Back to top

All Library Items

  • Managing the Elderly in Corrections

    Managing the Elderly in Corrections Cover
    Managing the Elderly in Corrections

    "The elderly offender is still treated as distinctly marginal and remains more or less peripheral to policy and advocacy within most correctional jurisdictions. Where innovative practices have emerged, it is typically because of the local efforts of determined correctional professionals, often in partnership with the voluntary sector. Despite their increasing numbers, elderly offenders have not yet attained visibility as a national or international policy issue in corrections" (p. 18-19). This document discusses issues impacting the managing of senior inmates and offers suggestions on how to meet those challenges. Sections address: the scope of the problem; what is causing this problem of the graying of the prisoner population; the aging prisoner population—significant consequences and possible responses; managing the health care needs of the elderly prisoner; coping and adaptation to prison life for the elderly; types of stressors for the elderly in corrections; supporting the terminally ill and dying elderly in prisons; duties regularly performed by inmate caregivers; reintegration of the elderly offender back to the community; and a framework for best practice programming for the elderly offender. Appendixes include: "'True Grit': Description of a Model Correctional Program for the Elderly Offender"; and "UNODC Recommendations: Handbook on Prisoners with Special Needs".

    Document
  • Seven Out of Ten? Not Even Close: A Review of Research on the Likelihood of Children with Incarcerated Parents Becoming Justice-Involved

    Seven Out of Ten? Not Even Close Cover
    Seven Out of Ten? Not Even Close: A Review of Research on the Likelihood of Children with Incarcerated Parents Becoming Justice-Involved

    "It has been widely claimed without documentary evidence that children with incarcerated parents (CIP) are six times more likely than other children to become justice-involved, and that seven out of ten CIP will become justice-involved. These undocumented claims are important because (a) they have been used to justify public policy and (b) they are potentially stigmatizing to CIP. We reviewed six sources using representative sampling methods in a variety of countries and providing eight estimates of the approached the “seven out of ten” claim, and the mean across estimates was slightly more than three out of ten (32.8%). Our second conclusion was that CIP were more likely than non-CIP to become justice-involved, but not nearly six times as likely – on average CIP were about three times as likely as non-CIP to become justice-involved. Third, of the three studies employing control variables, in only one of them were the results consistent with the idea that parental incarceration may be the cause of elevated justice-involvement in CIP. Because the “six times more likely” and “seven out of ten” claims are unsupported by the data and potentially stigmatizing, these claims must be abandoned" (p. 5). Sections of this report cover: unsubstantiated claims about the likelihood of CIP justice-involvement; stigma and the effect of claims about CIP; purpose of this report and research questions; methods; results—likelihood of CIP becoming justice-involved, comparing CIP and non-CIP on the likelihood of becoming justice-involved, descriptions of studies providing estimates of the likelihood of CIP justice-involvement, and parental incarceration as a potential cause of CIP justice-involvement; discussion; and conclusion.

    Document
  • Building Brighter Futures: Tools for Improving Academic and Career/Technical Education in the Juvenile Justice System: A Pennsylvania Example

    Building Brighter Futures: Tools for Improving Academic and Career/Technical Education in the Juvenile Justice System Cover
    Building Brighter Futures: Tools for Improving Academic and Career/Technical Education in the Juvenile Justice System: A Pennsylvania Example

    "Across the country, students in the juvenile justice system are struggling in school. Research suggests that many enter the juvenile justice system well behind grade-level. In the absence of thoughtful programming, once they enter the juvenile justice system, they may fall further behind. Too many end up dropping out of school upon return to their communities. This publication examines one particular initiative that has shown great success in combating this problem—the Pennsylvania Academic and Career/Technical Training Alliance (PACTT)—and provides suggestions for replication in juvenile justice programming across the country. It also sets forth ideas for collecting data to measure the success of initiatives like PACTT and embedding in policy the general reform principles PACTT identified" (p. 5). The following parts are contained in this toolkit: introduction—the national context, and launching a project; PACTT practice components—creating a rigorous and relevant academic program, supporting students in career-readiness, seamless transitions and effective re-entry, and tracking data to serve individual students, improve programs, and inform policy; complying with the law and pursuing policy change; and conclusion. Tools included are: "Tool I: PACTT Components Checklist";" Tool II: A Checklist for Policies that Support PACTT Principles"; "Tool III: PACTT Data Logic Model" by Michael Norton and Tracey Hartmann; "Tool IV: PACTT Data Measures" by Norton and Hartmann; Tool V: Digest of Key Federal Laws"; :Tool VI: Desk Manuals on PACTT for Career and Technical Education Specialists and for Academic Specialists" by the Pennsylvania Department of Human Services Bureau of Juvenile Justice Services; "Tool VII: Sample PACTT Affiliate Agreement"; "Tool VIII: PACTT Employability/Soft Skills Manual" by Pennsylvania Academic and Career/Technical Training Alliance (PACTT); and "Tool IX: Federal Policy Recommendations" by Juvenile Law Center, Open Society Foundations, Pennsylvania Academic and Career/Technical Training Alliance, the Racial Justice Initiative, and the Robert F. Kennedy Juvenile Justice Collaborative.

    Document
  • Administrative Segregation in U.S. Prisons [Executive Summary and Report]

    Administrative Segregation in U.S. Prisons [Executive Summary and Report] Cover
    Administrative Segregation in U.S. Prisons [Executive Summary and Report]

    "Administrative segregation, the preferred term among correctional administrators, refers to both a classification and a type of unit. There are at least three distinct types of segregation: administrative segregation, disciplinary segregation, and protective … Any of these types of segregation might involve a regimen of solitary (or near solitary) confinement. Importantly, it is the increased use of solitary confinement, not segregation per se, that troubles those with concerns about contemporary correctional practice, and it is solitary confinement that has received the most attention in the research literature … Within the limited empirical knowledge base in this area, researchers have not always agreed on the areas of research that warrant review and evaluation, or they have been unable to draw conclusions from studies employing various methodologies. Further, for many researchers studying solitary confinement the practice raises not only empirical questions, but also moral and ethical concerns. In a literature base replete with highly charged emotions, interpreting the evidence base, and separating evidence from strongly held beliefs have become difficult. This paper attempts to describe the research in enough detail that the reader can reach his or her own conclusions around the current state of administrative segregation" (p. 1, Executive Summary). Sections comprising this report include: introduction; brief history of administrative segregation; contemporary use of administrative segregation; issues related to use of solitary confinement—juveniles, control of gangs, and mental illness; court decisions and consent decrees; the utility and effects of administrative segregation--violence; the psychological and behavioral effects of solitary confinement; the future of administrative segregation; and conclusion. Appendixes include: Table A1—Administrative Segregation in the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP); Table A2—Percentage of Custodial Population (Both Sexes) In Administrative Segregation (Ad Seg) and Restrictive Housing; and Table A3—Goals and Intended Impacts Associated with Supermax Prisons.

    Document
  • Parents Behind Bars: What Happens to Their Children?

    Parents Behind Bars Cover
    Parents Behind Bars: What Happens to Their Children?

    "Children do not often figure in discussions of incarceration, but new research finds more than five million U.S. children have had at least one parent in prison at one time or another—about three times higher than earlier estimates that included only children with a parent currently incarcerated" (p. 1). This is an excellent report examining the prevalence of incarceration amongst parents and the associated consequences for their children. Sections of this report include: overview; key findings and implications; background; results for who experiences parental incarceration, children with an incarcerated parent are more likely to experience additional adverse events, and what other aspects of child well-being are related to parental incarceration, after accounting for other confounding influences; discussion; and implications. Appendixes include three tables showing children with an incarcerated parent by select measures, measures for children younger than six, and measures for youth ages 6-17; and "Programs Serving Children with Incarcerated Parents" which provides a description of the program, location, and website. "We need effective programs to mitigate the harm associated with having an incarcerated parent. Although in-prison training programs focused on parenting skills are common, few are focused on meeting the needs of children directly during the time parents are in prison" (p. 9).

    Document
  • Jobs after Jail: Ending the prison to poverty pipeline

    Jobs after Jail Cover
    Jobs after Jail: Ending the prison to poverty pipeline

    "In many states and cities, both public and private employers can include a question on application materials requiring applicants to disclose whether or not they have a conviction record. While there is growing momentum to “Ban the Box,” in most cases these efforts only ban the box for public employment … On average, states have 123 mandatory bans and restrictions for would-be workers with felony convictions per state from employment in occupations or industries, from obtaining certain types of occupational licenses, and/or from obtaining certain types of business or property licenses. 10 states have more than 160 of these regulations, including 248 in Texas, 258 in Illinois, and 389 in Louisiana. Only nine states have fewer than 75 regulations" (p. 5). This report describes the barriers that individuals with criminal records face when they look for high-paying jobs ensuring a degree of economic stability. Sections following an executive report include: introduction; background; national findings; profiles for 16 states and Washington, DC regarding their restrictions for individuals with felonies and controlled substance convictions; recommendations; and conclusion.

    Document
  • U.S. Prison Population Trends 1999-2014: Broad Variation Among States in Recent Years

    U.S. Prison Population Trends 1999-2014 Cover
    U.S. Prison Population Trends 1999-2014: Broad Variation Among States in Recent Years

    "Our comparative analysis of U.S. Prison Population Trends 1999-2014 reveals broad variation in nationwide incarceration trends. While 39 states have experienced a decline since reaching their peak prison populations within the past 15 years, in most states this decline has been relatively modest. In addition, 11 states have had continuing rises in imprisonment. These developments suggest that while the recent national decline in the prison population is encouraging, any significant decarceration will require more sustained attention. In this regard, 12 states have produced double-digit declines for some period since 1999, led by New Jersey (31%), New York (28%), Rhode Island (25%), and California (22%). Notably, these states have achieved substantial reductions with no adverse effect on public safety. Among states with rising prison populations, four have experienced double-digit increases, led by Nebraska and Arkansas, whose respective prisons populations grew by 22% and 18% since 2009. Despite sharing in the national crime drop, these states have resisted the trend toward decarceration" (website).

    Document
  • Tribal Healing to Wellness Courts: The Policies and Procedures Guide

    Tribal Healing to Wellness Courts Cover
    Tribal Healing to Wellness Courts: The Policies and Procedures Guide

    "Tribal Healing to Wellness Courts, also known as drug courts, have proliferated within Indian country during the last two decades. The drug court model, beginning within state courts, was later adapted for tribes to better allow for the diversity of cultures, languages, needs, governance structures, and laws. Essentially, a Tribal Healing to Wellness Court, like a state drug court, integrates substance abuse treatment with the criminal justice system to provide substance-abusing offenders judicially supervised treatment and transitional services through the use of intense supervision, sanctions and incentives, and drug testing in a non-punitive setting. Healing to Wellness Court is the coming together of agencies and systems that do not traditionally interact. Agencies have different goals, priorities, and structures. It is therefore essential for the Wellness Court to have its own strong foundation. By documenting the structure and procedures of the Wellness Court, the policies and procedures manual aids in securing the long-term future of the Court … A policies and procedures manual is a necessary tool to successfully implement and operate a Tribal Healing to Wellness Court. From the court’s outset, a policies and procedures manual, adopted through the formal tribal governmental process, can officially establish the Healing to Wellness Court (Wellness Court) and describe the type of court. Upfront designations assist in determining whether a participant is appropriate for the Wellness Court. A policies and procedures manual describes the target population, such as adult, juvenile, or parents involved in dependency court, also known as family Healing to Wellness Court. The manual also documents the agencies, team member roles, and services that will be provided to the target population by team members" (p. 1, 3). This manual is comprised of thirteen chapters: the big picture and target population; entry into Wellness Court and Team and participant rules; Team roles and responsibilities; treatment and phase systems; the judge and Wellness Court staffing and hearings; probation, case manager, or other supervision; alcohol and drug testing; data tracking and evaluation; wellness team; appendices to Tribal Policies and Procedures Manual; Participant Handbooks; statutory provisions; and agreements.

    Document
  • Promising Practices in Pretrial Diversion

    Promising Practices in Pretrial Diversion Cover
    Promising Practices in Pretrial Diversion

    'The goal of this monograph is to inform criminal justice practitioners and state and local policy makers of: Promising and emerging practices in the pretrial diversion field; The state of pretrial diversion and major issues and findings within the field; and The challenges and opportunities facing diversion practitioners' (p. 4). Sections of this publication include: introduction; pretrial diversion'an overview; promising and emerging practices in pretrial diversion; and conclusion. An appendix highlights selected pretrial diversion programs.

    Document
  • 2015 NIC Learning and Performance Symposium: Innovations in Training and Learning Delivery Proceedings

    2015 NIC Learning and Performance Symposium Cover
    2015 NIC Learning and Performance Symposium: Innovations in Training and Learning Delivery Proceedings

    The National Institute of Corrections' 2015 Learning and Performance Symposium activities focused on the single most important need identified by participants of the inaugural 2104 Learning and Performance Symposium - Forty Forward. During the needs assessment process of NIC’s first learning and performance symposium, practitioners said their single most important need is for innovations in training and learning delivery.

    2015 Symposium activities focused on innovations in training and learning delivery included: presentations by corrections professionals representing various agencies on ways they are implementing innovations in learning and training delivery; breakout session in discipline specific groupings (prisons, jails, juvenile justice and community corrections) to discuss innovations, barriers, resources and potential solutions related to improving learning and training delivery; opportunities for professionals from local, state and federal corrections agencies in all disciplines to network and share ideas and resources related to innovations they are trying out or implementing within their agencies; [and] presentations focused on research-based strategies followed by discussions focused on different approaches to implementation.

    This Proceedings Document sequentially highlights all the key content and activities of the two-and-a-half day 2015 NIC Learning and Performance Symposium attended by 138 corrections professionals from all disciplines including prisons, jails, community corrections and juvenile justice.

    Content includes: Day 1 - Symposium Overview Page; Activity: Write Your Personal Motto for Learning and Performance; Activity--3 Questions - What are you looking for? Why are you at the Symposium? What will you do to get what you want?; Presentation: Strategic Thinking/ Problem Solving Training Delivery; Activity: Force Field Analysis of Training Transfer - Driving Forces vs. Restraining Forces Page; Activity: Conceptual Thinking - Build an Inter-relational Diagraph Page; Activity: Creative Thinking - Inventing & Innovating - Build and “Sell” an Innovative Training Tool; Breakout Session: Innovations, Barriers, Resources and Solutions; Activity: Set a Training Goal. Identify Barriers, Receive Peer Coaching; Day 2 - Presentation: NIC Learning Delivery Innovations; Presentations: From the Field - Learning Delivery Innovations (13 Presentations); Presentation: Training Truths - Engagement and Practice; Presentation: Virtual Response as an Engagement Tool; Activity: The Value of Practice; Guided Practice: Strategies Application; Training Design Tools; Activity: Hunting for the Good Stuff; Day 3 - Next Steps; Activity: What If?; Activity: Lead the Charge! Carry the Flag!; and Activity: Town Hall Discussion. 

    Document
  • Presidential Memorandum -- Limiting the Use of Restrictive Housing by the Federal Government

    Presidential Memorandum -- Limiting the Use of Restrictive Housing by the Federal Government Cover
    Presidential Memorandum -- Limiting the Use of Restrictive Housing by the Federal Government

    "A growing body of evidence suggests that the overuse of solitary confinement and other forms of restrictive housing in U.S. correctional systems undermines public safety and is contrary to our Nation's values … a final report [was] transmitted to me [President Obama] on January 25, 2016 (DOJ Report and Recommendations Concerning the Use of Restrictive Housing) (the "DOJ Report") at https://justice.gov/restrictivehousing, that sets forth specific policy recommendations for DOJ with respect to the Federal Bureau of Prisons and other DOJ entities as well as more general guiding principles for all correctional systems. As the DOJ Report makes clear, although occasions exist when correctional officials have no choice but to segregate inmates from the general population, this action has the potential to cause serious, long-lasting harm. The DOJ Report accordingly emphasizes the responsibility of Government to ensure that this practice is limited, applied with constraints, and used only as a measure of last resort. Given the urgency and importance of this issue, it is critical that DOJ accelerate efforts to reduce the number of Federal inmates and detainees held in restrictive housing and that Federal correctional and detention systems be models for facilities across the United States." Directions for the swift implementation of the DOJ Report's recommendations for addressing the overuse of solitary confinement in correctional and detention systems in the United States are organized into to three sections: Sec. 1--Implementation of the DOJ Report; Sec. 2-- General Provisions; and Sec. 3--Publication.

    Document
  • Screening and Assessment of Co-occurring Disorders in the Justice System

    Screening and Assessment of Co-occurring Disorders in the Justice System Cover
    Screening and Assessment of Co-occurring Disorders in the Justice System

    "This monograph examines a wide range of evidence-based practices for screening and assessment of people in the justice system who have co-occurring mental and substance use disorders (CODs). Use of evidence-based approaches for screening and assessment is likely to result in more accurate matching of offenders to treatment services and more effective treatment and supervision outcomes … Key systemic and clinical challenges are discussed, as well as state-of-the art approaches for conducting screening and assessment. The monograph also reviews a range of selected instruments for screening, assessment, and diagnosis of CODs in justice settings and provides a critical analysis of advantages, concerns, and practical implementation issues (e.g., cost, availability, training needs) for each instrument" (p. 1). Two parts follow an executive summary. Part I-- Key Issues in Screening and Assessment of Co-occurring Disorders in the Justice System: prevalence and significance of co-occurring disorders in the justice system; defining co-occurring disorders; importance of screening and assessment; opportunities for screening and assessment; defining screening and assessment; developing a comprehensive screening and assessment approach; key information to address in screening and assessment for co-occurring disorders; enhancing the accuracy of information in screening and assessment; and special clinical issues. Part II—Instruments for Screening and Assessing Co-occurring disorders: key issues in selection; comparing screening instruments; recommended instruments for assessment and diagnosis of co-occurring disorders—screening instruments for substance use, screening instruments for mental disorders, screening instruments for co-occurring mental and substance abuse disorders, screening and assessment instruments for suicide risk, screening and diagnostic instruments for trauma and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), screening instruments for motivation and readiness for treatment, assessment instruments for substance use and treatment matching approaches, assessment instruments for mental disorders, and assessment and diagnostic instruments for co-occurring mental and substance use disorders.

    Document
  • Pulse Check: Restorative Justice

    Pulse Check: Restorative Justice Cover
    Pulse Check: Restorative Justice

    "Restorative justice [RJ] is a theory of justice that emphasizes repairing the harm caused by criminal behaviour. It is best accomplished through cooperative processes that include all stakeholders. This can lead to transformation of people, relationships and communities" (Center for Justice & Reconciliation). This webinar will provide: a brief overview of RJ principles and practices—traditional justice and RJ philosophies, RJ practices at a glance; findings from relevant research-- New Zealand Model, Durham NC Dispute Settlement Center, conferencing, law enforcement and prosecution, courts, and recidivism and RJ, and summary of RJ research findings,; reasons for adopting restorative justice—needs/wants of victims, what's in it for crime victims and services providers, law enforcement, prosecution, defense, judiciary, corrections, elected officials, and for all involved, top assets, and top obstacles.

    Document
  • Supporting Second Chances: Education and Employment Strategies for People Returning from Correctional Facilities

    Supporting Second Chances Cover
    Supporting Second Chances: Education and Employment Strategies for People Returning from Correctional Facilities

    "This brief highlights strategies for strengthening education and employment pathways for youth and adults returning from correctional facilities and notes key questions that new research should answer. It also explores barriers to employment for people with criminal records—whether or not they have been incarcerated—and potential policy solutions" (p. 1). Sections cover: barriers to finding work; whether prison education works; adults need education and training to find jobs after prison-reentry education must begin behind bars, after release, reentry specialists help ex-offenders find housing and jobs, growing number of cities and states "Ban the Box" on job applications, and policy recommendations to help increase successful reentry; youth prison programs need attention and policy recommendations for youth; and where to go from here.

    Document
  • Measuring Subsequent Offending in Juvenile Probation

    Measuring Subsequent Offending in Juvenile Probation Cover
    Measuring Subsequent Offending in Juvenile Probation

    This report presents the results from a 2014 review of 13 states that provided recidivism research on their websites regarding youth who had been placed on probation. Sections cover: system structure limits research capabilities; reports describe a variety of populations; measures of re-offending impact recidivism rates; individual characteristics add context to analysis; and different tracking periods result in various recidivism rates. The table "Reported Measures of Subsequent Offending in Juveniles Adjudicated to Probation" shows data according to state, juvenile probation population, marker event)s) (i.e., re-arrest, referral, re-adjudication and/or conviction, return to supervision, and commitment and/or incarceration), and tracking details (i.e., maximum follow-up in months, and source of data source). "Careful attention to how youth fare during and after supervision will help policymakers, agency administrators, and probation chiefs make informed decisions that improve practices related to youth on probation" (p. 4).

    Document
  • Proceedings of the NIC Chief Jail Inspectors Network Meeting, September 2015

    Proceedings of the NIC Chief Jail Inspectors Network Meeting, September 2015 Cover
    Proceedings of the NIC Chief Jail Inspectors Network Meeting, September 2015

    Participants represent state agencies that have responsibility for inspection and auditing of local correctional facilities. Some agencies have oversight for juvenile as well as adult corrections or for any agency with sworn officers. Meeting topics: "Session I: Hospital Security Detail" by Mark W. Radcliff; "Session II: Conducting Effective Audits/Inspections" by Larry Reid; "Session III: Objective Jail Classification" by Shannon Herklotz and Jackie Semmler; "Session IV: Legal Issues"" by Carrie Hill; and "Session V: Network Activities."

    Document
  • Successful Parole and Probation Practices

    Successful Parole and Probation Practices Cover
    Successful Parole and Probation Practices

    This program interviewed four directors of state parole and probation agencies who were attending a conference at the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) in Washington, DC. These directors share what works to achieve successful case completions while also protecting public safety.

    Video
  • World Prison Population List|Eleventh Edition

    World Prison Population List|Eleventh Edition Cover
    World Prison Population List|Eleventh Edition

    "This eleventh edition of the World Prison Population List gives details of the number of prisoners held in 223 prison systems in independent countries and dependent territories. It shows the differences in the levels of imprisonment across the world and makes possible an estimate of the world prison population total. The figures include both pre-trial detainees/remand prisoners and those who have been convicted and sentenced. The information is the latest available at the end of October 2015" (p. 1). There are more than 10.35 million people incarcerated throughout the world with the most being in the United States--more than 2.2 million. Seychelles has the highest prison population rate in the world with 799 per 100,000 of its total population. It is followed by the United States (698), St. Kitts & Nevis (607), Turkmenistan (583), and U.S. Virgin Islands (542). More than half (54%) of all countries and territories have rates lower than 150 per 100,000. There has been an increase in the female population since 2000, with the male population increasing 18%. Five tables follow a list of key points from this world population list. Each table shows countries divided into subgroups, prison population total, dates of recorded figure, estimated national population, prison population rate, and source of prison population total. The five tables are: Africa—Northern, Western, Central, Eastern, and Southern; Americas—North, Central, Caribbean, and South; Asia—Western, Central, South Central, South Eastern, and Eastern; Europe—Northern, Southern, Western, Central and Eastern, and Europe/Asia; and Oceania.

    Document
  • Prisons and Disasters

    Prisons and Disasters Cover
    Prisons and Disasters

    "Prisons are not prepared to respond to and recover from natural and manmade disasters. However, prisons must take appropriate actions to save lives and safeguard their at risk populations during disasters, because they are legally responsible for the welfare of prisoners. Disasters can lead to a violation of prisoners’ constitutional and statutory rights and pose several types of injury (physical, emotional, mental, health), as well as public safety risks. There is a broad spectrum of concerns when responding to and recovering from disasters at prisons. Specific concerns include the standards of care for prisoners, the dispersion of prisoners, records management, and staffing shortages. Other problems include shortfalls in the resources required to continue essential functions at correctional facilities and the resources necessary to carry out protective action decisions (i.e. decisions made in a timely manner to protect public health and safety) during the response and recovery phases. These concerns are especially significant because many prisons throughout the nation house thousands of prisoners, which can make the emergency response and recovery process much more challenging. This study seeks to better understand why prisons are unprepared, it demonstrates why prisons should be included in emergency preparedness planning, and it identifies what policy and planning recommendations, as well as corrective actions need to be made to ensure prisons are integrated into the emergency management process" (8-9). Three "papers" comprise this dissertation. Paper1—Understanding why Prisons are Unprepared to Respond to and Recover from Disasters: introduction; legal rights of prisoners; gaps in the law; and conclusion. Paper 2—Assessing the Needs of Prison Capabilities during Disasters: introduction; study design; results—response rate, facilities surveyed regarding experience with disasters, emergency management departments, influenza specialty care units, and policy, trainings and other resources, and caveats; discussion; conclusion and next steps. Paper 3—Recommendations for Improving Disaster Preparedness in Prisons: introduction; seven recommendations; and conclusion.

    Document
  • Women in Detention: A Guide to Gender-Sensitive Monitoring|Second edition

    Women in Detention: A Guide to Gender-Sensitive Monitoring|Second edition Cover
    Women in Detention: A Guide to Gender-Sensitive Monitoring|Second edition

    Individuals who want an up-to-date understanding of gender-responsive issues and all those who work with female offenders should read this document report. "It outlines the risks faced by women deprived of their liberty of being subjected to torture and ill-treatment and measures that can be taken to reduce such risks. The main focus of the paper is the situation of women in detention in the criminal justice system, though the discussion is in many cases equally relevant to women deprived of liberty in other contexts, such as psychiatric institutions and immigration detention facilities.” (p. 2). Sections contained in this document include: introduction to gender-specific treatment; why monitoring bodies should look at this issue; concepts—gender and gender mainstreaming, and discrimination and violence against women; risk factors and measures to reduce risk—certain contexts which heighten risk, certain times that heighten risk, certain policies and practices that heighten risk or cause physical or mental suffering, and certain categories of women who are at heightened risk (girls, victims of human trafficking and sex workers, women with mental healthcare needs, and other groups); and the qualities monitoring bodies need to engage in this endeavor.

    Document
  • Creative Ideas for Institutional and Community Corrections Agencies to Partner with Crime Victim Assistance Organizations and Agencies to Promote 2016 National Crime Victims' Rights Week: Serving Victims. Building Trust. Restoring Hope.

    Creative Ideas for Institutional and Community Corrections Agencies to Partner with Crime Victim Assistance Organizations and Agencies to Promote 2016 National Crime Victims' Rights Week Cover
    Creative Ideas for Institutional and Community Corrections Agencies to Partner with Crime Victim Assistance Organizations and Agencies to Promote 2016 National Crime Victims' Rights Week: Serving Victims. Building Trust. Restoring Hope.

    "From the creation of Victims Committees at ACA (1987), APPA (1991), and APAI (1992) and the establishment of the National Association of Victim Assistance in Corrections (NAVAC, formerly known as NAVSPIC) and the National Institute of Corrections Network of Post-Conviction Victim Service Providers, the field of corrections has recognized the importance of enforcing victims’ rights in the post-sentencing phases of their cases, and providing services and support to the victims and survivors of the offenders whom they detain and supervise.

    "This document marks the first time that the leading national correctional agencies and organizations and their respective victim/survivor-related Committees have joined together on a project that we hope will enhance and promote corrections-based victim services. Outreach to our respective members contributed to these creative ideas about how correctional agencies can partner with victim assistance organizations to promote 2016 NCVRW in six categories: 1. Correctional clients’ fundraising for victim services; 2. Victim/survivor awareness and programming; 3. Correctional staff education; 4. Direct victim and community support; 5. Educational programs; [and] 6. Media relations and public awareness" (p. 1).

    Document
  • Practical Implications of Current Domestic Violence Research for Probation Officers and Administrators

    Practical Implications of Current Domestic Violence Research for Probation Officers and Administrators Cover
    Practical Implications of Current Domestic Violence Research for Probation Officers and Administrators

    "This booklet looks at the recent research on intimate partner violence and analyzes what it reveals that probation officers and administrators should know to do their jobs better in terms of completing PSI [presentence investigative report] for defendants convicted of intimate partner violence, supervising abusers on their caseloads, and dealing with the victims of these abusers on probation and victims who have also ended up on probation caseloads. Although much of the research is not focused directly on probation, what it tells us about abusers, victims and the responses of law enforcement, prosecutors, and courts directly bears on probation. Other research reviewed looked specifically at probation’s response to IPV [intimate partner violence]" (p.2). Sections cover: what the research has to tell probation officers and administrators about probationers convicted of IPV or defendants awaiting sentencing reports; what the research has to tell probation about IPV victims; what the research has to tell probation about effective court criminal responses to IPV defendants; what the research has to tell Probation about effective supervision of IPV probationers; what does the research tell Probation about batterer intervention programs; and what the research has to tell probation about their role in responding to IPV.

    Mixed Media
  • Who Pays? The True Cost of Incarceration on Families

    Who Pays? The True Cost of Incarceration on Families Cover
    Who Pays? The True Cost of Incarceration on Families

    This report expertly "reveals that the costs of incarceration run deeper than budget line items and extend far beyond the sentences served. Whether behind bars or returning home, people who have experienced incarceration are a part of families – whether chosen or blood related – to whom them contribute and by whom they are supported. Families pay both the apparent and hidden costs while their loved ones serve out sentences and for a long time after. Our research found that families struggle to afford exorbitant financial costs while also dealing with intense emotional and physical trauma when a loved one is taken away." Sections following an executive summary include: introduction; the true costs of the punitive criminal justice system—challenge of meeting basic needs (i.e., court fees and fines, challenges to building economic stability (i.e., employment, education, public benefits, and housing), challenges to maintaining relationships and family stability (i.e., costs of maintaining contact, family separation, and parent-child relationships), and challenges to health during incarceration and beyond (i.e., health impacts of incarceration); recommendations—restructure and reinvest, remove barriers, and restore opportunities; and conclusion.

    Document
  • Zero Tolerance: How States Comply with PREA's Youthful Inmate Standard

    Zero Tolerance: How States Comply with PREA’s Youthful Inmate Standard Cover
    Zero Tolerance: How States Comply with PREA's Youthful Inmate Standard

    "Despite the strong language provided in the Prison Rape Elimination Act, state laws vary widely as to the regulations and parameters for housing youth in adult prisons. In fact, some states have no regulations or parameters governing the treatment of youth sentenced as adults at all. While some states have fully removed youth from their prison systems?—?Hawaii, West Virginia, Maine, California, and Washington?—?the overwhelming majority of states allow youth to be housed in adult prisons. In fact 37 states housed youth under 18 years of age in their state prisons in 2012. The PREA requirements have become the emerging standard of care for the housing of youth in adult facilities, yet the majority of states still permit the housing of youth in adult facilities, often times with no special housing protections. Once youth are sentenced in adult court to an adult prison term, few jurisdictions have enacted safeguards to protect their physical, mental and emotional health. Additionally, programs and behavioral responses in adult facilities rarely are adjusted to meet the needs of adolescent populations … This report explores how states house youth under 18 in prisons in the new age of PREA compliance and enforcement. Furthermore, this report highlights national trends in juvenile arrests, crimes, and incarceration of children in the adult system. With evidence of the decreasing number of youth entering the adult system, the recommendations focus on how states can successfully remove all youth from adult prisons" (p. 1). Sections of this report include: introduction; federal laws protecting youth in custody—federal laws on youth housed with adults; state laws protecting youth in custody--state statutes, regulations, and policies on housing youth in adult prisons; incarceration rates and offenses of youth in adult prisons—incarceration rates, and use of the adult criminal justice system compared to the rate of youth involved offenses; how youth end up in the adult justice system—pathways; disparities in the system—racial and ethnic disparities in prison, California case study, and young female populations; conditions and consequences of confinement—sexual abuse and suicide in adult prisons, staff concerns, and solitary confinement, and the relationship between incarceration and recidivism for youth; and recommendations to policymakers. An appendix provides the language of state statute laws, and regulations.

    Mixed Media
  • Using a Prevention, Trauma-Informed Framework when Implementing PREA

    Using a Prevention, Trauma-Informed Framework when Implementing PREA Cover
    Using a Prevention, Trauma-Informed Framework when Implementing PREA

    "This video training series was designed to provide an important foundation for understanding trauma, the implications of trauma on the behaviors of inmates while in confinement, and how correctional administrators and practitioners can use this information to support successful PREA implementation and ultimately provide a safer environment for inmates and staff … Through considering the role that past and present trauma plays in building safe – and particularly sexually safe – environments, correctional administrators and staff training directors can support staff in efforts to more fully meet a facility’s mission and make everyone safer … the material contained in this video series will provide an opportunity for staff in confinement facilities to learn and be thoughtful about the benefits of a trauma-informed approach in correctional settings. " (p. 2).

    This training program contains five models and one documentary. Module One—An introduction to the Series. Using a Prevention, Trauma-Informed Framework when Implementing PREA (7 minutes): Andie Moss introduces you to need for understanding the role of trauma in implementing PREA. Module Two--What Is It Important To Understand Trauma When Implementing PREA? (15 minutes): Dr. Joan Gillece, a pioneer in implementing a trauma-informed approach, will explain what trauma is and how it influences PREA implementation. Module Three--Understanding the Neurobiological Effects of Trauma When implementing PREA (12 minutes): the neurobiological impact of trauma is explained by Dr. Brian Sims. Module Four--Implementing PREA Standards with a Trauma Focus (26 minutes): A panel of clinicians and practitioners from the Dorchester County Detention Center on Maryland’s Eastern, hosted by Andie Moss, provides examples on how to implement the PREA standards "through a trauma-informed lens in adult confinement settings … [these concepts are easily transferable to juvenile facilities". Module Five--Practical Solutions to Challenging Situations (10 minutes): The implementation of a trauma-informed approach in a jail is discussed by Alisha Salisbury, Warden Steve Mills, and PREA officer and investigator Lt. Robert Fitzgerald from the Dorchester County Detention Center. This "module will provide some creative examples for policymakers and practitioners to consider as they begin or continue to implement a trauma-informed approach". Healing Neen: Trauma and Recovery (25 minutes): this film shows how one woman benefited from trauma-informed care that helped her to take a journey from trauma, through the criminal justice system, to healing.

    Web Page
  • A Cycle of Incarceration: Prison, Debt, and Bail Practices [Webinar]

    A Cycle of Incarceration: Prison, Debt, and Bail Practices [Webinar] Cover
    A Cycle of Incarceration: Prison, Debt, and Bail Practices [Webinar]

    "Building on the Administration¹s commitment to criminal justice reform, the convening will bring together federal officials, state legislators and judges, advocates and academics to discuss criminal justice system practices that too often contribute to the cycle of poverty and create significant barriers to reentry. Co-hosted by the Department of Justice, the convening will provide a collaborative environment to discuss and share ideas on how State and local stakeholders across the United States can implement common sense reforms so that financial obligations imposed by the government do not lead to unnecessary involvement in the criminal justice system or exacerbate poverty." Critical issues addressed during this meeting include: the increasing use of fines, fees, and bail; the disproportionate impact on low-income individuals and families; fines and fees—an ineffective way to raise funds for incarceration costs. This website provides access to both versions of this White House convening, transcript of Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch, report from the President's Council of Economic Advisors on Fees, Fines, and Bail, a National Journal article about the event, and background materials.

    Webinar
  • Confabulation in Correctional Settings: An Exploratory Review

    Confabulation in Correctional Settings: An Exploratory Review Cover
    Confabulation in Correctional Settings: An Exploratory Review

    This article addresses a little understood issue in corrections—confabulation. "Confabulation can be described as a disruption in normal memory function, whereby the individual unintentionally distorts or fabricates imaginary or non-experienced events without intent to deceive or lie … In other words, individuals who inaccurately integrate incorrect information into their memory and/or subsequently present such information as fact are demonstrating confabulation … Individuals who confabulate are unaware of the falsehood of their statements" (p. 1). Sections of this review include: introduction and overview; diagnostic comorbidity; diagnostic clarification—confabulation and malingering, delusions, or lying; confabulation within correctional settings and important reminders for correctional staff to keep in mind, confabulation in the criminal justice system and possible consequences, clinical considerations, and suggested approaches, and conclusion. "Although confabulation can create significant issues within clinical and forensic settings, the rate of its actual incidence is unknown … Inmates who confabulate may create significant challenges for correctional staff. As a result, correctional professionals are strongly encouraged to understand the risk factors associated with confabulation within offender population" (p. 5).

    Document
  • Transforming Prisons, Restoring Lives: Final Recommendations of the Charles Colson Task Force on Federal Corrections

    Transforming Prisons, Restoring Lives: Final Recommendations of the Charles Colson Task Force on Federal Corrections Cover
    Transforming Prisons, Restoring Lives: Final Recommendations of the Charles Colson Task Force on Federal Corrections

    "After decades of unbridled growth in its prison population, the United States faces a defining moment. There is broad, bipartisan agreement that the costs of incarceration have far outweighed the benefits, and that our country has largely failed to meet the goals of a well-functioning justice system: to enhance public safety, to prevent future victimization, and to rehabilitate those who have engaged in criminal acts. Indeed, a growing body of evidence suggests that our over-reliance on incarceration may in fact undermine efforts to keep the public safe. Momentum is strong for a new direction, for a criminal justice system guided by proven, cost-effective strategies that reduce crime and restore lives. But translating this impulse for reform into lasting change is no small challenge. This report provides both an urgent call to action and a roadmap for reforming the federal prison system, which, with 197,000 people behind bars, was the largest in the nation as 2015 drew to a close. By adopting the recommendations detailed here, and committing sufficient resources to ensure their effectiveness, we can reduce the federal prison population by 60,000 people over the coming years and achieve savings of over $5 billion, allowing for reinvestment in programs proven to reduce crime. Most important, these proposed reforms and savings can be achieved through evidence-based policies that protect public safety. Such savings will not only bring fiscal responsibility to a policy area long plagued by the opposite tendency, but will also free critical funds the US Department of Justice (DOJ) needs for other priorities, such as national security, state and local law enforcement, and victim assistance. And just as critically, these reforms will make our communities safer by ensuring we send the right people to prison and that they return to society with the skills, supervision, and support they need to stay crime free" (p. ix). Sections comprising this report include: the transformation of the federal corrections system—who the U.S. Bureau of Prisons (BOP) is, federal sentencing reform in the 1980s, the abolition of parole and the increase in time served, policy changes driving BOP growth, consequences due to growth, and the new path; Recommendation 1—Reserve Prison for Those Convicted of the Most Serious Federal Crimes; Recommendation 2—Promote a Culture of Safety and Rehabilitation in Federal Facilities; Recommendation 3—Incentivize Participation in Risk-Reduction Programming; Recommendation 4—Ensure Successful Reintegration by Using Evidence-Based Practices in Supervision and Support; Recommendation 5—Enhance System Performance and Accountability through Better Coordination across Agencies and Increased Transparency; and Recommendation 6—Reinvest Savings to Support the Expansion of Necessary Programs, Supervision, and Treatment.

    Document
  • You've Got Mail: The Promise of Cyber Communication in Prisons and the Need for Regulation

    You've Got Mail article screenshot
    You've Got Mail: The Promise of Cyber Communication in Prisons and the Need for Regulation

    "As with most aspects of life, communications options for incarcerated people are in flux due to technological changes. For practical, political, and technical reasons, communications methods have evolved more slowly in prison than in the outside world, but change is nonetheless here. New technologies such as video visitation and electronic messaging have the potential to improve quality of life for incarcerated people and help correctional administrators effectively run secure facilities. Yet the promise of these new services is often tempered by a relentless focus on turning incarcerated people and their families into revenue streams for both private and public coffers. The lucrative market for prison-based telephone service has received substantial attention since 2012, when the Federal Communications Commission reinvigorated a long-stagnant regulatory proceeding concerning rates and business practices in the ICS market. Although the focus of the FCC proceeding has thus far been on telephone service, ICS is not just limited to voice calls — there are emerging technologies with which a growing number of prisons and jails are experimenting." This is a great report about the technology offenders can use to communicate with people outside a correctional facility and the problems associated with such use. Sections comprising this report are: communication options behind bars--traditional communication channels (i.e., in-person visiting, phone calls, postal communication, and electronic messaging—inbound-only systems, and two-way systems); an overview of the industry-- general ICS providers, commissary operators, financial service firms, specialty companies, procurement practices, revenue and fee structures, end-user pricing; overview of messaging services—benefits of electronic messaging, drawbacks, character limits, and diffusion of accountability; unknowns—protection of data, ownership of contents, and protection of attorney-client privilege; recommendations for the Federal Communications Commission, state legislatures and public utility commissions, and correctional administrators.

    Document
  • The Reentry of Formerly Incarcerated Persons: Key Accomplishments, Challenges, and Future Directions; A Report on the National Reentry Symposium: Promising Practices and Future Directions

    The Reentry of Formerly Incarcerated Persons Cover
    The Reentry of Formerly Incarcerated Persons: Key Accomplishments, Challenges, and Future Directions; A Report on the National Reentry Symposium: Promising Practices and Future Directions
    Recognizing the importance of effective reentry practices at the federal, state, and local levels, in September 2015, the U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), and the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) co-sponsored the National Reentry Symposium: Promising Practices and Future Directions.Throughout the two-day session, federal and state representatives from each of the BOP’s six national regions met as teams to discuss methods to enhance federal and state collaborative efforts within their regions.The culmination of the Symposium was the development of regionally based reentry action plans designed to reduce the likelihood of recidivism through improved coordination and collaboration and the delivery of enhanced evidence-based programs and services. This report is a summary of that meeting. 
    Document
  • Sexual Victimization Reported By Juvenile Correctional Authorities, 2007–12

    Sexual Victimization Reported By Juvenile Correctional Authorities, 2007–12 Cover
    Sexual Victimization Reported By Juvenile Correctional Authorities, 2007–12

    This report presents national estimates of non-consensual sexual acts, abusive sexual contacts, staff sexual misconduct, and staff sexual harassment reported by correctional authorities in state juvenile correctional systems and local and private juvenile correctional facilities from 2007 to 2012. The report also examines substantiated incidents, including characteristics of victims and perpetrators, location, time of day, nature of injuries, impact on the victims, and sanctions imposed on the perpetrators. Companion tables in the Survey of Sexual Violence in Juvenile Correctional Facilities, 2007 – 2012 Statistical Tables include counts of allegations and substantiated incidents of sexual victimization for each state juvenile correctional system, juvenile correctional facility in Indian country, and sampled locally and privately operated juvenile correctional facility. Data are from BJS's Survey of Sexual Violence (SSV), which has been conducted annually since 2004. Highlights: In 2012, juvenile correctional administrators reported 865 allegations of sexual victimization in state juvenile systems and 613 in local or private facilities and Indian country facilities; The number of allegations per year has fluctuated in state juvenile systems and the rate more than doubled, from 19 per 1,000 youth in 2005 to 47 per 1,000 in 2012; In locally and privately operated facilities, the number of allegations dropped from 2009 to 2011 and then began to rise in 2012. Based on 2-year rolling averages, the rate in 2012 was 13.5 per 1,000 youth, up from 7.2 per 1,000 in 2010; From 2007 to 2012, nearly 9,500 allegations of sexual victimization of youth were reported in state or local and private facilities--Fifty-five percent involved youth-on-youth sexual victimization and 45% involved staff-on-youth sexual victimization; Upon investigation, 25% of the allegations of youth-on-youth sexual victimization and 10% of the allegations of staff-on-youth sexual victimization were substantiated during the 6-year period.

    Web Page
  • Survey of Sexual Violence in Juvenile Correctional Facilities, 2007–2012 - Statistical Tables

    Survey of Sexual Violence in Juvenile Correctional Facilities, 2007–2012 - Statistical Tables Cover
    Survey of Sexual Violence in Juvenile Correctional Facilities, 2007–2012 - Statistical Tables

    This report presents jurisdiction- and facility-level counts of allegations and substantiated incidents of nonconsensual sexual acts, abusive sexual contact, staff sexual misconduct, and staff sexual harassment reported by juvenile correctional authorities from 2007 to 2012. Facilities include state juvenile systems, juvenile facilities in Indian country, and sampled locally and privately operated juvenile correctional facilities. These tables accompany Sexual Victimization Reported by Juvenile Correctional Authorities, 2007–12, which provides national estimates and rates of sexual victimization and an in-depth examination of substantiated incidents (website). In 2012, juvenile correctional administrators reported 865 allegations of sexual victimization in state juvenile facilities. Of these, 104 were substantiated based on follow-up investigation. More than half (61%) of all allegations involved staff sexual misconduct or staff sexual harassment directed toward a juvenile or youthful offender. Administrators of state juvenile correctional facilities reported slightly more than 4,900 allegations from 2007 to 2012, including 906 allegations of nonconsensual acts, 1,235 allegations of abusive sexual contact, 2,307 allegations of staff sexual misconduct, and 474 allegations of staff sexual harassment (p. 1).

    Mixed Media
  • U.S. Department of Justice Report and Recommendations Concerning the Use of Restrictive Housing [Final Report, Appendixes, and Guiding Principles]

    U.S. Department of Justice Report and Recommendations Concerning the Use of Restrictive Housing Cover
    U.S. Department of Justice Report and Recommendations Concerning the Use of Restrictive Housing [Final Report, Appendixes, and Guiding Principles]

    There is no doubt that "there are occasions when correctional officials have no choice but to segregate inmates from the general population, typically when it is the only way to ensure the safety of inmates, staff, and the public and the orderly operation of the facility. But as a matter of policy, we believe strongly this practice should be used rarely, applied fairly, and subjected to reasonable constraints. The Department believes that best practices include housing inmates in the least restrictive settings necessary to ensure their own safety, as well as the safety of staff, other inmates, and the public; and ensuring that restrictions on an inmate’s housing serve a specific penological purpose and are imposed for no longer than necessary to achieve that purpose. When officials determine that an inmate must be segregated from the general population, that inmate should be housed in safe, humane conditions that, ideally, prepare the individual for reintegration into both the general prison population and society at large. The stakes are high. Life in restrictive housing has been well-documented—by inmates, advocates and, on occasion, correctional officials themselves. In some systems, the conditions can be severe; the social isolation, extreme. At its worst, and when applied without regard to basic standards of decency, restrictive housing can cause serious, long-lasting harm. It is the responsibility of all governments to ensure that this practice is used only as necessary—and never as a default solution. But just as we must consider the impact on inmates, so too must we consider the impact on correctional staff. These public servants work hard, often for long hours and under difficult conditions, and we must protect them from unreasonable danger. Correctional officers need effective tools to manage the most challenging inmates and protect the most vulnerable. We do not believe that the humane treatment of inmates and the safety of correctional staff are mutually exclusive; indeed, neither is possible without the other. In recent years, numerous correctional systems have succeeded in safely reducing the number of inmates in restrictive housing, including the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Over the past four years, the total number of inmates in the Bureau’s restrictive housing units has declined by nearly a quarter. Under the leadership of its outgoing Director, Charles E. Samuels, Jr., the Bureau has also developed a range of progressive alternatives to restrictive housing—and has done so while supporting and enhancing staff safety. This Report includes a number of additional policy proposals that would help continue the downward trends in the Bureau’s restrictive housing population, while also ensuring that those placed in segregation receive the support and rehabilitative services they need" (p. 1-2). This report is divided into three parts. Part One—Restrictive Housing in the Federal Bureau of Prisons: overview of restrictive housing in the United States; Special Housing Units (SHU); Special Management Units (SMU); USP Administrative Maximum (ADX); Bureau Inmates Requiring Special Considerations; Inmates with Serious Mental Illness (SMI); Inmates with Medical Needs; Young Adults (Age 18-24 at Time of Conviction); Juveniles (Under 18 at Time of Adjudication); and Audits of the Bureau's Restrictive Housing Programs ()CAN Audit, GAO Audit, and BOP Internal Audits). Part Two—Restrictive Housing in Other Correctional and Detention Systems: United States Marshals Service (USMS); Restrictive Housing in the States; Federal Support for State and Local Efforts; Federal Civil Rights Enforcement; and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Part Three—Guiding Principles and Policy Recommendations: Guiding Principles; Policy Recommendations for the Bureau of Prisons, National Institute of Corrections (NIC), and the U.S. Office of Justice Programs (OJP)—Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), and the National Institute of Justice (NIJ); and Additional Policy Recommendation for Diverting Inmates with Serious Mental Illness from Incarceration. Documents making up the appendix are organized into Federal Bureau of Prison's Program Statements, Institution Supplements, audits and reports, and other documents.

    Web Page
  • FACT SHEET: Department of Justice Review of Solitary Confinement

    FACT SHEET: Department of Justice Review of Solitary Confinement Cover
    FACT SHEET: Department of Justice Review of Solitary Confinement

    "In July 2015, the President announced that he had asked the Attorney General to review “the overuse of solitary confinement across American prisons.” Since that time, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has undertaken a thorough review to determine how, when, and why correctional facilities isolate certain prisoners from the general inmate population, and has now developed concrete strategies for safely reducing the use of this practice, also known as “restrictive housing,” throughout our criminal justice system. That review led to a Report to the President setting out Guiding Principles that would responsibly limit the use of restrictive housing at the federal, state, and local level, as well as specific recommendations for policies that the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) can implement for federal prisons. The Report identifies ways to further humane and safe conditions for both inmates and the correctional officers charged with protecting them. [January 25, 2016], the President announced that he is adopting the recommendations in the Report, which is now available at http://justice.gov/restrictivehousing and will be directing all relevant federal agencies to review the report and report back on their plan to address their use of solitary confinement. “Guiding Principles” For All Correctional Systems. The Report sets out more than 50 Guiding Principles, which cover a range of important reform areas including the use of the restrictive housing as a form of punishment, the appropriate conditions of confinement in restrictive housing, and the proper treatment of vulnerable inmate populations, such as juveniles, pregnant women, LGBTI inmates, and inmates with serious mental illness. These principles are informed by the best practices developed by the Association of State Correctional Administrators (ASCA) and the American Correctional Association (ACA) … New Policies Addressing BOP’s Use of Restrictive Housing. In recent years, the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) has reduced its use of restrictive housing by 25 percent without compromising the safety of its correctional officers and its facilities. The Report makes concrete recommendations that will accelerate this trend and change the conditions for thousands of inmates through a multi-pronged strategy."

    Web Page
  • Time-In-Cell: The ASCA-Liman 2014 National Survey of Administrative Segregation in Prison

    Time-In-Cell Cover
    Time-In-Cell: The ASCA-Liman 2014 National Survey of Administrative Segregation in Prison

    "By facilitating cross-jurisdictional comparisons of the rules and practices that surround administrative segregation, this Report both reflects and supports ongoing efforts to understand its impact, reevaluate its use, and limit or end extended isolation … Calls for significant reductions in the use of isolation come from all quarters and, importantly, from the chief operating officers of prison systems. But without a baseline, it is not possible to know the impact of the many efforts underway to reduce or eliminate the isolation of prisoners and to enable prisoners and staff to live and work in safe environments, respectful of human dignity. Time-in-Cell provides one measure, to use as a baseline to assess whether the changes hoped for are taking place, such that the number of persons held in such settings and the degrees of their isolation are substantially diminishing" (p. iii). This report is divided into eight sections: the parameters and concerns about administrative segregation; the 2014 Limon-ASCA Survey; the use of administrative segregation; the demographics of administrative segregation—2011, 2014; living in administrative segregation—degrees of isolation; the administration of ad seg; reconsidering administrative segregation; and revising the use of administrative segregation—lessening the numbers in and the degrees of isolation.

    Document
  • Medicaid Administrative Claiming and Targeted Case Management: Opportunities for Public Safety [Webinar]

    Medicaid Administrative Claiming and Targeted Case Management Cover
    Medicaid Administrative Claiming and Targeted Case Management: Opportunities for Public Safety [Webinar]

    This webinar will: define roles that criminal justice professionals play in Medicaid Administrative Claiming (MAC) and Targeted Case Management (TCM); define service needs of justice involved individuals; highlight community corrections and criminal justice agency examples of resource utilization; explain strategies for meeting increased demand for healthcare services under the Affordable Care Act; and differentiate between MAC and TCM. The webinar aims to: demonstrate that MAC and TCM are excellent fits with day to day activities that Probation Officers and Parole Agents provide; and walk through the process to assist interested individuals in getting MAC/TCM up and running in their locales.

    Webinar
  • Evidence-Based Decision Making in Local Criminal Justice Systems

    Evidence-Based Decision Making in Local Criminal Justice Systems Cover
    Evidence-Based Decision Making in Local Criminal Justice Systems

    "EBDM is a strategic and deliberate method of applying empirical knowledge and research-supported principles to justice system decisions made at the case, agency, and system level. The initiative team developed the EBDM framework, which posits that public safety outcomes will be improved when justice system stakeholders engage in truly collaborative partnerships, use research to guide their work, and work together to achieve safer communities, more efficient use of tax dollars, and fewer victims. The goal of [National Institute of Corrections'] Evidence-Based Decision Making Initiative is to build a systemwide framework (arrest through final disposition and discharge) that will result in more collaborative, evidence-based decision making and practices in local criminal justice systems. The initiative is grounded in the knowledge accumulated over two decades on the factors that contribute to criminal reoffending and the processes and methods the justice system can employ to interrupt this cycle of reoffensed decisions can produce more effective policy decisions, and as a result, better outcomes for the community." Information about the NIC EBDM initiative can be found here. Points of access are: home--introduction; framework; phases—Phase I Framework Development, Phase II Planning Process, Phase III Implementation, and Phase IV Expansion to Statewide Structure, and Phase V - Building EBDM Capacity at the Individual, Agency, and System Levels; pilot sites—links to webpages with information about each of the seven pilot sites about: the EBDM stakeholders (i.e., the vision for EBDM, the EDBM executive committee composition, and what stakeholders in the pilot site are saying about the EBDM initiative), harm reduction goals, and material produced by the pilot site about EBDM in their jurisdiction; EBDM Roadmap Starter Kit—Activity 1--Build a genuine, collaborative policy team; Activity 2--Build individual agencies that are collaborative and in a state of readiness for change, Activity 3--Understand current practice within each agency and across the system, Activity 4--Understand and have the capacity to implement evidence-based practices, Activity 5--Develop logic models, Activity 6--Establish performance measures, determine outcomes, and develop a system scorecard, Activity 7--Engage and gain the support of a broader set of stakeholders and the community, and Activity 8--Develop a strategic action plan for implementation; documents—"Press Release Mesa County [CO]", "A Framework for Evidence-Based Decision Making in Local Criminal Justice Systems (A Work In Progress, Third Edition)", and the "EBDM Readiness Checklist"; and related publications.

    Web Page
  • Health Literacy: Enhancing Access to Health Care for Justice-Involved Individuals [Webinar]

    Health Literacy Cover
    Health Literacy: Enhancing Access to Health Care for Justice-Involved Individuals [Webinar]

    This webinar explains: what health literacy has to do with accessing health care; what literacy is; what health literacy is; the five steps of health literacy—find health information, understand it, evaluate it, communicate it, and use it; the health literacy of U.S. adults; health literacy is disproportionate; barriers to good health literacy; what needs to be done; prevalence of disease; health risks following release; transitional care—continuity of care; barriers to care; Transitions Clinic Program—patient centered and culturally competent care for returning prisoners; strategies to successful engagement post-release; the need for referrals to the community by criminal justice providers; how to make connections between criminal justice providers and the community; referrals to the community from the jail or prison; referrals to the community; and electronic linkages.

    Webinar
  • CCCN LIVE National Forum Discussion [Webinar]

    CCCN LIVE National Forum Discussion Cover
    CCCN LIVE National Forum Discussion [Webinar]

    Objectives: highlight federal resources available to community corrections and criminal justice agencies; define service needs of justice-involved individuals; showcase a local example of collaboration and resources utilization—San Diego County Probation; and engage the criminal justice system in a live discussion about the resources available, how to access funding, receive technical assistance, and to motivate our leaders to want to do more.

    Webinar
  • An Intermediate Outcome Evaluation of the Thinking for a Change Program

    Intermediate Outcome Cover
    An Intermediate Outcome Evaluation of the Thinking for a Change Program

    The Thinking for a Change (TFAC) program "teaches problem-solving skills, particularly when interacting with others, in order to increase rational thinking and lead to pro-social interactions and behaviors. In addition, through cognitive restructuring (aka, cognitive self-change), thought processes are modified to reduce thinking patterns that are conducive to criminal behavior, i.e., antisocial attitudes. This evaluation uses a quasi-experimental, non-random, two group pre-test post-test design, and it explores intermediate outcomes that examine whether the program has influenced participant’s self-assessment of their social problem-solving skills and approaches and their acceptance of criminal attitudes … compared to a waiting list comparison group, TFAC group completers do significantly better than their comparison group counterparts on every measure, including positive problem orientation, negative problem orientation, rational problem solving and associated subscales (problem definition and formulation, generation of alternative solutions, decision making, solution implementation and verification), impulsivity/carelessness style, and avoidance style. Moreover, the level of significance of these findings indicates that TFAC does impact participants’ understanding of social problem solving skills and approaches" (p. i). Sections following an executive summary include: introduction; cognitive-behavioral programming and the TFAC program; methodological design; Social Problem Solving Inventory-Revised (SPSI-R) analysis of changes in social problem-solving; Texas Christian University Criminal Thinking Scale (TCU-CTS) analysis; and discussion.

    Document
  • The Prison Population Forecaster // Federal Prison Population: How to reduce the federal prison population

    The Prison Population Forecaster // Federal Prison Population Cover
    The Prison Population Forecaster // Federal Prison Population: How to reduce the federal prison population

    "The federal prison system is by far the nation’s single largest jailer, with a total of 205,795 inmates at the beginning of October 2015. That’s roughly 50,000 more people in custody than in the second-largest prison jurisdiction, Texas. Though the states collectively incarcerate the majority of people in prison in the United States—nearly 1.4 million as of 2014—any conversation about mass incarceration must consider the federal prison population. The growth, size, and cost of the federal system jeopardize the safety and security of inmates and staff, restrict the ability to provide programs designed to reduce recidivism, and crowd out other fiscal priorities … [this Forecaster] uses Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) data and incorporates trends and recent changes in the federal criminal justice system to forecast population trends and the impact of changes to rates of admission or lengths of stay. This tool is designed to highlight the unique drivers of the federal prison population and the types of policy changes that will be necessary to reduce the BOP population. All numbers reported in this feature (unless otherwise noted) are from the end of fiscal year 2014, and all projections are of impacts through 2023.

    Web Page
  • The Prison Population Forecaster//State Prison Population: Reducing Mass Incarceration Requires Far-Reaching Reforms

    The Prison Population Forecaster//State Prison Population Cover
    The Prison Population Forecaster//State Prison Population: Reducing Mass Incarceration Requires Far-Reaching Reforms

    "Roughly 2.2 million people are locked up in prison or jail; 7 million are under correctional control, which includes parole and probation; and more than $80 billion is spent on corrections every year. Research has shown that policy changes over the past four decades have put more people in prison and kept them there longer, leading to exponential growth in the prison population even while crime has dropped to historic lows. But despite widespread agreement that mass incarceration is a serious problem, the national conversation is light on details about what it will take to achieve meaningful and sustainable reductions … To advance the policy conversation, decisionmakers and the public need to know the impact of potential policy changes. Our Prison Population Forecaster can estimate the effect, by state, of policies that aim to reduce prison admissions and length of stay for the most common types of offenses. The tool currently uses data from 15 states, representing nearly 40 percent of the national prison population, to forecast population trends and project the impact of changes on rates of admission or lengths of stay in prison … This forecasting tool paves the way for a more productive conversation about the need for tailored reforms that address the unique drivers of mass incarceration in each jurisdiction" (p.1). This website provides interactive access to these statistics comprising the Forecaster: select one of 15 states or all states; select offense/admission type—violent, nonviolent, property, drug, revocations, and all offenses; select policy change—reduce new admissions, and reduce length of stay; and state percent reduction—reduce by 5%, 10%, 25%, and 50%. The article looks at: the reforms needed to reduce mass incarceration at the state level; rethinking who goes to prison and how long they stay; and whether there is any low-hanging fruit left—more methods to reduce national prison populations.

    Web Page
  • Easing Reentry through Employability Skills Training for Incarcerated Youth

    Easing Reentry through Employability Skills Training for Incarcerated Youth Cover
    Easing Reentry through Employability Skills Training for Incarcerated Youth

    Three distinct time periods frame the juvenile justice process: before, during, and after incarceration. This article focuses on services and supports at each of these critical stages, specifically regarding employability skills. These skills, although supportive of, are different than vocational skills. Beyond specific trade skills, employability skills include at a minimum: effective communication, problem solving, taking responsibility, and teamwork. These skills are important in many areas in addition to employment, but they are perhaps most essential to obtain and hold a job. Thus, in this article, the psychological damage of youth incarceration is examined as well as the impact on obtaining and maintaining employment post incarceration. Existing programs and supports for employability skills are explored for before, during, and after incarceration. Finally, resources for practitioners are provided and the needs for future research are discussed (p. 42). Sections of this article include: introduction; the importance of employability skills; psychological damage; trauma-informed care; employment post incarceration; conceptual framework—life course theory; instructional programs targeting competencies for employability skills—before incarceration (examples of employability skills programs, and missed opportunities), during incarceration (examples of employability skills programs, and unmet need), and after incarceration (examples of employability skills programs, and remaining needs); the necessity of further research and development—resources for practitioners, future research, programs and practices, desistance or recidivism, and community-based alternatives; and conclusion.

    Document
  • The Law Enforcement Social Media Blog: The Online Resource for Law Enforcement and Social Media

    The Law Enforcement Social Media Blog Cover
    The Law Enforcement Social Media Blog: The Online Resource for Law Enforcement and Social Media

    This is a great resource for improving or beginning the use of social media in your agency. This website is the "authoritative resource for news and information about law enforcement social media. From Facebook and Twitter to YouTube and Nixle, we discuss social media and its use as the ultimate community policing tool." Points of access include: Blog-- read and learn; Podcast--listen to our show; Facebook Group-- join our community; Resource Links-- tools, help and more; Shop; Contact Us-- let's talk; and Search--Find it fast.

    Web Page
  • Toolkit for Developing Family-Focused Jail Programs

    Toolkit for Developing Family-Focused Jail Programs Cover
    Toolkit for Developing Family-Focused Jail Programs

    "Through no fault of their own, millions of children have been exposed to and affected by the criminal justice system by witnessing their parent being arrested, by seeing their parent in court, or by visiting their parent in jail or prison. Indeed, many of the thousands of adult men and women who are arrested, prosecuted, and incarcerated each year leave behind minor children who must grapple with their parent’s absence for days, months, or years. Although such exposure does not always result in negative outcomes for children, the extant research does suggest that parental involvement in the criminal justice system can put children at risk of residential instability, economic strain and financial hardship, mental health problems, poor academic performance, and antisocial and delinquent behavior. Parental involvement in the system can be traumatic for children and can hinder the quality of the relationship they have with their parent … This toolkit and the strategies and experiences described herein are intended for people who are interested in developing family-focused jail programs in their own jurisdictions, such as jail practitioners and community-based organizations working with jail administrators and jail detainees" (p. 1). Sections cover: family-focused jail programs; Children of Incarcerated Parents Bill of Rights; considerations for developing a comprehensive family-focused jail program—identify goals, ensure that the process is collaborative, determine what components should be in the program (parenting classes, coached phone calls, contact visits, and others), and implement the program (program structure and sequence, eligibility, and staff training); challenges and lessons learned (have adequate and appropriate space for the various program components, strike a balance between having fun and providing a service, minimize the trauma associated with visiting a parent in jail, account for high population turnover in jails, and secure adequate, sustainable funding); and conclusion.

    Document
  • Correctional Populations In The United States, 2014

    Correctional Populations In The United States, 2014 cover
    Correctional Populations In The United States, 2014

    "This report presents "statistics on persons supervised by adult correctional systems in the United States at yearend 2014, including offenders supervised in the community on probation or parole and those incarcerated in state or federal prison or local jail. The report describes the size and change in the total correctional population during 2014. It details the downward trend in the correctional population and correctional supervision rate since 2007. It also examines the impact of changes in the community supervision and incarcerated populations on the total correctional population in recent years. Findings cover the variation in the size and composition of the total correctional population by jurisdiction at yearend 2014. Appendix tables provide statistics on other correctional populations and jurisdiction-level estimates of the total correctional population by correctional status and sex for select years. Highlights: Adult correctional systems supervised an estimated 6,851,000 persons at yearend 2014, about 52,200 fewer offenders than at yearend 2013; About 1 in 36 adults (or 2.8% of adults in the United States) was under some form of correctional supervision at yearend 2014, the lowest rate since 1996; The correctional population has declined by an annual average of 1.0% since 2007; The community supervision population (down 1.0%) continued to decline during 2014, accounting for all of the decrease in the correctional population; [and] The incarcerated population (up 1,900) slightly increased during 2014."

    Web Page
  • The Death Penalty: Myths & Realities: Quick Answers to Common Questions

    The Death Penalty: Myths & Realities: Quick Answers to Common Questions cover
    The Death Penalty: Myths & Realities: Quick Answers to Common Questions

    "Myths and Realities" provides ‘quick answers to common questions’ about the death penalty … The booklet is interactive in format – allowing readers to read the myth and turn over a flap to discover the reality. We hope it will be a useful guide for activists and advocates of abolition, giving them the arguments they need to tackle common pre- and misconceptions." Some of the 13 realities to the myths are: the death penalty doesn't keep people safer than other sentences; you can never be 100% sure you're killing the right person; nobody can say who deserves to die; the death penalty is not applied fairly--people who are poor, mentally challenges, or from a minority are more likely to get a death sentence; the majority of the public do not want the death penalty; and one is not "soft on crime" if they oppose capital punishment-- the harshest sentence isn't the same as an effective response to crime.

    Web Page
  • Getting It Right: Realigning Juvenile Corrections in Ohio to Reinvest in What Works

    Getting It Right: Realigning Juvenile Corrections in Ohio to Reinvest in What Works cover
    Getting It Right: Realigning Juvenile Corrections in Ohio to Reinvest in What Works

    "Ohio is at the forefront of national juvenile justice reform and realignment efforts and serves as a model for other states looking to “rightsize” their own institutional footprints by moving away from costly correctional placements to more effective, community-based options" (p. 1) "This brief documents the major strategies, events and conditions that created this fundamental and ongoing shift in how young people who enter the juvenile justice system are treated. While these efforts are still a work in progress, this milestone marks a critical fiscal realignment policy concerning the importance of creating and sustaining strategic investments in what works for justice-involved youth" (p. i). Sections of this report cover: beginnings; a shifting corrections footprint and the use of community corrections facilities (CCFs); timeline of major Ohio juvenile justice milestones and DYS (Department of Youth Services) initiatives; DYS state-local partnership with juvenile courts; alignment of key factors—facility closures, state budget, settlement agreement, and best practices—to advance what works; leveraging state policy to promote cost-effective outcomes; seizing opportunity in facility closure savings for long-term realignment and reinvestment—the evolution of RECLAIM (Reasoned and Equitable Community and Local Alternatives to the Incarceration of Minors) to competitive grants; and next steps.

    Document
  • Reviewing the Juvenile Justice System and How It Serves At-Risk Youth

    Reviewing the Juvenile Justice System and How It Serves At-Risk Youth cover
    Reviewing the Juvenile Justice System and How It Serves At-Risk Youth

    This committee "held a hearing to discuss the juvenile justice system and federal, state, and local efforts to better serve at-risk youth and juvenile offenders. Members learned from policy experts and those who have been directly involved in the juvenile justice system about effective strategies to prevent crime and set vulnerable children on the pathway to success. Keeping our communities safe and supporting at-risk youth requires more than an adjudication system and a detention facility,” Chairman Kline said. “It requires education, rehabilitation, and family participation—a joint effort by parents, teachers, community members, and civic leaders to prevent criminal behavior and support children who have engaged in illegal activity" (press release). Access is provided to: the archived webcast; opening statement; press release and photo album; witnesses and testimonies; and additional items.

    Web Page
  • Who Gets Time for Federal Drug Offenses? Data Trends and Opportunities for Reform

    Who Gets Time for Federal Drug Offenses? Data Trends and Opportunities for Reform cover
    Who Gets Time for Federal Drug Offenses? Data Trends and Opportunities for Reform

    "Almost half of the 195,809 federally sentenced individuals in the Bureau of Prisons are serving time for drug trafficking offenses, but little is known about their criminal histories or the nature of their offenses. This brief examines both, finding that many people in federal prison for drug crimes have minimal or no criminal histories, and most were not convicted of violent or leading roles. Nonetheless, many serve long prison sentences due to mandatory minimum sentencing laws. Lasting reductions in the size of the federal prison population will require big cuts in length of stay for drug offenses" (home page). Sections of this brief cover: many drug offenders housed in federal prisons have little to no criminal histories; few are convicted of leading trafficking organizations or responsible for violent acts during drug trafficking crimes; long federal sentences are driven by mandatory minimums; and continued federal prison population reductions require shorter drug sentences.

    Document

Pages