Back to top

All Library Items

  • 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. 
  • 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).

  • 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.

  • 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."

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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."

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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).

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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."

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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).

  • 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.

  • 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).

  • 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%.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Culture, Language, and Access:; Key Considerations for Serving Deaf Survivors of Domestic and Sexual Violence

    Culture, Language, and Access:; Key Considerations for Serving Deaf Survivors of Domestic and Sexual Violence cover
    Culture, Language, and Access:; Key Considerations for Serving Deaf Survivors of Domestic and Sexual Violence

    "Recent research suggests that Deaf women experience higher rates of sexual and domestic violence than their hearing counterparts, but are often shut off from victim services and supports that are ill-equipped to respond to their unique needs. As a result, they are denied access to services that could help them safely flee from abuse, heal from trauma, and seek justice after they have been harmed. This policy brief offers practical suggestions for expanding and enhancing Deaf survivors’ access to victim services and other supports" (website). Sections of this publication include: introduction; the Deaf community in the U.S.; research on victimization is limited; higher rates of domestic and sexual violence; unique experiences of violence; barriers to services and justice; Services for Deaf, by Deaf—a promising strategy; enhancing the capacity of hearing service providers and systems; collaboration between Deaf and hearing programs; five recommendations; and conclusion.

  • ADA @ 25: Impact and Implications for People with Disabilities Involved in the Justice System [Webinar]

    ADA @ 25: Impact and Implications for People with Disabilities Involved in the Justice System [Webinar] cover
    ADA @ 25: Impact and Implications for People with Disabilities Involved in the Justice System [Webinar]

    If you want an update on how the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) impacts disabled offenders then this webinar is a must view. "While there is still a significant gap regarding our knowledge about people with disabilities and Deaf people involved in the justice system, we do know there is a great need to increase access to justice for these people. People with disabilities and Deaf people experience violent victimization at rates three times higher than people without disabilities, making them one of the groups at highest risk of harm in the country. Despite these high rates of victimization, they continue to experience significant barriers to services and the justice system. These barriers not only exist for victims of violent crime but for people with disabilities and Deaf people who are incarcerated. Research reflects that 36 percent of state and 24 percent of federally incarcerated adults report having at least one disability. These individuals experience accessibility barriers from the time of arrest and through incarceration" (Vera website). "With America in the midst of substantial criminal justice reform and celebrating the 25th Anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), this summit will bring these two issues together. Leaders from both the disability and criminal justice fields will explore the impact the ADA has had on people with disabilities with disabilities who have had involvement with the justice system, either as victims or suspects/offenders. Panelists will also share their visions for justice for people with disabilities for the next 25" (YouTube website). This website provides links to presentations by Senator Harkin and the five panelists. It also has a link to a Fact Sheet (from July 2015) that covers the impact of ADA in disabled offenders. This document has sections about: what we know about justice-involved people with disabilities and deaf people—suspects and offenders, and victims and survivors; the ADA's impact on justice-involved people with disabilities and deaf people—victim service organizations, law enforcement agencies, the courts, and prisons and jails; opportunities at the intersection of access and justice involvement; and additional information about the ADA's five titles, the ADA Amendments Act (ADAAA) of 2008, and Olmstead V L.C. 527 U.S. 581 of 1999.

  • Can Jails and Prisons be Healed?

    Can Jails and Prisons be Healed? cover
    Can Jails and Prisons be Healed?

    This paper expertly describes the Healing Corrections Framework. "The Healing Corrections Framework focuses on the nuts and bolts of the organizational cultures of jails and prisons, how they work, and ways to transform them. It assumes that the primary vehicle for transforming corrections is through meeting the needs of correctional staff to better equip them to work with each other and with those they supervise in jails, prisons, or the community. The logic of this is simple; the work of corrections is done by correctional workers and to change the way corrections works, correctional workers must change how they do their jobs. This will require correctional staff at all levels to communicate with each other and with people under their supervision in more constructive and compassionate ways. In the Healing Corrections framework, “how things are done,” especially how roles and expectations are continuously defined and redefined among the actors within a system, is the working definition of culture" (p. 5). Topics discussed in this document include: capacity versus opportunity; cultural context; cultural fragmentation of systems, the key concept of the Framework, versus coherence; development of the Healing Corrections Framework—its empirical foundation in the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) Prison Culture Project, and the Norval Morris Project, and cycles of engagement and interaction; the Healing Corrections Framework which dialogue as cultural change; Healing Corrections and "mass incarceration"; American culture and American Justice; talking about punishment; and gazing into the abyss. This website provides access to the paper and the presentation slides.

  • Health Correlates of Criminal Justice Involvement in 4,793 Transgender Veterans

    Health Correlates of Criminal Justice Involvement in 4,793 Transgender Veterans cover
    Health Correlates of Criminal Justice Involvement in 4,793 Transgender Veterans

    "Transgender (TG) persons are overrepresented in prison settings and in the U.S. veteran population. Health disparities studies of large populations of transgender people involved with the criminal justice system have not been published to date … "This investigation sought to describe characteristics associated with JI in a sample of veterans with TG identification and to determine whether health disparities exist when compared to non-TG veterans with a JI history" (p. 297, 298). Results are presented regarding: characteristics of TG and non-TG veterans; sample characteristics of justice involved (JI) TG and non-TG veterans; characteristics of justice involved TG and justice involved non-TG veterans; and the effects of TG status and VJP [Veteran Justice Programs] involvement on medical and mental health problems. Findings suggest that TG veterans are more like to be involved with the justice system, to have been homeless at one time or another, and/or experienced sexual assault while serving in the military compared to non-TG JI (justice involved) veterans. TG JI veterans also at increased risk for depression, posttraumatic stress syndrome (PTSD), serious mental illness, suicide, hypertension, and obesity. "These data suggest that TG veterans experience a number of health risks compared to non-TG veterans, including an increased likelihood of justice involvement. TG veterans involved with the criminal justice system are a particularly vulnerable group and services designed to address the health care needs of this population, both while incarcerated and when in the community, should take these findings into account in the development of health screenings and treatment plans" (p. 297).

  • Disabilities Among Prison And Jail Inmates, 2011–12

    Disabilities Among Prison And Jail Inmates, 2011–12 cover
    Disabilities Among Prison And Jail Inmates, 2011–12

    This report presents statistics regarding "the prevalence of disabilities among prison and jail inmates, detailing the prevalence of six specific disability types: hearing, vision, cognitive, ambulatory, self-care, and independent living. Important differences in each type of disability are highlighted by demographic characteristics. The report also assesses the prevalence of disabilities with other health problems, such as a current chronic condition, obesity, ever having an infectious disease, and past 30-day serious psychological distress … Highlights: An estimated 32% of prisoners and 40% of jail inmates reported having at least one disability; Prisoners were nearly 3 times more likely and jail inmates were more than 4 times more likely than the general population to report having at least one disability; About 2 in 10 prisoners and 3 in 10 jail inmates reported having a cognitive disability, the most common reported disability in each population; Female prisoners were more likely than male prisoners to report having a cognitive disability, but were equally likely to report having each of the other five disabilities; Non-Hispanic white prisoners (37%) and prisoners of two or more races (42%) were more likely than non-Hispanic black prisoners (26%) to report having at least one disability; [and] More than half of prisoners (54%) and jail inmates (53%) with a disability reported a co-occurring chronic condition" (website).

  • Fundamentals of Bail: A Resource Guide for Pretrial Practitioners and a Framework for American Pretrial Reform

    Fundamentals of Bail: A Resource Guide for Pretrial Practitioners and a Framework for American Pretrial Reform cover
    Fundamentals of Bail: A Resource Guide for Pretrial Practitioners and a Framework for American Pretrial Reform

    "Pretrial justice requires that those seeking it be consistent with both their vision and with the concept of pretrial best practices, and this document is designed to help further that goal. It can be used as a resource guide, giving readers a basic understanding of the key areas of bail and the criminal pretrial process and then listing key documents and resources necessary to adopt a uniform working knowledge of legal and evidence-based practices in the field. Hopefully, however, this document will serve as more than just a paper providing mere background information, for it is designed, instead, to also provide the intellectual framework to finally achieve pretrial justice in America … in this country we have undertaken two generations of pretrial reform, and we are currently in a third. The lessons we have learned from the first two generations are monumental, but we have not fully implemented them, leading to the need for some “grand unifying theory” to explore how this third generation can be our last. In my opinion, that theory comes from a solid consensus understanding of the fundamentals of bail, why they are important, and how they work together toward an idea of pretrial justice that all Americans can embrace" (p. 4). Sections following an executive summary are; introduction—what bail and bond are; why we need pretrial improvements; the history of bail; legal foundations of pretrial justice; pretrial research; national standards on pretrial release; pretrial terms and phrases; application—guidelines for pretrial reform; and conclusion.

  • Money as a Criminal Justice Stakeholder: The Judge’s Decision to Release or Detain a Defendant Pretrial

    Money as a Criminal Justice Stakeholder: The Judge’s Decision to Release or Detain a Defendant Pretrial Cover
    Money as a Criminal Justice Stakeholder: The Judge’s Decision to Release or Detain a Defendant Pretrial

    <p>"The future of pretrial justice in America will come partly from our deliberative focus on our judges’ decisions to release or detain a criminal defendant pretrial and from our questioning of whether our current constitutional and statutory bail schemes are either helping or hindering those decisions … we recognize that we also need a fair and transparent scheme allowing the preventive detention of higher risk defendants without "bail," or judges will continue to be forced to use money to accomplish the same thing, albeit unfairly, non-transparently, and, some would say, unlawfully. A new group of people are now telling us that we can never change our constitution to allow the creation of this scheme, but the fact is that change is inevitable. Indeed, moving from a mostly charge and money-based bail system to one based primarily on empirically-derived risk necessarily means that virtually all American bail laws are antiquated and must be changed … This paper is designed to show a somewhat ideal process for making a release or detain decision, but with the realization that a particular state’s bail laws may hinder that ideal process to a point where best practices are difficult or even impossible to implement. Nevertheless, until we know how the pretrial decision-making process should work (i.e., an in-or-out decision, immediately effectuated), we will never know exactly which changes we must make to further the goals underlying the "bail/no bail" process" (p. 1). Chapters following an executive summary are: introduction; the history and the law related to bail up to the Twentieth Century; how pretrial decision making in the United States got off track; "bail" (release) and "no bail" (detention); the national standards on pretrial release; effective pretrial decision making—risk assessment instruments, and assessing which conditions are effective for their lawful purposes; the practical aspects of making an effective "release/detain" or in-or-out-decision—the three steps of proper purpose, legal assessment, and release or detention result; and conclusion.</p>

  • Victim Impact: Listen and Learn: An Evaluation of the Effects of the Victim Impact: Listen and Learn Program on Prisoner Recidivism and Prisoner Behavior

    Victim Impact: Listen and Learn: An Evaluation of the Effects of the Victim Impact: Listen and Learn Program on Prisoner Recidivism and Prisoner Behavior cover
    Victim Impact: Listen and Learn: An Evaluation of the Effects of the Victim Impact: Listen and Learn Program on Prisoner Recidivism and Prisoner Behavior

    "This is a report of the evaluation study conducted to examine the effects of the Victim Impact: Listen and Learn program on the behaviors of the prisoners who attended this program. The focus of the data we collected and reported on was on the participants’ behaviors after attending the program but while still in prison, and upon release from prison … The central tenet of the program is that a vital component to facilitating change within an individual offender is a focus on the victims of crime, and the impact of a crime on the victim" (p. 1). Victim Impact has been implemented in the Delaware prison system since 2011. Some of the findings form this study include: participants has a recidivism rate (re-offense and re-commitment) of 35 % compared to 67% for non-participants; and participants had a 33% reduction in disciplinary charges. Thus, Victim Impact reduces recidivism and can provide significant cost savings.

  • Developing and Implementing a PREA-Compliant Staffing Plan [Webinar]

    Developing and Implementing a PREA-Compliant Staffing Plan [Webinar] cover
    Developing and Implementing a PREA-Compliant Staffing Plan [Webinar]

    This webinar is a great introduction for "correctional practitioners to a new resource for developing a PREA-compliant staffing plan, per standard §115.13/.113/.213/.313 … Topics for this webinar will include: Recommendations for approaching or improving a staffing plan with consideration of influencing factors; Facility-specific PREA requirements; Appropriate staff that should be involved in assessing and drafting the staffing plan; and Special considerations including the use of video monitoring, staffing ratios in juvenile facilities, supervision of vulnerable populations, and gender-specific considerations" (website). The webinar agenda is: welcome and opening remarks; background and context; introduction to the Staffing Plan Resource Guide; staffing plan requirements; influencing factors; how to develop a staffing plan; video monitoring, juvenile ratios, and gender; how a staffing plan will be audited; and question and answer period.

  • Census Of Jails: Population Changes, 1999–2013

    Census Of Jails: Population Changes, 1999–2013 cover
    Census Of Jails: Population Changes, 1999–2013

    This report presents "state-level estimates of the number of inmates confined in local jails at year end 2013, by sex, race, and Hispanic origin. This report provides information on changes in the incarceration rate, average daily population, admissions, expected length of stay, rated capacity, percent of capacity occupied, and inmate-to-correctional officer ratios. It also includes statistics, by jurisdiction size, on the number of inmates confined to jail and persons admitted to jail during 2013. It features a special section on the 12 facilities that functioned as jails for the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Highlights: From 1999 to 2013, the number of inmates in local jails increased by 21%, from 605,943 to 731,570 [while] During this period, the growth in the jail population was not steady, as the jail confined population peaked in 2008 at 785,533 then declined to its 2013 level; The adult jail incarceration rates changed slightly between midyear 1999 (304 [per 100,000 adult U.S. residents]) and yearend 2013 (310 [per 100,000 adult U.S. residents]); Nearly half (46%) of all local jail inmates were confined in jurisdictions holding 1,000 or more inmates in 2013, down slightly from 50% in 2006; Between 1999 and yearend 2013, the female inmate population increased by 48%, from approximately 68,100 to 100,940. The male inmate population increased by 17%, from approximately 537,800 to 630,620; [and] The juvenile population (persons age 17 or younger) held in adult jail facilities in 2013 (4,420) decreased by more than half from its peak in 1999 (9,458).

  • Veterans In Prison And Jail, 2011–2012

    Veterans In Prison And Jail, 2011–2012 cover
    Veterans In Prison And Jail, 2011–2012

    This report presents "counts and rates of veterans in state and federal prison and local jail in 2011 and 2012. This report describes incarcerated veterans by demographic characteristics, military characteristics, and disability and mental health status. It describes current offense, sentencing, and criminal history characteristics by veteran status. It also examines combat experience associated with lifetime mental health disorders among incarcerated veterans … Highlights: The number of veterans incarcerated in state and federal prison and local jail decreased from 203,000 in 2004 to 181,500 in 2011–12; The total incarceration rate in 2011–12 for veterans (855 per 100,000 veterans in the United States) was lower than the rate for nonveterans (968 per 100,000 U.S. residents); Non-Hispanic black and Hispanic inmates made up a significantly smaller proportion of incarcerated veterans (38% in prison and 44% in jail), compared to incarcerated non-Hispanic black and Hispanic nonveterans (63% in prison and 59% in jail); A greater percentage of veterans (64%) than nonveterans (48%) were sentenced for violent offenses; [and] An estimated 43% of veterans and 55% of nonveterans in prison had four or more prior arrests."

  • Solutions: American Leaders Speak Out on Criminal Justice

    Solutions: American Leaders Speak Out on Criminal Justice cover
    Solutions: American Leaders Speak Out on Criminal Justice

    "To truly reduce mass incarceration, we need a national conversation, led by national voices, offering national solutions. In this book, the Brennan Center asked the country’s leading public figures and criminal justice experts to offer practical solutions. They responded by writing essays putting forth a variety of proposals to tackle the problem of overincarceration from differing perspectives … They share a commitment to continued progress in the fight against crime — and continued progress toward a more just society. The 22 solutions offered here will not fix the problem on their own. It is our hope that lawmakers and stakeholders implement these ideas to produce a system that both reduces crime and reduces mass incarceration" (p. 2). These solutions are presented by Democrats, Independents, and Republicans some of them being saving jail for the most dangerous, implementing a real mental health system, graduated reentry, abolishing the death penalty while investing in public safety, restoring fairness in sentencing, reducing the number of crimes, mercy--especially for the mentally ill, and getting offenders ready for work.

  • Stress and Corrections: Addressing the Safety and Well-Being of Correctional Officers

    Stress and Corrections: Addressing the Safety and Well-Being of Correctional Officers cover
    Stress and Corrections: Addressing the Safety and Well-Being of Correctional Officers

    "Pubmed is an Internet search engine used to access millions of articles in biomedical and life science literature … only 23 articles are identified when searching “correctional officers (COs) and health.” This article is a snapshot of ongoing work and a growing national consortium of individuals interested in advancing the well-being of Cos" (p. 1). Sections cover : hazards of corrections work; stress is hazardous to your heart; ways to improve well-being; first National Symposium on Corrections Worker Health; and conclusion. "The review of CO stressors concluded that, while there are local efforts and recommended best practices, there are no proven effective safety and health programs for COs, and more studies are needed" (p. 4).

  • Maltreatment of Youth in U.S. Juvenile Corrections Facilities: An Update

    Maltreatment of Youth Cover
    Maltreatment of Youth in U.S. Juvenile Corrections Facilities: An Update

    "This report, released as a follow-up to No Place For Kids [2011], introduces new evidence on the widespread maltreatment of youth in state-funded juvenile corrections facilities. It tells of high rates of sexual victimization, the heavy-handed use of disciplinary isolation and a growing roster of states where confined youth have been subject to widespread abuse. The four-year update is in — and the news is not good." Sections of this report include: introduction and summary; findings from "No Place for Kids" on the nature, breadth, and extent of maltreatment and abuse in juvenile correctional agencies; new information about maltreatment in state-funded juvenile corrections facilities—additional states with proven maltreatment, recidivist states, and new evidence of and attention to maltreatment; and conclusion. This website also provides to access to: evidence of maltreatment in each individual state; national news release; "State-by-State Summary of Maltreatment" publication; and the blog entry "New Report Documents Continuing Maltreatment of Incarcerated Youth".

  • The High Costs of Low Risk: The Crisis of America's Aging Prison Population

    The High Costs of Low Risk: The Crisis of America's Aging Prison Population cover
    The High Costs of Low Risk: The Crisis of America's Aging Prison Population

    "The immense costs of incarceration have increasingly framed the conversation around reducing the prison population as a matter of fiscal responsibility and budgetary necessity. This discussion is often centered around reducing the arrest and prosecution of so-called “non-violent drug offenders.” But these issues belie a much more pressing human and economic concern: the aging prison population, whose costs for incarceration and care will soon prove unsustainable if meaningful action is not taken. And though prison is expensive, cost is far from the only justification to move away from our reliance on incarceration, as the continued long-term incarceration of aging citizens has serious moral, ethical, public health, and public safety implications" (p. 1). This paper explains how agencies might go about effectively addressing these issues. Sections following an executive summary address: the threat facing the United States—economic costs, health impact, strain on correctional systems, social costs and public safety, and the roots of the crisis; from the inside out—meeting the needs of the aging within prisons—six innovative programs; the question of parole; the reentry experience—five viable strategies; the work to be done within correctional facilities, release mechanisms, and post-release services; and toward a new paradigm of punishment. "The interconnected complexity of the aging prisoner crisis demands a strategic response that is versatile and multifaceted, and that seeks to address the issue at multiple points of intervention with involvement from all stakeholders. The fields of gerontology, philanthropy, health, and corrections are uniquely positioned and qualified collectively to inform and implement both short- and long-term solutions to this issue. Armed with critical interdisciplinary knowledge and backed by investment from the philanthropic community, such a collaborative partnership possesses unparalleled opportunity to make lasting contributions to the policies and best practices affecting the aging prison population. This joint stakeholder alliance is particularly well-suited to enrich the reentry process, first by identifying those factors that formerly incarcerated elders need to thrive upon their release to the community and subsequently creating resources and pathways for success. Such an approach would not only yield tremendous cost savings, improved public health outcomes, and economic growth, but would also embody a commitment to human rights—including the freedom for our elders to live the remainder of their lives within their communities and to die with grace in the presence of friends and family" (p. 14-15).

  • Policy Review and Development Guide: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Intersex Persons in Custodial Settings, 2nd Edition

    Policy Review and Development Guide: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Intersex Persons in Custodial Settings, 2nd Edition cover
    Policy Review and Development Guide: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Intersex Persons in Custodial Settings, 2nd Edition

    "In the first edition of this guide, we aimed to reach out to correctional agencies in order to help them identify, address, and respond to abuse of LGBTI individuals through agency policies and procedures. We hoped to deepen the dialogue between staff and administrators as well as community leaders and criminal justice advocates about strategies to eliminate abuse of LGBTI individuals in custody. The second edition of this guide provides updated key information to correctional agencies about PREA’s impact on agency practice as it relates to LGBTI individuals in custody" (p. 1). This guide is made up of three chapters: introduction and overview—introduction, evolving terminology and definitions, core principles for understanding LGBTI individuals in custody, and emerging data on LGBTI individuals in custodial settings and the challenges they face; LGBTI youth under custodial supervision—the law, PREA standards, other governing principles (state human rights laws and professional codes of ethics), and elements of legally sound and effective policy and practice; and LGBTI adults under custodial supervision—the law, PREA standards, and elements of legally sound and effective policy and practice. Appendixes provide: glossary; case law digest; additional resources; webpages with sample policies; Issues to Watch: The Impact of Non-Custodial LGBTI Developments on Corrections; sample policies; and training matrices.

  • LGBT Youth in Juvenile Justice: Creating Agency Policies for an Equitable System Webinar

    LGBT Youth in Juvenile Justice: Creating Agency Policies for an Equitable System Webinar cover
    LGBT Youth in Juvenile Justice: Creating Agency Policies for an Equitable System Webinar

    Many juvenile justice systems don't know how many young people in their system identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT) and often lack appropriate policies that meet their unique needs … This webinar discussed the need for agency policies to support LGBT young people in the juvenile justice system. Participants learned how the Massachusetts Department of Youth Services [DYS] and Santa Clara County Probation Department [SCCPD] developed policies for LGBT youth in their system, as well as different strategies for creating similar policies in state- and county-based systems (website). This zip file contains: SCCPD Stakeholder Invitation; SCCPD Transgender Procedure Guidelines; SCCPD Transgender Preference Form; SCCPD Cultural Competence Form; Santa Clara, County Counsel Memorandum; Massachusetts DYS Official Policy; and presentation slides.

Pages