Reforming Parole and Probation

Many states are reforming parole and probation

practices as a part of a broader strategy to reduce

recidivism. In addition, they are reforming parole

and probation practices in an effort to use

resources more effectively and reduce their

reliance on incarceration.Alabama, Kentucky, and Missouri have

reformed how they sanction probationers and

parolees who violate conditions of their

supervision. Missouri uses a risk-assessment tool

to categorize parolees and help set supervision

levels. If parolees or probationers violate the

terms of their supervision, they are subject to a

range of sanctions, including verbal reprimands, modification of conditions of release, residential

drug treatment, or a brief stay in jail.47 The states recidivism rate has dropped significantly, from

46 percent in FY 2004 to 36 percent in FY 2009.48 For nonviolent probationers who commit

technical violations, Alabama limits revocation to 90 days of incarceration,49 and Kentucky

parole officers now have discretion to confine those who violate the technical conditions of their

parole to county jail for up to 10 days and no more than 30 days within a one-year period.50

North Carolina passed legislation to make probation more effective, increase public safety, and

reduce crime.51 The law gives probation officers the ability to respond to probation violations

more swiftly and put offenders in jail without a court hearing for up to three days.52 The law also

restructures how people on probation are monitored. It places greater emphasis on directing

supervision and treatment resources to those who are at highest risk of reoffending. Those

Hawaiis HOPE Program

In 2004, Hawaii Circuit Court Judge Steven

Alm created Hawaiis Opportunity

Probation with Enforcement (HOPE)

program, which operates on the principle

that punishment is far more effective if it is

swift, certain and proportionate than

delayed, unpredictable and severe. Rather

than imposing prison time on offenders only

after they repeatedly fail to meet the

conditions of probation, sanctions areimmediate and predictable. Failure to

comply means a few days in jail, typically

over a weekend to allow probationers to still

work during the week.

A National Institute of Justice study found

that HOPE probationers were 72 percent

less likely to use drugs and 61 percent less

likely to skip appointments with their

supervisory officer. Moreover, they were 55

percent less likely to be arrested for a new

crime and 53 percent less likely to have their

probation revoked.

Sources:Angela Hawken and Mark Kleiman, ManagingDrug Involved Probationers with Swift and Certain

Sanctions: Evaluating Hawaiis HOPE, National Institute

of Justice, December 2009; One In 31: The Long Reach of

American Corrections, Pew Center on the States, The PewCharitable Trusts, March 2009, 27.(December 2009).


8/26


reforms are expected to help avert a projected prison population increase and save more than

3,600 beds by FY 2017 for savings of over $290 million.53 Savings will be reinvested into

probation and post-release supervision and expanding access to drug treatment.

Other states have incorporated earned time credits into their probation practices. Arizona did

so by passing the Safe Communities Act after a 2008 analysis estimated that the state prison

population would grow by 50 percent in a decade and require the state to build space for 17,000new prison beds at a cost of $2 billion to $3 billion.54 A high rate of probation failures was

identified as an important contributor to this growth. Before the acts passage, the state was

sending around 4,000 probationers back to prison each year for violating supervision terms, at a

cost of approximately $100 million.55 To reduce recidivism rates, the law helped focus probation

supervision on high-risk offenders by creating earned time credits for probationers who comply

with the terms of their supervision.56 Under the law, offenders can earn 20 days off of their

probation term for every month that they meet restitution payments and community service

assignments, but they lose those credits if they are arrested. Consequently, lower-risk offenders

who meet their obligations earn release earlier and probation officers can focus their resources on

higher risk offenders.

In 2010, Arizona released data showing that the number of probationers convicted for new

felonies had declined by 31 percent, and that the overall number of probation revocations had

dropped by 29 percent since passage of the Act.57 Moreover, these declines occurred despite the

states overall increase in the number of offenders on parole, from 82,576 to 85,144, and despite

the increase in the ratio of probation officers caseloads, from 60:1 to 65:1.58

Challenges to Enacting Reforms

Reforming sentencing and corrections practices can help states manage rising costs, but enacting

reforms may require overcoming significant challenges.

Overcoming the Status QuoAs governors attempt to enact reforms and reduce budgets, one of the challenges they face is

longstanding corrections practices based on custom, culture, and habit rather than research. Such

practices may make it difficult to drive reforms.

In addition, prisons provide jobs to communities, and governors may have to make painful and

unpopular decisions about which prisons to close and which cost-cutting policies to support. For

example, probation and parole leaders in New Hampshire opposed a state prison reform bill that

aimed to reduce the states inmate population by moving offenders out of prison and into

community supervision.59 Opponents worried that the bill would leave the already burdened state

workers responsible for more offenders than they could supervise. But through the use of

actuarial risk assessments conducted by prison staff members, the state corrections department

expects that parole officers will be able to accommodate a larger community corrections

population by adjusting their workloads and focusing primarily on parolees most likely to

reoffend.60 Furthermore, by reinvesting the estimated $7 million in savings that the law is

projected to generate into substance abuse and mental health treatment programs, the state

anticipates that recidivism rates will fall, freeing up even more resources. The bill passed in 2010

with support from leaders of all three branches of state government.61


9/26


Limited Capacity to Provide Community Supervision and Treatment Programs

As states reduce the size and budgets of their prison systems, they will increasingly rely on less

expensive community-based supervision and treatment programs. However, with government at

all levels confronting budget shortfalls, states need to adopt innovative funding strategies to

improve their capacity to supervise and provide treatment for offenders. California uses

performance incentive funding to drive down offender recidivism. The state rewards counties thatreduce recidivism by sharing a portion of the costs avoided by the state by not having to

incarcerate those probationers. The lower a countys failure rate, the more state funds it

receives.62 That approach encourages counties to supervise offenders in the community, rather

than return them to state custody, and it helps the state save money that would otherwise be spent

on incarcerating probationers.63

Building Public Support for Corrections Reforms

For states to reduce prison populations, they must assure the public and the media that cost-

cutting measures will not jeopardize public safety. Those efforts may be helped by growing

public support for sentencing and corrections reform. A recent national poll of public attitudes on

crime and punishment found:Prison is not always required and voters recognize the important role that

probation and parole can play in reducing crime. There is strong support for

reinvesting prison savings in alternatives that hold offenders accountable. Nearly

9 out of 10 voters (87 [percent]) favor reducing prison time for low-risk,

nonviolent offenders and reinvesting some of the savings to create a stronger

probation and parole system that holds offenders accountable for their crime.64

The poll, conducted by Public Opinion Strategies and the Benenson Strategy Group for the Pew

Charitable Trusts, also noted strong support for the notion of better returns on public safety

investments.

To build support for reforms, policymakers should frame the discussion in terms that resonatewith the public. For example, the public tends to be more receptive to phrases such as mandatory

supervision, rather than community supervision, to describe non-prison sanctions. A 2007

voter poll in Texas revealed that 83 percent of respondents preferred a mandatory intensive

treatment program as an alternative to prison for low level offenders, knowing that the diversion

of lower level offenders could help avert $1 billion in new prison costs.65

Ensuring that Policy Decisions Are Based on Current, Accurate, and Complete Information

A challenge many states face is that corrections information is unavailable, incomplete,

inaccurate, or outdated. Governors and other state policymakers need access to reliable

information to craft effective policy solutions to public safety challenges. Without a standardized

approach to collecting and sharing information, it is difficult to establish accurate baselines forperformance measurement. If the performance of a program cannot be measured, policymakers

cannot know which programs work and should be funded, and which are ineffective and should

be defunded.

Maryland applies a rigorous data-driven model known as StateStat to promote government

accountability and efficiency.66 The program is a performance-measurement and management

tool that requires agencies to report performance data to the state. A team of analysts evaluates

the data and creates executive briefing memos for members of the governors team. The governor


10/26


and his executive staff use that information during bi-weekly meetings with cabinet secretaries to

discuss agency performance and priority initiatives. Those meetings hold state managers

accountable and help drive improved agency outcomes.

Strategies to Improve Chances for Success

States can take a number of actions to reduce corrections expenditures and improve public safety.An important first step is to examine management practices, staff qualifications, and performance

systems to ensure that the organizational capacity exists to encourage and support reforms. In

addition, there are a number of strategies states can adopt to enact reforms:

Pursue a cross-governmental approach to reforms; Adopt evidence-based practices that reduce recidivism and eliminate programs shown to

be ineffective or harmful;

Target high-risk offenders and tailor sentencing, treatment, and release decisions toindividual risk factors;

Support mandatory supervision and treatment in the community; and Use real-time data and information for decision making.

Pursue a Cross-Governmental Approach to Reforms

Through inter-branch coordination, states have been able to make significant reductions in

spending while ensuring the reforms they enact reduce crime and promote public safety. State

executive, legislative, and judicial branches each play a different role in shaping a states criminal

justice system, and when leaders from each branch work together with a common purpose, they

can improve offender outcomes and maximize public safety.

Alaska, Arkansas, Kentucky, and Ohio have created inter-branch entities to lead state reform

efforts in addressing rapidly growing prison populations and rising corrections costs. Arkansasformed a bipartisan working group composed of state leaders from the legislative, executive, and

judicial branches, as well as local government and law enforcement officials.67 The working

group reviewed Arkansass sentencing and corrections data, existing community supervision

practices and policy, and examples of best practices from other states. Based on its analysis, the

working group developed a comprehensive set of policy recommendations to improve public

safety at lower cost to taxpayers. Those recommendations led to passage of the Public Safety

Improvement Act, which is projected to save Arkansas $875 million in prison construction and

operation expenses through 2020.68 A portion of the savings will be reinvested in community-

based supervision, sanctions, and services designed to improve public safety and hold offenders

accountable. Key among the laws reforms are protecting public safety and reducing recidivism

by strengthening community supervision; improving government efficiency and effectivenessthrough data collection and performance measurement; and concentrating prison space on violent

and career criminals.69

To bring its rising prison population under control and address a high rate of offender recidivism,

Alaska formed the Alaska Prisoner Reentry Task Force in 2010.70 State criminal justice data

showed that two out of three prisoners returned to custody within three years of release, which

was greatly contributing to the states prison population growth.71 The task force includes a broad

range of state, local, and citizen members who are either stakeholders in developing solutions to


11/26


prisoner reentry challenges or who represent a constituency impacted by the states criminal

justice system.72 In early 2011, it released a five-year strategic prisoner reentry plan outlining

steps that state and local policymakers can take to improve prisoner reentry outcomes. The task

forces recommendations are expected to help

the state avoid building additional prison space

over the next 10 years.In Ohio, prisons were 33 percent over capacity

and the states prison population was projected

to grow by an additional 3,000 inmates by

2015.73 Over the course of 18 months, a bi-

partisan, inter-branch task forcecomposed of

the governor, chief justice, and legislative

leadersdeveloped policy recommendations

for the General Assembly that led to passage of

legislation expected to help the state avert all

projected growth through 2015 and save $500

million in prison construction and operation

costs. In addition, the law will help generate

$46 million in corrections savings by 2015 from

reduced prison populations.74 From these

savings, the state will reinvest $20 million over

four years by providing funding and incentive

grants for improving felony probation

supervision.75

Kentuckys bipartisan, inter-branch task force

included members of the Kentucky legislature,

the chief justice of the Kentucky SupremeCourt, the secretary of the Justice and Public

Safety Cabinet, a county executive, a former

prosecutor, and a former public defender.76 The

work of the task force led to passage of a justice

reform bill in 2011 that is projected to save the

state $422 million over the next decade.77

Adopt Evidence-Based Practices Proven to

Reduce Recidivism and Eliminate Programs

Shown to be Ineffective or Harmful

Research shows that implementation ofevidence-based practices leads to an average

decrease in crime of between 10 percent and

20 percent.78 Programs and policies that are evidence-based are those that have been proven to

work by research and scientific evaluation. By contrast, programs that are not evidence-based

tend to see no decrease or even a slight increase in crime.79

For example, research has cast doubt about the effectiveness of programs such as Scared Straight,

designed to deter delinquent youth from crime by showing them the harsh reality of prison life.

Key Questions to Consider:

What is driving corrections costs in yourstate (e.g., parole violations, length ofstay, nonviolent offenders)?

Is your states corrections and sentencingpolicy focused on reducing offenderrecidivism?

Are your states correctional programsevidence-based and proven to work byresearch and rigorous scientificevaluation? Can they demonstrate theirimpact on recidivism reduction and isthere a positive return on taxpayerinvestment?

Is your state using corrections dollars tofocus on the highest risk and most violentoffenders? Is your state adequatelyassessing the risk of individual offenders?

Does your state know the effectiveness ofits various crime prevention programs? Doyou know the cost-benefit tradeoffs ofvarious programs and approaches?

Are policy decisions based on real-time,accurate data and information?

Is your state holding low-risk, nonviolentoffenders accountable through supervisionand treatment programs?


12/26


At-risk youths participating in Scared Straight tour prison facilities and hear personal stories from

prisoners on the theory that the grim experience will frighten them away from crime and

encourage them to change bad behavior.80 Those programs were used throughout the country as a

get-tough response to juvenile crime. However, research showed that those types of programs are

not only ineffective but also harmful. An evaluation of nine Scared Straight-type programs

concluded that they failed to deter crime and led to more offending behavior.81

Research has alsoshown that boot camps, gun buybacks, peer counseling, summer jobs for at-risk youth, and

neighborhood watches may not be effective crime prevention programs.82

Thus, states should examine their own portfolio of recidivism reduction programs and determine

whether they are evidence-based, supported by research, cost effective, and impactful. (See text

box, Key Questions to Consider)

To identify what works, the Washington State Institute for Public Policy (WSIPP) reviewed 291

evaluations of programs to reduce recidivism in adult offenders and found that the following

initiatives significantly lowered recidivism rates:83

Adult drug courts (by 10.7 percent); Cognitive-behavioral treatment (by 8.2 percent); Intensive supervision with treatment-oriented programs (by 21.9 percent); and Employment training and job assistance in the community (by 4.8 percent).

By contrast, the following programs had no statistically significant impact on recidivism rates:84

Jail diversion programs for offenders with mental illness; Psychotherapy/counseling for sex offenders; or Adult boot camps.

It is important to note here that proven programs may demonstrate seemingly modest results.For example, programs with a statistically significant impact may only reduce recidivism by 5

percent to 15 percent. However, even those small reductions, given compounding gains across a

corrections system over time, can mean significant cost savings for a state.85

States are beginning to use this knowledge in their decision-making practices. For example,

Oregon adopted a statute requiring that at least 75 percent of the Oregon Department of

Corrections program funding be used to support programs that are evidence-based.86 In

Washington, the state legislature directed its institute for public policy, WSIPP, to study the

financial savings to state and local governments of implementing evidence-based treatment and

corrections programs.87 WSIPP found that evidence-based programs reduced recidivism by up to

17 percent and resulted in cost savings of $4,359 to $11,563 per participant.88Kansas decided to

combat recidivism with an earned time credit program for offenders, which studies have showncan reduce crime rates, recidivism, and costs.89 Under the program, lower-risk inmates who

complete one of several eligible programs, including substance abuse treatment or vocational

training, can earn up to 60 days off of their sentence.90 Since its inception in 2007, crime is down

35 percent among parolees who participated in the program, and parole revocations are down 45

percent.91


13/26


Target High-Risk Offenders and Tailor Sentencing, Treatment, and Release Decisions to

Individual Risk Factors

The evolution of validated actuarial-based risk-assessment tools allows states to identify those

individuals at greatest risk of reoffending. Those tools provide essential information to the courts

and corrections agencies that make sentencing, treatment, and release decisions. By predicting

more accurately who will reoffend and the level of harm they could cause, officials can makebetter informed decisions about how best to allocate limited corrections dollars. Research

demonstrates that to reduce recidivism rates and improve public safety, states should focus

supervision and treatment on higher risk offenders being released into the community, rather on

lower risk offenders.92 For low-risk offenders, supervision and interventions should be minimal.93

Virginia uses a risk-assessment instrument for felony theft, fraud, and drug offenders that takes

into account the offenders individual characteristics as well as elements of the crime. 94

Otherwise prison-bound individuals whose assessment scores are low are eligible for community-

based alternatives to prison.

Virginia also uses a pretrial risk-assessment instrument to identify the likelihood that a defendant

pending trial will fail to appear in court and assess the danger they pose to the community.95

Theinstrument takes into account eight risk factors, including primary charge type (felony or

misdemeanor), pending charges, criminal history, two or more failures to appear in court, two or

more violent convictions, length of current residence, employment and primary caregiver status,

and history of drug abuse. Based on those risk factors, defendants are scored and assigned one of

five risk levels: low, below average, average, above average, and high. If a defendant is low risk,

they are recommended for release into the community with limited or no conditions pending

trial.96 Those who receive average to above average scores may be released subject to various

conditions, community resources, and/or interventions. Finally, those who are determined to be

high risk are not recommended for release.

Mississippis use of a risk-assessment tool in parole helped it avoid a projected increase in its

prison population.97 In fact, the state saw a decrease in its prison population after implementingthe tool. By assessing each parole case individually with help from a new risk instrument, the

states parole board was able to modestly increase its parole grant rate of nonviolent offenders,

while at the same time maintaining the overall rate of parole revocations. Of the nearly 3,100

prisoners released in 2008-2009, only 121 were returned to custody as of 2010. Of those, all but

five were returned for technical parole violations, not new crimes.

The research is clear about several factors. First, different interventions are required for offenders

with different risk factors. The most effective sentencing and corrections practices target

offenders, not just the offenses. For example, imposing burdensome pre-trial release conditions

on low-risk defendants can actually decrease the likelihood that they will appear in court, whereas

imposing such conditions on high-risk defendants can increase the likelihood of pretrial success.98

Second, states should target their efforts on high-risk offenders and work to move low-risk

offenders out of the system as quickly as possible. Research shows that over-supervising

offenders who are low-risk can actually cause harm.99 This phenomenon may be explained by

low-risk offenders being more exposed to higher risk offenders or by a disruption of prosocial

factors that make them lower risk, such as good relationships with family members and

coworkers.100


14/26


By predicting more accurately who will reoffend and the level of harm they might cause, officials

can begin to make more informed decisions about how best to allocate limited corrections dollars.

Support Mandatory Supervision and Treatment in the Community

As states reduce corrections costs, they also need to identify strategies that enhance local capacity

to provide supervision and treatment. The average prison bed costs states $29,000 per year. Bycomparison, it costs only about $1,250 per year to manage probationers in the community. The

most effective recidivism reduction programs are those that include both supervision and

treatment components. In 2007, Texas faced a projected prison population increase of 17,000

inmates over a five-year period.101 Instead of spending nearly $2 billion to build new prisons,

policymakers reinvested $241 million in a network of residential and community-based treatment

and diversion programs.102 By expanding sentencing options for new offenses and sanctioning

options for probation violators, this approach helped prevent the large projected prison population

increase at a small fraction of the cost of building and operating more prisons.103

Use Real-Time Data and Information for Decision Making

Current, accurate, and complete corrections information is essential for making decisions and

driving effective reforms. Decision makers at all levels require accurate and timely information to

improve the effectiveness of sentencing and corrections practices. States that are most successful

at reducing recidivism and criminal justice costs will be those that are able to use corrections

information effectively.

Georgia uses real-time information to drive improvements in its parole system by tracking parole

officer activity and offender parole completion rates.104 Based on an actuarial analysis of more

than 6,300 parole completions between July 2000 and January 2001, Georgia identified several

risk factorssuch as age, offense type, and prior criminalitythat best predicted the likelihood

that an offender would commit a new crime while under supervision.105 The state used that

information to develop an automated risk-assessment instrument that employs four key dynamic

factors, including positive drug screens, residential moves, the number of days employed, andthe number of months of program attendance. The instrument recalculates risk for each parolee

daily and notifies the parole officer by email when the risk level increases or decreases.106 For

example, if a parole officer records an offenders failed drug test on Tuesday, a new risk score is

recalculated overnight. If the new risk score is above or below a predetermined high-risk

threshold, the parole officer receives an email notification on Wednesday.107 Armed with that

information, the parole officer can tailor supervisory activities by focusing on the factors directly

related to completing parole. Such granularity allows for greater accountability and more

immediate mitigation of problems when they arise.

To inform decision making at the local level, states can also use global position system (GPS)

monitors, rapid-result drug tests and ATM-like reporting kiosks to monitor the whereabouts and

activities of offenders in the community. Those tools provide more accurate information faster

and help ensure greater offender accountability. Florida has used electronic monitoring of

offenders in the community for at least 20 years. Although electronic monitorings ability to

reduce recidivism is still debated, a study of Florida offenders placed on electronic monitoring

found a 31 percent decline in the risk of revocation or absconding compared with offenders on

other forms of community supervision.108


15/26


Conclusion

As states struggle to balance their budgets, they are looking for new ways to drive greater

efficiencies in government and squeeze more out of each dollar they spend. With corrections

among the fastest growing categories of state expenditures, it is an area that is receiving increased

scrutiny from states. States want to know: Can they cut corrections costs without sacrificing

public safety? By adopting evidence-based practices and a cross-governmental approach toreform, focusing resources on high-risk offenders, supporting mandatory supervision and

treatment in the community, and using real-time data and information to drive decisions, states

can cut corrections costs while at the same time improving offender outcomes and ensuring

public safety.


16/26


Table1:AdultIncarcerationRates(JailandPrison)

2007 1982

Growthin

IncarcerationRate,1982

2007

1inX

(ratioof

incarcerated

tonon

incarcerated

adults)

Percentage

ofAdult

Population

Incarcerated

1inX

(ratioof

incarcerated

tonon

incarcerated

adults)

Percentage

ofAdult

Population

Incarcerated

Alabama 75 1.33% 208 0.48% 176%Alaska 88 1.14% 224 0.45% 154%Arizona 83 1.21% 226 0.44% 173%Arkansas 102 0.98% 309 0.32% 204%California 102 0.98% 243 0.41% 137%Colorado 97 1.03% 394 0.25% 307%Connecticut 121 0.82% 446 0.22% 267%Delaware 88 1.14% 209 0.48% 139%

Dist.ofColumbia 50 2.00% 74 1.35% 48%Florida 82 1.22% 186 0.54% 127%Georgia 70 1.42% 169 0.59% 141%Hawaii 108 0.92% 448 0.22% 314%Idaho 100 1.00% 415 0.24% 314%Illinois 133 0.75% 348 0.29% 162%Indiana 111 0.90% 327 0.31% 195%Iowa 154 0.65% 533 0.19% 247%Kansas 120 0.84% 386 0.26% 223%Kentucky 92 1.08% 391 0.26% 324%Louisiana 55 1.81% 205 0.49% 272%Maine 226 0.44% 488 0.20% 116%Maryland 103 0.97% 191 0.52% 86%

Massachusetts 190 0.53% 572 0.17% 200%Michigan 105 0.95% 283 0.35% 169%Minnesota 211 0.47% 726 0.14% 243%Mississippi 69 1.44% 247 0.41% 256%Missouri 97 1.03% 308 0.32% 217%Montana 118 0.85% 457 0.22% 287%Nebraska 143 0.70% 424 0.24% 197%Nevada 89 1.13% 171 0.58% 93%

NewHampshire 204 0.49% 740 0.14% 264%NewJersey 140 0.72% 408 0.24% 192%NewMexico 90 1.11% 298 0.34% 232%NewYork 148 0.68% 294 0.34% 99%

NorthCarolina 110 0.91% 211 0.47% 93%NorthDakota 179 0.56% 817 0.12% 357%Ohio 115 0.87% 314 0.32% 173%


17/26


Oklahoma 76 1.32% 275 0.36% 263%Oregon 132 0.76% 303 0.33% 130%

Pennsylvania 111 0.90% 420 0.24% 280%RhodeIsland 187 0.53% 662 0.15% 254%SouthCarolina 83 1.21% 190 0.53% 131%South

Dakota 104 0.96% 401 0.25% 285%

Tennessee 98 1.02% 272 0.37% 176%Texas 71 1.41% 215 0.47% 203%Utah 136 0.74% 486 0.21% 258%Vermont 204 0.49% 587 0.17% 188%Virginia 89 1.13% 270 0.37% 205%

Washington 155 0.64% 312 0.32% 101%WestVirginia 140 0.71% 564 0.18% 303%Wisconsin 109 0.92% 437 0.23% 300%Wyoming 94 1.06% 330 0.30% 252%

Source: One in 31: The Long Reach of American Corrections, Pew Center on the States, The Pew

Charitable Trusts, March 2009, 43.


18/26


Resources

Highlighted below are resources that governors and other policymakers can turn to for additional

information and assistance in making reforms to sentencing and corrections practices.

Alison Lawrence, Cutting Corrections Costs: Earned Time Policies for State Prisoners

(Denver, CO: National Conference of State Legislatures, July 2009)This report looks at how state legislatures are trimming corrections costs while maintaining

public safety.

Christopher T. Lowenkamp and Edward J. Latessa, Understanding the Risk Principle: How

and Why Correctional Interventions Can Harm Low-Risk Offenders (National Institute of

Corrections Annual Issue, 2004)

This article discusses the concept of risk and how it pertains to offender recidivism. It argues for

the administration and delivery of more intense services and supervision to higher risk offenders.

In contrast, low-risk offenders should receive less intensive levels of supervision and treatment.

Crime and Justice Institute at Community Resources for Justice,Implementing Evidence-

Based Policy and Practice in Community Corrections, 2nd ed. (Washington, DC: NationalInstitute of Corrections, 2009)

This paper outlines the theoretical and empirical support for an integrated model for the

implementation of evidence-based practices as well as practical strategies for its implementation

in community corrections settings.

CrimeSolutions.gov

The Office of Justice Programs launched this searchable online database of evidence-based

programs to inform practitioners and policymakers about what works in criminal justice, juvenile

justice, and crime victim services.

Don Steman,Reconsidering Incarceration: New Directions for Reducing Crime (New York,

NY: Vera Institute of Justice, January 2007)This paper provides policymakers with public policy strategies that embrace factors associated

with low crime rates in a more comprehensive policy framework of safeguarding citizens.

Lauren Stewart, State Government Redesign Efforts 2009 and 2010 (Washington, DC: NGA

Center for Best Practices, October 2010)

This issue brief examines the actions states have taken to deal with the budget crisis in policy

areas such as corrections, K-12 education, higher education, employee costs, shared services and

agency consolidation, privatization and asset sales, and tax expenditures.

National Conference of State Legislatures, Sentencing and Corrections Enactments: All

States/Reentry Programs and Supervision Database

This database contains legislation enacted by states during the period from January 1, 2010through November 15, 2010 to address a variety of sentencing and corrections issues.

Nicole D. Porter, The State of Sentencing 2009: Developments in Policy and Practice

(Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project, 2010)

This report examines state legislative initiatives in sentencing reform, death penalty, probation

and parole practices, and juvenile justice that have the potential to reduce prison populations

and/or promote more effective approaches to public safety.


19/26


Peggy Burke and Michael Tonry, Successful Transition and Reentry for Safer Communities:

A Call to Action for Parole (Silver Spring, MD: Center for Effective Public Policy, June

2006)

This paper focuses on the role of parole with respect to reentry and how key parole stakeholders

can be agents of change in shaping how resources are targeted as offenders reenter the

community.

Pew Center on the States,Issue Brief: South Carolinas Public Safety Reform: Legislation

Enacts Research-Based Strategies to Cut Prison Growth and Costs (Washington, DC: The

Pew Charitable Trusts, June 2010)

This issue brief highlights the work of the South Carolina Sentencing Reform Commission and

examines the reforms it developed, which led to the Omnibus Crime Reduction and Sentencing

Reform Act of 2010.

Pew Center on the States, One in 31: The Long Reach of American Corrections (Washington,

DC: The Pew Charitable Trusts, April 2009)

This Pew Public Safety Performance Project report provides a detailed look at who is in the

corrections system and which states have the highest populations of offenders behind bars and inthe community.

Pew Center on the States,Policy Framework to Strengthen Community Corrections

(Washington, DC: The Pew Charitable Trusts, December 2009)

This paper provides a menu of policy options for policymakers looking to know what works to

strengthen probation and parole.

Pew Center on the States,Prison Count 2010: State Population Declines for the First Time in

38 Years (Washington, DC: The Pew Charitable Trusts, April 2010)

This survey, compiled by the Public Safety Performance Project, shows that for the first time in

38 years, the overall state prison population has declined. The report examines factors that led to

this decline.Pew Center on the States,Right Sizing Prisons: Business Leaders Make the Case for

Corrections Reform (Washington, DC: The Pew Charitable Trusts, January 2010)

This Public Safety Performance Project paper features business leaders approach to working

with policymakers on public safety issues. It shares strategies for overcoming political challenges

to reform and identifies specific policy changes that are already yielding positive results in their

states.

Pew Center on the States, State of Recidivism: The Revolving Door of Americas Prisons

(Washington, DC: The Pew Charitable Trusts, April 2011)

This Public Safety Performance Project report provides a state-by-state look at recidivism rates

and finds that more than 4 out of 10 adults return to prison within three years of release. It alsofinds that if states could reduce their recidivism rates by just 10 percent, they could save more

than $635 million in one year alone in avoided prison costs.

Roger Warren,Arming the Courts with Research: 10 Evidence-Based Sentencing Initiatives

to Control Crime and Reduce Costs (Washington, DC: The Pew Charitable Trusts, May

2009)

This brief provides ten strategies that would help states reduce their crime rates while conserving

state resources to meet other important needs.


20/26


Tracy W. Peters and Roger K. Warren, Getting Smarter About Sentencing: NCSCs

Sentencing Reform Survey (Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, August

2006)

This survey collected basic information from state chief justices and administrators about state

sentencing reform activities.

Vera Institute of Justice, The Continuing Fiscal Crisis in Corrections (New York, NY: Vera

Institute of Justice, October 2010)

This survey describes actions states have taken to reduce costs and reviews legislative reforms

aimed at reducing corrections spending over the long term.

Washington State Institute for Public Policy (WSIPP) Benefit-Cost Tool

WSIPP developed an analytical tool to help states identify evidence-based policies that reduce

crime and lower corrections costs. The tool allows policymakers to examine various portfolios

of programs and their impact on prison populations and costs. Based on projected outcomes,

governors and state policymakers can make decisions about the types of programs the state will

fund. To access the published report that describes the model and its applications, see

http://www.wsipp.wa.gov.


21/26


End Notes

1 Pew Center on the States, State of Recidivism: The Revolving Door of Americas Prisons, The Pew

Charitable Trusts, Washington, DC: April 2011, 1; Vera Institute of Justice, The Continuing Fiscal Crisis

in Corrections: Setting a New Course, New York, NY: October 2010, 7.

2 National Governors Association, State Government Redesign Efforts 2009 and 2010, NGA Center for

Best Practices, Washington, DC: October 2010, 3.

3 Center for Economic and Policy Research, The High Budgetary Cost of Incarceration, Washington, DC:

June 2010, 1.

4The High Budgetary Cost of Incarceration, June 2010.

5 Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice,National Corrections Reporting Program: Time

served in state prison, by offense, release type, sex, and race,

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=2045.

6 Bureau of Justice Statistics, Correctional Populations in the United States, 2009, U.S. Department of

Justice, Washington, DC: December 2010, 1.

7 This number was calculated as follows: 243 days x $78.95 per day x 1,319,426 prisoners.

8 Pew Center on the States, One in 100: Behind Bars in America 2008, The Pew Charitable Trusts,

Washington, DC: February 2008, 12; Jaye B. Anno et al., Addressing the Needs of Elderly, Chronically

Ill, and Terminally Ill Inmates, National Institute of Corrections, U.S. Department of Justice, Criminal

Justice Institute, February 2004, 8.

9One in 100: Behind Bars in America 2008, February 2008.

10 Addressing the Needs of Elderly, Chronically Ill, and Terminally Ill Inmates, February 2004, 11.

11

State of Recidivism: The Revolving Door of Americas Prisons, April 2011, 9.12The Continuing Fiscal Crisis in Corrections: Setting a New Course, October 2010, 15.

13 National Association of State Budget Officers, Fiscal Surveys of the States, June 2009, 3; and June 2010,

4.

14The Continuing Fiscal Crisis in Corrections: Setting a New Course, October 2010, 10-14.

15 National Conference of State Legislatures, http://www.ncsl.org/Default.aspx?TabId=20000 (accessed

July 15, 2011).

16 Paul Egan, Michigan Corrections to close Mound facility, cut 2000 workers,Detroit News, September

29, 2011, http://detnews.com/article/20110929/POLITICS02/109290399/Michigan-Corrections-to-close-

Mound-facility--cut-2000-workers.17The Continuing Fiscal Crisis in Corrections: Setting a New Course, October 2010, 14-19.

18 Vermont Senate Bill 292 (2009).

19 Louisiana House Bill 225 (2009)

20 Florida House Bill 5001 (2010).

21 Washington Senate Bill 6639 (2009).


22/26


22One in 31: The Long Reach of American Corrections, March 2009, 23.

23 Virginia Criminal Sentencing Commission, 2008 Annual Report,http://www.vcsc.virginia.gov/2008AnnualReport.pdf (accessed July 15, 2011).

24

The Omnibus Crime Reduction and Sentencing Reform Act of 2010, South Carolina Senate Bill 1154(2010); Pew Center on the States, South Carolinas Public Safety Reform: Legislation Enacts Research-

based Strategies to Cut Prison Growth and Costs,Issue Brief, The Pew Charitable Trusts, Washington,

DC: June 2010, 6.

25The Continuing Fiscal Crisis in Corrections: Setting a New Course, October 2010, 17.

26 New York Senate Bill 56-B (2009); Madison Gray, A Brief History of New Yorks Rockefeller Drug

Laws, Time.com, April 2, 2009, http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1888864,00.html.

27 Minnesota Senate Bill 802 (2009).

28 Delaware House Bill 338 (2009).

29 Pennsylvania Act 81 (2008).30Cutting Corrections Costs: Earned Time Policies for State Prisoners, July 2009, 3.

31Cutting Corrections Costs: Earned Time Policies for State Prisoners, July 2009.

32 South Carolinas Public Safety Reform: Legislation Enacts Research-based Strategies to Cut Prison

Growth and Costs, June 2010, 1.

33 Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear, Gov. Beshear Signs Landmark Corrections Reform Bill into Law, Press

Release, March 3, 2011.

34 Public Safety and Offender Accountability Act, House Bill 463, Kentucky Legislature, 2011 Legislative

Session, June 8, 2011.

35 Nicole D. Porter, On the Chopping Block: State Prison Closings, The Sentencing Project, Washington,

DC: September 2011, 2.

36 Pew Center on the States, Prison Count 2010: State Population Declines for the First Time in 38 Years,

The Pew Charitable Trusts, Washington, DC: March 2010, 2.

37 Those states are Alaska, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Kansas, Maryland,

Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, and

Wisconsin. See State of Recidivism: The Revolving Door of Americas Prisons, April 2011, 5.

38State of Recidivism: The Revolving Door of Americas Prisons, April 2011.

39 Friends of Hope, http://www.hopeprobation.org/ (accessed July 15, 2011)

40 Angela Hawken and Mark Kleiman, Managing Drug Involved Probationers with Swift and Certain

Sanctions: Evaluating Hawaiis HOPE, National Institute of Justice, December 2009.

41State of Recidivism: The Revolving Door of Americas Prisons, April 2011, 21.





23/26






49 Alabama Senate Bill 325 (2010).

50 Kentucky House Bill 1 (2010 Special Session).

51 North Carolina House Bill 642 (2011).

52 Brian Freskos, Justice system, from jails to courts, to see changes, StarNewsOnline, September 20,

2011, http://www.starnewsonline.com/article/20110920/ARTICLES/110929999.

53 Justice Center, Ohio and North Carolina Enact Laws Using Justice Reinvestment Strategies: Bipartisan

Legislation Saves States Hundreds of Millions of Dollars and Increases Public Safety, The Council of

State Governments, http://justicereinvestment.org/resources/ohio-and-north-carolina-update, accessedSeptember 23, 2011.

54 Pew Center on the States, The Impact of Arizonas Probation Reforms,Issue Brief, The Pew

Charitable Trusts, Washington, DC: March 2011, 1.

55 The Impact of Arizonas Probation Reforms, March 2011.

56 Arizona Senate Bill 1476 (2008).

57 Arizona Administrative Office of the Courts, Adult Probation Services Division,Arizona Adult

Probation: Probation Revocation & Crime Reduction Report Fiscal Year 2010, November 2010.

58 The Impact of Arizonas Probation Reforms, March 2011, 3.

59 Kevin Landrigan, Union against new prisoner reform bill,Nashua Telegraph, February 17, 2010,

http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/news/statenewengland/628905-227/union-against-new-prisoner-reform-

bill.html (accessed July 15, 2011).

60 Maddie Hanna, Parole Savings Uncertain, Concord Monitor, November 21, 2010,

http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/225324/parole-savings-uncertain?CSAuthResp= percent3Asession

percent3ACSUserId percent7CCSGroupId percent3Aapproved

percent3ABA4A9537C4BF4594E11F4B09D8217743&CSUserId=94&CSGroupId=1 (accessed July 15,

2011).

61 New Hampshire Senate Bill 500 (2010).

62

California Senate Bill 678 (2009).63 See Jessica Feinstein, Reforming Adult Felony Probation to Ease Prison Overcrowding: An Overview

of California S.B. 678, August 2010, http://works.bepress.com/jessica_feinstein/3; and Roger Warren,

Probation Reform in California: Senate Bill 678, Federal Sentencing Reporter, Vol. 22, No. 3, Vera

Institute of Justice (2010): 186-193.

64 Public Opinion Strategies / Benenson Strategy Group, National Research of Public Attitudes on Crime

and Punishment, September 2010.


24/26


65 Baselice & Associates, Texas Voter Survey #07090, April 1-4, 2007. (1,000 registered Texas voters,

margin of error +/-3.1 percent, level of confidence 95 percent.)

66 J. Nicholas Hoover, Data, Analysis Drive Maryland Government, Information Week, March 15, 2010,

http://www.informationweek.com/news/government/info-management/223800144; Chad Vander Veen,Gov. Martin OMalley Uses StateStat to Transform Maryland, Government Technology, August 4, 2009,

http://www.govtech.com/geospatial/Gov-Martin-OMalley-Uses-StateStat-to.html.

67 Pew Center on the States, Arkansass 2011 Public Safety Reform: Legislation to Reduce Recidivism

and Curtail Prison Growth, Public Safety Performance Project Issue Brief, The Pew Charitable Trusts,

Washington, DC: July 2011, 1.

68 Arkansass 2011 Public Safety Reform: Legislation to Reduce Recidivism and Curtail Prison Growth,

July 2011.

69 Arkansas Senate Bill 750 (2011).

70Alaska Prisoner Reentry Task Force: Five-Year Prisoner Reentry Strategic Plan, 2011-2016 (February

2011), ES1-ES3.


2011), 5.


2011), 7.

73 Ohio and North Carolina Enact Laws Using Justice Reinvestment Strategies: Bipartisan Legislation

Saves States Hundreds of Millions of Dollars and Increases Public Safety, The Council of State

Governments.



Governments.



Governments.

76 Pew Center on the States, Kentucky: A Data-Driven Effort to Protect Public Safety and Control

Corrections Spending, Public Safety Performance Project Issue Brief, The Pew Charitable Trusts,

Washington, DC: October 2010, 4.

77 Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear, Gov. Beshear Signs Landmark Corrections Reform Bill into Law, Press

Release, March 3, 2011.78One in 31: The Long Reach of American Corrections, March 2009, 24.

79One in 31: The Long Reach of American Corrections, March 2009.

80 Laurie Robinson, Scaryand Ineffective: Traumatizing At-Risk Kids is Not the Way to Lead Them

Away from Crime and Drugs, The Baltimore Sun, January 31, 2004.


25/26


81 Anthony Petrosino et al., Scared Straight and Other Juvenile Awareness Programs for Preventing

Juvenile Delinquency: A Systematic Review of the Randomized Experimental Evidence, The ANNALS of

the American Academy of Political and Social Science 1, no. 6 (September 2003): 41-62.

82

Blueprints for Violence Prevention, Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence,http://www.colorado.edu/cspv/blueprints (accessed December 3, 2010); and Steve Aos et al.,Evidence-

Based Adult Corrections Programs: What Works and What Does Not, Washington State Institute for Public

Policy, Olympia, WA: January 2006, 6.

83Evidence-Based Adult Corrections Programs: What Works and What Does Not, January 2006, 4-6.

84Evidence-Based Adult Corrections Programs: What Works and What Does Not, January 2006.

85Evidence-Based Adult Corrections Programs: What Works and What Does Not, January 2006, 4.

86 SB 267, An Act Relating to Public Safety, Chapter 669, Oregon Laws 2003. See also Pew Center on theStates, Policy Framework to Strengthen Community, Public Safety Performance Project PolicyFramework, The Pew Charitable Trusts, Washington, DC: December 2008, 5.

87 Steve Aos et al.,Evidence-Based Public Policy Options to Reduce Future Prison Construction, CriminalJustice Costs, and Crime Rates, Washington State Institute for Public Policy, Olympia, WA: January 2006,1.

88Evidence-Based Public Policy Options to Reduce Future Prison Construction, Criminal Justice Costs,

and Crime Rates, January 2006. See also Roger Warren,Arming the Courts with Research: 10 Evidence-

Based Sentencing Initiatives to Control Crime and Reduce Costs, The Pew Charitable Trusts, Washington,

DC: May 2009, 3.

89 The New York Department of Correctional Services reviewed the states merit time program from 1997

through 2006 and found that the recidivism rate for the early release group was 31 percent, whereas the

recidivism rate for inmates serving a full term was 39 percent. Furthermore, the program saved the state

approximately $369 million by releasing early 24,000 inmates who earned six-month reductions in theirminimum term. The Washington Legislature increased the amount of good time for certain nonviolent drug

and property offenders from 33 percent to 50 percent of the total sentence. A subsequent study by the

Washington State Institute of Public Policy found an overall net benefit of $7,179 per offender when both

taxpayers and victims costs and benefits were considered. See Cutting Corrections Costs: Earned Time

Policies for State Prisoners, July 2009, 3.

90Cutting Corrections Costs: Earned Time Policies for State Prisoners, July 2009, 6.

91Cutting Corrections Costs: Earned Time Policies for State Prisoners, July 2009.

92 See John Clarke, The Role of Traditional Pretrial Diversion in the Age of Specialty Treatment Courts:

Expanding the Range of Problem-Solving Options at the Pretrial Stage, Pretrial Justice Institute,

Washington, DC: October 2007, 17-19.

93 See The Role of Traditional Pretrial Diversion in the Age of Specialty Treatment Courts: Expanding the

Range of Problem-Solving Options at the Pretrial Stage, October 2007.

94 Virginia Criminal Sentencing Commission, 2008 Annual Report,

http://www.vcsc.virginia.gov/2008AnnualReport.pdf (accessed July 15, 2011).

95 See Marie VanNostrand and Kenneth Rose, Pretrial Risk Assessment in Virginia: The Virginia Pretrial

Risk Assessment Instrument, Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services and Virginia Community


26/26


Criminal Justice Association, Luminosity, Inc., St. Petersburg, FL: May 1, 2009. Available at

http://www.dcjs.virginia.gov/corrections/riskAssessment/assessingRisk.pdf (accessed July 15, 2011).

96 VanNostrand & Rose, May 1, 2009, 4.

97 JFA Institute and Mississippi Department of Corrections, Reforming Mississippis Prison System,Public Safety Performance Project, Pew Center on the States Memorandum, 2010, 4,

http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org/initiatives_detail.aspx?initiativeID=56957.

98 VanNostrand & Rose, May 1, 2009, 5.

99 Christopher Lowenkamp and Edward Latessa, Understanding the Risk Principle: How and Why

Correctional Interventions Can Harm Low-Risk Offenders, Topics in Community Corrections, 2004, 7-8.

100 Understanding the Risk Principle: How and Why Correctional Interventions Can Harm Low-Risk

Offenders, 2004, 7.

101 Council of State Governments, Justice Reinvestment in Texas: Assessing the Impact of the 2007

Justice Reinvestment InitiativeIssue Brief, April 2009, 3.102 Justice Reinvestment in Texas: Assessing the Impact of the 2007 Justice Reinvestment Initiative,

April 2009, 2.

103 Prison Count 2010: State Population Declines for the First Time in 38 Years, March 2010, 4.

104 Danny Hunter et al., Improving Parole Outcomes with Performance Leadership and Data: Doing What

Works, Topics in Community Corrections, 2007.

105 Danny Hunter et al., 2007, 38; and George Braucht et al., Automating Offender Risk Assessment,

Topics in Community Corrections, 2004, 40.

106 Danny Hunter, et al., 2007.

107 George Braucht et. al, 2004.

108 National Institute of Justice, Electronic Monitoring Reduces Recidivism, In Short: Toward Criminal

Justice Solutions, U.S. Department of Justice, September 2011, 1.

Date post:	07-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	susan-haines
View:	223 times
Download:	0 times

State Efforts in Sentencing and Corrections Reform (2)

Documents