Over the past decade, the corrections community’s perspective on sustainability-oriented practices has evolved to include tremendous cost savings via resource efficiency and measurable improvements in offender outcomes, as well as important partnerships between corrections facilities and programs and the communities they serve. Presenter Paul Sheldon, senior advisor at GreenPrisons.org will discuss examples of successful "green" programs and partnerships with federal, state, and local agencies, as well as academic, business, and non-profit partners. Evidence-based results of these innovative activities have included shifts in organizational culture, cost reductions, successful post-release employment and overall offender outcomes, and other community benefits.
This webinar is presented by the Justice Technology Information Center, a program of the National Institute of Justice.
Time: Apr 4, 2018 1:00 PM Eastern Time (US and Canada)
Go to the recording: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJU4GWCgFPI
“This course provides an overview of how upcoming changes to California’s health care system will impact local criminal justice systems. Speakers compare and contrast health care in the county corrections systems today with health care in the years to come under the Affordable Care Act. A framework for providing health care to the criminal justice population is presented to facilitate preparations at the county level that can help to maximize criminal justice resources. Highlights include: How improving access to health care can reduce recidivism; Health care for the criminal justice population today and tomorrow--How it will work in 2014 and beyond; [and] Laying out a framework: An overview of the steps criminal justice systems can take to take advantage of health care reform opportunities.” The home website provides access to: course materials including slides from the following presentations: “Public Health and Public Safety: Explaining the Critical Intersection of Healthcare and Recidivism” by Community Oriented Correctional Health Services (COCHS); “Covered California: Understanding Health Benefits” by David Panush; “Counties and Medi-Cal for Inmates: Current Rules – Future Considerations” by Cathy Senderling-McDonald; “Health Care Reform and Medi-Cal: Looking to 2014” by Leonard J. Finocchio; “Covered California: Understanding Health Benefits” by California Health Benefit Exchange; “Public Health and Public Safety: Explaining the Critical Intersection of Healthcare and Recidivism” by Community Oriented Correctional Health Services (COCHS); and “Counties and Medi-Cal for Inmates: Current Rules – Future Considerations” by Cathy Senderling-McDonald; links to course related materials about public health and public safety, healthcare for today and tomorrow, and framework development; and links to other resources.
“Are there connections between these three shifts – a decrease in crime, a decrease in the correctional population, and a sharp increase in controversial police practices? What factors contributed to these shifts? What about the costs of these shifts? Have they been evaluated and weighed against the benefits? In this report, leading criminologists James Austin and Michael Jacobson take an empirical look at these powerful social changes and any interconnections. Examining data from 1985 to 2009, they conclude that New York City’s “broken windows” policy did something unexpected: it reduced the entire correctional population of the state. As the NYPD focused on low-level arrests, it devoted fewer resources to felony arrests. At the same time, a lowered crime rate – as an additional factor – meant that fewer people were committing felonies. This combination led to fewer felony arrests and therefore fewer people entering the correctional system. Other policies – like programs that stopped punishing people with prison if not necessary – also contributed to this population drop” (p. 3). Sections of this report following an executive summary are: decline in New York prison population—drop in admissions and increase in statewide length of stay; decline in New York parole, probation, and jail populations; delayed effect on state corrections budget; accompanying drop in New York City’s crime rate and shift in arrest policy; and conclusion.
Outcome and process measures used to gage the effectiveness of the Integrated Model in reducing offender recidivism are presented. Each component found within a measure has information regarding its definition, tool/data source, description, frequency, and individual who collects the data. Components are organized into the following measures: recidivism; risk; proxy risk; supervision length; dosage; revocation and violation; program effectiveness; assessment; case plan; workload; violations; organizational climate; and collaboration.
A comprehensive management system, called Inmate Behavior Management (IBM) is being rolled out by the National Institute of Corrections (NIC). It is comprised of six specific elements that work together to control inmate behavior and produce an effective and proficient institution. This document explains “Element 4: Defining and Conveying Expectations for Behavior”. “It is intended to: Review what is known about how positive expectations influence behavior; Identify what concepts are important for jail administrators to understand as they attempt to apply this element to their facilities; and To provide resources that will assist jail administrators in providing training for their staff and in properly identifying positive expectations for inmate behavior “ (p. 3). Seven chapters are contained in this publication: setting and conveying positive expectation of inmate behavior; the basics of setting and conveying expectations; setting positive behavioral expectations; the keys to conveying positive expectations; enforcing positive behavioral expectations; monitoring implementation; and support material regarding the multi-site approach and housing unit specific. Appendixes include: “Tier Expectations for Residents”; “Notice to All Residents: Expectations of Residents, and Expectations of Staff”; and “Inmate Behavior Response Continuum (Acting and Reacting to Inmate Behavior)”. Appendixes include copies of: “Defining and Conveying Expectations – Housing Unit Specific” 4 hour lesson plan (trainer’s guide), participant guide, and PowerPoint slides; and “Defining and Conveying Expectations – Multi-Unit Training” 6 hour lesson plan (trainer’s guide), participant guide, and PowerPoint slides.
The authors “sought to document knowledge, attitudes, and practices among a national sample of U.S. criminal justice leaders. In particular, we sought to understand the prevalence of innovation; the use of data and evidence to inform practice; the responses to disappointing results; and the barriers to widespread adoption of innovative practices” (p. 1). Six chapters follow an executive summary: introduction and methodology; respondent characteristics; prevalence of innovation; data-driven decision-making; barriers to innovation; and sources of new ideas. Fourty-six percent of respondents always use evidence-based decisionmaking, with 85% getting new information about criminal justice programs and/or reform initiatives from their colleagues.
While this report addresses the problems with the impact of austerity on the prison system in the United Kingdom, it offers a valuable source of information on how to combat budget cuts in correctional spending. “This paper revisits the much argued question about the relative merits of prison and community sentences. We decided to write it out of a sense that debate has become trapped in an unproductive Punch and Judy fight about which of the two sentences ‘works’ better. To anticipate our conclusions, assessed in narrow instrumental terms the arguments are more finely balanced than either side usually recognise. However, pro- and anti-prison camps are really arguing – in an oblique sort of way – about broader values, and if this paper helps to promote a more mature debate about penal policy that recognises this, we shall have succeeded in our task.” (p. 5). Sections of this publication include: introduction; who is right—general deterrence, the impact of punishment on the punished and differences in reconviction rates, keeping people who offender out of circulation and incapacitation, and cost-benefit analysis; and community or custodial sentences and what is their purpose.
Efforts in West Virginia "to employ a data-driven "justice reinvestment" approach to develop a statewide policy framework that would reduce spending on corrections and would reinvest savings in strategies to increase public safety and reduce recidivism" are described (p. 1). Sections of this report cover: background; summary of challenges; Justice Reinvestment Policy Framework; projected impacts of policy framework on savings, reinvestment, and assumptions; Goal 1--Strengthen-Community-Based Supervision, types of community-based supervision in West Virginia, understanding risk assessment, and three policy options; Goal 2—Improve Accountability—three policy options; Goal 3—Reduce Substance Use—three policy options. Net savings is estimated to be $116.3 million over the next five years.
“Perhaps more than any other state, Connecticut has absorbed the growing body of knowledge about youth development, adolescent brain research and delinquency, adopted its lessons, and used the information to fundamentally re-invent its approach to juvenile justice. As a result, Connecticut’s system today is far and away more successful, more humane, and more cost-effective than it was 10 or 20 years ago. This report will describe, dissect, and draw lessons from Connecticut’s striking success in juvenile justice reform for other states and communities seeking similar progress” (p. 1). Sections of this report include: introduction—seizing the opportunity; seven major accomplishments made in Connecticut’s juvenile justice reform; timeline of change—transformation over two decades—a deeply flawed system (1992), growing attention but few solutions (2002), and a transformed system (2012); Connecticut’s array of evidence-based family interventions; keys to success—state of change, Connecticut’s chemistry for reform; and lessons learned—strategies that could help boost success in other jurisdictions.
This practice guide will stress that efforts to safely reduce the inappropriate detention of low-risk girls must be rooted in JDAI’s [Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative’s eight] core strategies, but with an added intentional focus on applying those core strategies to girls’ unique needs and circumstances. These efforts require a strong and collaborative leadership team with the will and capacity to undertake meaningful reforms in the treatment of girls at the detention stage. The work must be rooted in careful analysis of detention management reports and individual case files to pinpoint policies or practices that may result in girls’ inappropriate or unnecessary detention, and they must lead to action as local leaders design, test and continually revise new strategies to meet girls’ needs (p. 2-3). Four chapters comprise this publication: understanding the challenge—the importance of focusing on girls in detention; getting started; using data to reduce inappropriate detention of girls; and developing a Girls Detention Reform Work Plan. Appendixes provide: Barnes County quantitative data analysis, Barnes County case file review, Girls Detention Facility Self-Assessment, and Making Detention Reform Work for Girls Research Question Worksheet.