PBMS is an automated web-based system developed by ASCA for collecting, managing, and sharing accurate adult prison-based corrections data that will enable timely and sound decision-making by correctional administrators to ensure institutional safety, to enhance the security of our facilities for prisoners and staff, and to maximize the effectiveness and efficiency of correctional resources. This manual provides the user all the tools necessary to use PBMS.
“These documents comprise the instrument that auditors will use to audit the U.S. Department of Justice's PREA Standards for Prisons and Jails, pending final revisions.” Elements comprising this instrument are: “Process Map” describing the audit process from start to finish; “Checklist of Documentation”; “Pre-Audit Questionnaire”; “Auditor Compliance Tool” used to determine PREA compliance; “Instructions for PREA Audit Tour” of the facility; “Interview Protocols” for Agency Head or Designee, Warden or Designee, PREA Compliance Manager/Coordinator, Specialized Staff, General Staff, and Inmates/Detainees: “Auditor Report” template; and the “PREA Compliance Measures Handbook: Prisons and Jails”.
"People leaving prison often return to the community lacking health insurance and thus access to appropriate health care. Many have mental illness, substance abuse, and other health issues that need treatment and compound reintegration challenges. Left untreated, they are at risk of falling into a cycle of relapse, reoffending, and reincarceration. Providing Medicaid coverage upon release has the potential to improve continuity of care that may interrupt this cycle. This report examines whether efforts to enroll people in Medicaid prior to their release from prison are successful in generating health insurance coverage after release. Urban Institute (Urban) researchers analyzed data from Oregon’s pre-Affordable Care Act (ACA) Medicaid program to determine the extent to which released prisoners successfully gained coverage" (p. 1). The results from this study my help your state in ensuring continuity of care for newly released offenders.
This manual provides guidance that “will enable an agency staffing administrator to set up an agency staffing analysis unit and produce a staffing analysis report for an entire agency” (p.xi). Chapters contained in this publication are: introduction -- correctional staffing issues; securing staff deployment policy; two models for managing the security staffing function; agency staffing unit; basic tasks of a staffing analysis; orchestrating the staffing analysis; agency and facility characteristics that influence staffing; operations and activities schedules that influence staffing; developing the shift relief factor; security post planning; special guidelines for evaluating housing units; the impact of staff scheduling on staffing; staffing calculations; developing a staffing report; implementing recommendations and monitoring results; staffing considerations for women’s correctional facilities; and staffing considerations for medical and mental health units. Pertinent forms are also included.
Tasks, assessments, and technology used in prisoner intake systems are examined. Following an executive summary, this report has seven chapters: introduction; national overview of facility characteristics, facility functions, intake components and personnel responsibilities, and obstacles to intake assessments; four chapters review select agency's corrections population, intake facilities, intake process, processing time and flexibility, classification, and needs assessment -- one chapter per Department of Correction(s) from Colorado, Washington (state), Pennsylvania, and North Carolina; and implications of the research. Appendixes include: "Admission Data Summary" and "Diagnostic Narrative Summary" forms (Colorado DOC); "Risk Management Identification Worksheet" form (Washington DOC); and Pennsylvania DOC "Classification Summary."
"Prisons are not prepared to respond to and recover from natural and manmade disasters. However, prisons must take appropriate actions to save lives and safeguard their at risk populations during disasters, because they are legally responsible for the welfare of prisoners. Disasters can lead to a violation of prisoners’ constitutional and statutory rights and pose several types of injury (physical, emotional, mental, health), as well as public safety risks. There is a broad spectrum of concerns when responding to and recovering from disasters at prisons. Specific concerns include the standards of care for prisoners, the dispersion of prisoners, records management, and staffing shortages. Other problems include shortfalls in the resources required to continue essential functions at correctional facilities and the resources necessary to carry out protective action decisions (i.e. decisions made in a timely manner to protect public health and safety) during the response and recovery phases. These concerns are especially significant because many prisons throughout the nation house thousands of prisoners, which can make the emergency response and recovery process much more challenging. This study seeks to better understand why prisons are unprepared, it demonstrates why prisons should be included in emergency preparedness planning, and it identifies what policy and planning recommendations, as well as corrective actions need to be made to ensure prisons are integrated into the emergency management process" (8-9). Three "papers" comprise this dissertation. Paper1—Understanding why Prisons are Unprepared to Respond to and Recover from Disasters: introduction; legal rights of prisoners; gaps in the law; and conclusion. Paper 2—Assessing the Needs of Prison Capabilities during Disasters: introduction; study design; results—response rate, facilities surveyed regarding experience with disasters, emergency management departments, influenza specialty care units, and policy, trainings and other resources, and caveats; discussion; conclusion and next steps. Paper 3—Recommendations for Improving Disaster Preparedness in Prisons: introduction; seven recommendations; and conclusion.
This study 'demonstrated that there is not always a discernible relationship between population and spend'ing shifts from one part of the system to another. Policy changes that aim to cut spending on prisons do not necessarily have the expected impact on community corrections populations or spending. Larger fiscal realities, other legislative changes, and factors outside of policymakers' control can upset predictions of a policy's impact' (p. 2). Sections contained in this report include: introduction; methodology; summary of findings'prison populations and expenditures, and community corrections populations and expenditures; and conclusion'policy implications and fiscal realities. An appendix covers the structure of community corrections.
Answers to frequently asked questions about Security Threat Groups (STGs) or prison gangs are provided. Topics covered include: what a STG is; the 12 STGs recognized in Texas prisons; why an offender joins a STG; what the indicators of STG membership are; how STGs recruit members; what administrative segregation is; what a STG can do to your family if your son/daughter joins; what STG members and/or their family and friends face upon their release from prison; and what to do to get out of a STG.
"Almost by definition, incarceration separates individuals from their families, but for decades this country has also placed unnecessary burdens on the family members left behind. Certainly in practice and perhaps by design, prisons are lonely places. Analyzing little-used government data, we find that visits are the exception rather than the rule. Less than a third of people in state prisons receive a visit from a loved one in a typical month … Despite the breadth of research showing that visits and maintaining family ties are among the best ways to reduce recidivism, the reality of having a loved one behind bars is that visits are unnecessarily grueling and frustrating" (p. 1). This report is an excellent introduction to the challenges families face visiting their loved ones in prison and ways state policymakers can reduce these hardships. Five recommendations cover: prison time as a last resort; adoption of visitation policies that promote family visitation; reduction of prison and jail telephone costs; suggestions from inmates and their families on how to make visitation easier; and alternatives to prison expansion.
Anyone concerned with keeping ex-offenders out of prison or jail, be they correctional professionals or concerned community members, should read this publication. “This report seeks to elevate the public discussion about recidivism, prompting policy makers and the public to dig more deeply into the factors that impact rates of return to prison, and into effective strategies for reducing them” (p. 1). Sections following an executive summary are: introduction—recidivism as a performance measure, overview of the study, and what a recidivism rate is; a closer look at recidivism rates—new figures show steady national recidivism rate, states vary widely, and how recidivism rates have changed; unpacking the numbers—how sentencing impacts recidivism rate, how community corrections policy impacts recidivism rate, and examples of how three states dealt with recidivism; and improving public safety and cutting correctional costs—strategies for successfully reducing recidivism, resources for developing effective reentry and supervision strategies, and a promising start.