Back to top

All Library Items

  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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//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
  • 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 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder in Confinement Settings: A Review for Correctional Professionals

    Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder in Confinement Settings: A Review for Correctional Professionals cover
    Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder in Confinement Settings: A Review for Correctional Professionals

    "Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD) is a serious lifelong disorder that has been largely understudied within the context of corrections. FASD is a complicated, and often misunderstood and challenging disorder. Individuals with FASD who are confined to a correctional setting may be perceived as lazy, manipulative, irritating and self-defeating, especially when correctional staff lack an awareness and understanding of the disorder. The aim of this article is to present suggested approaches that correctional professionals should consider when interacting with inmates with FASD or suspected of having FASD as well as highlighting various factors that should be taken into account when someone with this disorder is serving a sentence within a confinement setting" (p. 1). Sections of this article include: abstract; introduction; FASD in correctional settings—identification, awareness, screening, community supervision, and communication suggestions; and conclusion. Appendixes cover: possible consequences associated with prenatal alcohol exposure; considerations for correctional professionals; intended benefits of routine screening for FASD within criminal justice settings; possible services available for individuals impacted by FASD; and an intervention approach—D.E.A.R. (Direct language, Engage support system, Accommodate needs, Remain calm).

    Document
  • Toolkit: State Strategies to Enroll Justice-Involved Individuals in Health Coverage

    Toolkit: State Strategies to Enroll Justice-Involved Individuals in Health Coverage cover
    Toolkit: State Strategies to Enroll Justice-Involved Individuals in Health Coverage

    Health insurance options available through the Affordable Care Act (ACA) offer new opportunities to enroll individuals involved in the criminal justice system into coverage and provide access to physical and behavioral health services critical to their successful reentry into the community. Many individuals involved in the criminal justice system are now eligible for Medicaid under the ACA, including many young, low-income males who did not previously qualify for Medicaid. With one exception, federal law prohibits using federal Medicaid funds to pay for medical care provided to incarcerated individuals. However, Medicaid enrollment processes can begin prior to an individual’s release from incarceration, as there is no federal prohibition on incarcerated individuals being enrolled in Medicaid and federal law requires states to permit individuals to apply for the program at any time. Drawing on interviews with state officials, this toolkit highlights the efforts of selected states [Colorado, Illinois, New Mexico, Ohio, Rhode Island, Washington, and Wisconsin] to enroll in health coverage individuals involved with the criminal justice system. The toolkit is designed to provide state officials with actionable information about policies and practices available to connect justice- involved individuals to health care coverage through Medicaid." Access is provided to the sections of the Toolkit: the ACA, Medicaid, and justice-involved individuals; policy and process changes; enrollment as part of pre-release planning; post-release outreach; beyond eligibility and enrollment strategies; cross-agency coordination and partnerships; looking forward—future issues to address; state-specific strategies; Webinar: "Corrections and Medicaid Partnerships: Strategies to Enroll Justice-Involved Populations--Efforts in Colorado, New Mexico and Wisconsin"; and links to additional resources. Also presented is the interactive chart "Enrollment Process" which explains where, when, who, how, and whether individuals leave the facility with a Medicaid card. This resource is also available as a PDF chart.

    Mixed Media
  • A Key Fair-Chance Hiring Best Practice: Delaying Conviction Inquiries Until the Conditional Job Offer

    A Key Fair-Chance Hiring Best Practice: Delaying Conviction Inquiries Until the Conditional Job Offer cover
    A Key Fair-Chance Hiring Best Practice: Delaying Conviction Inquiries Until the Conditional Job Offer

    "A record creates a serious barrier to employment for millions of workers, especially in communities of color hardest hit by decades of over-criminalization. Fair-chance hiring policies are intended to help dismantle this employment barrier by ensuring that job applicants with records are assessed on their merits, rather than on negative stereotypes associated with having a record" (p. 1). This publication explains how delaying the inquiry of criminal conviction after providing a conditional job offer is good for the employer. Sections of this document include: introduction; snapshot of key fair-chance hiring best practices; the benefits of delaying conviction inquiries until a conditional job offer—cost-effectiveness for employers, maintaining public safety, minimizing the influence of negative stereotypes in hiring, increasing clarity in decision-making, effective enforcement, and consistent with federal hiring best practices; and conclusion.

    Document
  • CJCA Webinar: Mental Health Needs Among Youth Involved in Juvenile Justice

    CJCA Webinar: Mental Health Needs Among Youth Involved in Juvenile Justice cover
    CJCA Webinar: Mental Health Needs Among Youth Involved in Juvenile Justice

    "This webinar will begin by reviewing research describing the prevalence of mental health disorders among juveniles in contact with the juvenile justice system. The importance of recognizing adverse childhood experiences and trauma is discussed, as is the challenge of identifying and responding to features of “developmental trauma” since there is not an adequate DSM-IV or DSM-5 diagnosis to capture this clinical presentation. Evidence-based and emerging clinical interventions are described. The webinar will focus on adapting Dialectical Behavior Therapy (DBT) to fit the needs of the juvenile justice population. In 2006, the Massachusetts Department of Youth Services designated DBT as the primary clinical and behavioral approach for the rehabilitation of youth committed to the Department. Discussion will focus on implementing DBT across a state-wide system and maintaining fidelity to the model. How DBT concepts can be used in providing treatment (teaching self-regulation and interpersonal effective skills) and in behavior management in the program (positive based programming and decreasing room confinement) will be described."

    Webinar
  • The Supreme Court and the Transformation of Juvenile Sentencing [and Accompanying Briefs]

    › The Supreme Court and the Transformation of Juvenile Sentencing [and Accompanying Briefs] cover
    The Supreme Court and the Transformation of Juvenile Sentencing [and Accompanying Briefs]

    “In the past decade, the Supreme Court has transformed the constitutional landscape of juvenile crime regulation. In three strongly worded opinions, the Court held that imposing harsh criminal sentences on juvenile offenders violates the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. In combination, these cases create a special status for juveniles under Eighth Amendment doctrine as a category of offenders whose culpability is mitigated by their youth and immaturity, even for the most serious offenses. The Court also emphasized that juveniles are more likely to reform than adult offenders, and that most should be given a meaningful opportunity to demonstrate that they have done so. In short, because of young offenders’ developmental immaturity, harsh sentences that may be suitable for adult criminals are seldom appropriate for juveniles. These opinions announce a powerful constitutional principle—that “children are different” for purposes of criminal punishment … This report addresses the key issues facing courts and legislatures under this new constitutional regime, and provides guidance based on the Supreme Court’s Eighth Amendment analysis and on the principles the Court has articulated” (p. 1). The accompanying briefs to the report are: “Overview Brief: The U.S. Supreme Court and the Transformation of Juvenile Sentencing”, “Juvenile Sentencing in A Developmental Framework: The Role of the Courts”, and “Practitioner Brief: Applying a Developmental Framework to Juvenile Sentencing—What Forensic Experts and Attorneys Should Know” all three by Scott, Grisso, Levick, and Steinberg.

    Document
  • Drones and Corrections

    Drones and Corrections cover
    Drones and Corrections

    This website is a great resource for recent news about the use of drones to get contraband into prisons and jails by dropping it into exercise yards and other exterior areas. Proposed and current legislation regarding drones is covered, as is use of drones by correctional agencies.

    Web Page
  • Enhancing Care for Childbearing Women and their Babies in Prison

    Enhancing Care for Childbearing Women and their Babies in Prison cover
    Enhancing Care for Childbearing Women and their Babies in Prison

    This report explains how mothers and their babies can benefit from being held in a prison-based Mother and Baby Unit (MBU). "All available research suggests that the struggles of childbearing women in prison are extremely complex. And whilst their babies represent a relatively small proportion of all children affected by maternal imprisonment, they are arguably the neediest and most vulnerable group. This report documents the findings of a collaborative research project … The project aimed to map current knowledge and research evidence on childbearing women in prison and their babies and to transfer this learning into policy and practice" (p. 5). Findings from this study cover: current provision for childbearing women in prison and their babies; decision-making and unavailability of MBU places; mother and baby relationship during MBU residence; what happens when mothers go to prison and do not secure an MBU place; mother and baby relationship when separation occurs; reentry (resettlement) and reunification issues—Re-Unite being a good practice example; impact of MBU residence on re-offending; the changing landscape of the female prison estate—custodial changes in prison hubs, and community changes; and concerns arising from the research. Some of the recommendations made include: "Effective and tailored alternative sentencing options for mothers of young children need to be available; … The benefits of MBUs need to be actively promoted to external staff, to mothers and also to non MBU prison staff; Mothers in prison need programmes which address self-esteem and healthy relationships; Intensive support packages, with a strong therapeutic focus should be put in place for women who have had their babies adopted, during the mother's prison sentence and continued post-release; … [and] Release from prison needs to be viewed as a process not as an event. The sentence planning of women prisoners who are also mothers needs to include parenting support on release and a 'whole family' approach where appropriate" (p. 5).

    Document
  • Bring Youth Home: Building on Ohio's Deincarceration Leadership

    Enhancing Care for Childbearing Women and their Babies in Prison cover
    Bring Youth Home: Building on Ohio's Deincarceration Leadership

    “In recent years, research has overwhelmingly shown the harmful effects of incarcerating children. In the short term, incarcerated children are subject to dangerous and abusive conditions, including physical abuse, sexual assault, and practices such as isolation, which can cause permanent psychological damage. These harmful conditions have been proven conclusively in 39 states. Long term, children who are locked up in juvenile correctional facilities are less likely to succeed in school or to find employment, and they are more likely to reoffend compared to similar children who are placed on probation or in alternative programs … With current research on deincarceration and successes in Ohio and other jurisdictions, the question is not whether states should engage in deincarceration strategies, but how to best implement strategies that have been shown to reduce youth incarceration while maintaining public safety. This report will explore Ohio’s evolution of deincarceration programs and, based on Ohio’s experiences, discuss decision points and options that other states and localities should consider when implementing new or modifying existing deincarceration programs to create the most positive outcomes for youth and communities” (p. 3). Ohio's juvenile deincarceration strategies have helped to reduce the juvenile corrections population from 2,500 youth in 1992 to fewer than 500 in 2015. This publication is divided into five sections: introduction; creating a climate for change—the start of Ohio's deincarceration efforts; support for local efforts—Ohio's array of deincarceration programs, such as RECLAIM (Reasoned and Equitable Community and Local Alternatives to the Incarceration of Minors)--two subsidy program and three competitive programs; putting it all together—coordinating and analyzing Ohio's efforts—eight findings; and four recommendations.

    Document
  • Municipal Courts: An Effective Tool for Diverting People with Mental and Substance Use Disorders from the Criminal Justice System

    Municipal Courts: An Effective Tool for Diverting People with Mental and Substance Use Disorders from the Criminal Justice System cover
    Municipal Courts: An Effective Tool for Diverting People with Mental and Substance Use Disorders from the Criminal Justice System

    The opportunity for diverting offenders with mental illness and substance abuse disorders from the criminal justice system when they have their first appearance in a municipal court is explained. Sections of this publication include: introduction; Sequential Intercept Model (SIM); municipal courts—definition and caseloads; municipal courts as a venue for diversion of people with mental and substance use disorders; challenges to the use of municipal courts for diversion—case volume, time constraints and lack of leverage, and the mature of municipal courts; what the essential elements for effective diversion are—identification and screening, court-based clinician as the boundary spanner-linkage component, recovery-based engagement strategies, and proportional response; a municipal court achieving effective diversion—Seattle Municipal Mental Health Court; a municipal court achieving effective diversion—Midtown Community Court in New York City; a municipal court achieving effective diversion—Misdemeanor Arraignment Diversion Project in New York City; and summary. "Municipal courts that implement these four essential elements—Identification and Screening, Court-Based Clinician, Recovery-Based Engagement, and Proportional Response—are in the position to minimize the criminal justice system involvement and reduce unnecessary incarceration of people with mental illness and co-occurring substance use disorders as well as facilitate engagement or re-engagement in mental health and substance use disorder services" (p. 12).

    Document
  • National Institute of Corrections Report to the Nation FY14

    National Institute of Corrections Report to the Nation FY14 cover
    National Institute of Corrections Report to the Nation FY14

    A collection of infographics present the activity of National Institute of Corrections (NIC) over Fiscal Year 2014. NIC has served the public for over 40 years, and is determined to be the nation's most trusted resource for corrections personnel. Three positive comments about NIC service show how NIC has done this. Highlights are provided for NIC's Prisons Division, Jails Division, Community Services Division, and Academy. Let the National Institute of Corrections help you to succeed through technical assistance and other ways.

    Document
  • In Our Own Backyard: Confronting Growth and Disparities in American Jails

    Racial Disparities & Dynamics in the Criminal Justice System cover
    In Our Own Backyard: Confronting Growth and Disparities in American Jails

    "Although jails are the “front door” to mass incarceration, there is not enough data for justice system stakeholders and others to understand how their jail is being used and how it compares with others. To address this issue, Vera researchers developed a data tool that includes the jail population and jail incarceration rate for every U.S. county that uses a local jail … The data revealed that, since 1970, the number of people held in jail has increased from 157,000 to 690,000 in 2014—a more than four-fold increase nationwide, with growth rates highest in the smallest counties. This data also reveals wide variation in incarceration rates and racial disparities among jurisdictions of similar size and thus underlines an essential point: The number of people in jail is largely the result of choices made by policymakers and others in the justice system. The Incarceration Trends tool provides any jurisdiction with the appetite for change the opportunity to better understand its history of jail use and measure its progress toward decarceration" (website). This website provides access to the Incarceration Trend tool for jails, summary, full report, a video tour of the tool with Chris Henrichson, and data and methods. Sections comprising the full report include: introduction; the expanding footprint of local incarceration—a snapshot of the findings—decades of growth, and growth's disparate impacts; understanding growth and disparities; using the Incarnation Trends tool; and conclusion. The Incarceration Trends tool is interactive and illustrates data per 100,000 county residents for: jail incarceration rate change (1970 to 2014); the 2014 jail incarceration rate; Black/African American jail incarceration rate; female jail incarceration rate; jail and prison incarceration rate for California and New York; what is trending in your county—exploring your counties jail data. One interesting finding is that the largest increase in the number of incarcerated individuals is occurring in mid-sized and small counties. Since 1970, local jail populations in mid-sized counties have grown 4.1 percent, small counties 6.9%, and large counties by 2.8%.

    Document
  • Evidence-Based Decision Making: Victim Service Provider User's Guide

    Evidence-Based Decision Making: Victim Service Provider User's Guide cover
    Evidence-Based Decision Making: Victim Service Provider User's Guide

    "The purpose of this Guide is to prepare and assist VSPs [victim service providers) to become part of an EBDM [Evidence-Based Decision Making] policy team, as outlined in "A Framework for Evidence-Based Decision Making in Local Criminal Justice Systems" (http://www.pretrial.org/download/performance-measures/The%20EBDM%20Frame...). To help prepare VSPs for this role, the Guide provides: A rationale for VSPs to become involved with the policy team; An examination of the benefits that can accrue from the participation of VSPs in the EBDM process; A description of how VSPs can become part of the EBDM process and how the EBDM principles apply to their work; An exploration of common interests and potential challenges and barriers that VSPs and criminal justice system stakeholders collectively face while engaging in this work, and possible solutions; A link to a primer on EBP and EBDM; A brief overview of why it is important to victims for VSPs to understand the purpose and use of risk/needs assessment tools, a critical component of EBP and EBDM; and Links and references to other information and resources that can help VSPs to educate themselves about becoming part of EBDM policy teams and to conduct evaluations of their own programs" (p. 4). Sections include: introduction; Ten Core Crime Victims' Rights; advancement in the criminal justice system—evidence-based practice (EBP) and evidence-based decision making (EBDM); purpose of this guide; audience for VSP User's Guide; why VSP's should participate in the EBDM process; the unique contribution VSP's can make to the EBDM policy team; becoming part of the EBDM process; what EBDM means to VSPs; how the EBDM principles apply to VSPs; VSPs as an integral part of an EBDM process—what an ideal scenario would look like; VSPs' involvement in key decision points in the criminal justice system—decision points in the EBDM process, and intersection of EBDM decision points and victim considerations; common interests and potential challenges and solutions—prevention, offender accountability, victim needs, limited resources, working with diverse populations, and navigating a complex political environment; conclusion; and a holistic approach to serving victim needs (postscript). Appendixes included are: Why It Is Important to Victims for VSPs to Understand the Purpose and Use of Risk/Needs Assessment Tools; and Tools/Resources for evidence-based decision making, applying EBP to victim service programs, and general victim advocacy issues.

    Document

Pages