This Large Jail Network meeting took place January 30-February 1, 2005, in Longmont, Colorado. Contents of these proceedings include: NICs Core Competency Model Project: Preparing Leaders in Corrections for the Future by Robert Brown; Training as a Strategic Management Tool by Tom Reid; Legal Issues and Mentally Ill Inmates by Bill Collins; Mental Health Services in Jails: Identifying Problems by Joel A. Dvoskin; Informal Announcements by David Parrish; Mental Health Issues: Open Forum Discussion by Collins and Dvoskin; Announcements by Representatives of Professional Associations; Justice and the Revolving Door: the Jacksonville Experience in Recidivism Intervention by Gordon Bass; Data Technology: Management, Sharing and Mining by Tom Merkel; Corrections into the Next Decade: The Use of Data in Modern/Urban Jails by Scott Bradstreet; Implementing Core Values and Mission Statement by Robert Hinshaw; Discussion of Topics for the Next Meeting by Richard Geaither; meeting agenda; and meeting participant list.
This report is required reading for any agency seeking to develop effective education and/or substance abuse programming. Sections of this publication include: introduction; current conditions—the prison population is growing despite decrease in crime; effective correctional programming; education provides opportunities; education impacts recidivism; effective educational program principles; substance abuse programs save tax dollars; effective substance abuse treatment program principles; evidence-based substance abuse treatment practices; cost to benefit; and conclusion.
This report "[e]xamines the 5-year post-release offending patterns of persons released from state prisons in 2005 by offender characteristics, prior criminal history, and commitment offense. It provides estimates on the number and types of crimes former inmates commit both prior to their imprisonment and after release. The report includes different measures of recidivism, including a new arrest, court adjudication, conviction, and incarceration for either a new sentence or a technical violation. It also documents the extent to which the released prisoners committed crimes in states other than the one that released them." Highlights include: about two-thirds (67.8%) of released prisoners were arrested for a new crime within 3 years, and three-quarters (76.6%) were arrested within 5 years; a sixth (16.1%) of released prisoners were responsible for almost half (48.4%) of the nearly 1.2 million arrests that occurred in the 5-year follow-up period; and about 10.9% of released prisoners were arrested in a state other than the one that released them during the 5-year follow-up period.
“These checklists can help familiarize state leaders with key issues related to recidivism reduction, and help them honestly evaluate strengths and weaknesses in their reentry efforts through enhanced communication and coordination.” Checklists are targeted for each of the following—executive and legislative policymakers, state corrections administrators, and state reentry coordinators. The checklists can be used to educate policymakers, to assess the comprehensiveness of their recidivism strategies, for strategic planning, and for periodically auditing reentry efforts.
This brief, from the CSG Justice Center, is designed to help state and local officials better support young adults in the justice system. It identifies these young adults’ distinct needs, summaries the limited research available on what works to address these needs, and provides recommendations for steps that policymakers, juvenile and adult criminal justice agency leaders, researchers, and the field can take to improve outcomes" (website). Part I—How Young Adults Are Developmentally Different from Youth and Older Adults: how young adults are distinct from youth; how young adults are distinct from adults; and young adults by the numbers--arrest rates, incarceration rates, and recidivism rates. Part II—Opportunities and Challenges to Meeting Young Adults' Needs: young adults under justice system supervision have distinct needs and few programs exist that are proven to effectively meet these needs—criminal thinking and behavior, education, employment, mental health and substance use, and transition to independence; young adults face systemic barriers to meeting their needs—aging out of protective networks and lack of coordination across service systems, and collateral consequences. Part III—Recommendations: four recommendations; and promising models for young adults under justice system supervision—Multisystemic Therapy for Emerging Adults (MST-EA), and the Roca nonprofit organization in Massachusetts; and increasing cross-systems coordination to improve outcomes for young adults in Iowa—the Iowa Collaboration for Youth Development (ICYD).
This brief, from the CSG Justice Center, is designed to help state and local officials better support young adults in the justice system. It identifies these young adults’ distinct needs, summaries the limited research available on what works to address these needs, and provides recommendations for steps that policymakers, juvenile and adult criminal justice agency leaders, researchers, and the field can take to improve outcomes.
The responses of Harold W. Clarke, Justin Jones, Andrew A. Pallito, LaDonna H. Thompson, and Max Williams - the corrections directors from Virginia, Oklahoma, Vermont, Kentucky, and Oregon, respectively - regarding strategies and challenges they faced in reducing recidivism are reported. Other agencies can use these lessons learned to reduce their own recidivism. Topics discussed include: why corrections leaders are embracing recidivism reduction as a goal; where recidivism reduction fits with other goals; the potential for reasonable reductions in the recidivism rate when faced with decreasing resources for field supervision and post-release services; the degree to which the legislature expects corrections administrators to drive efforts in reducing statewide recidivism; the most important policy steps that states can take to reduce recidivism; the data needed to track progress in reducing recidivism and that data’s availability; and the appropriate role the federal government should take in supporting the reduction of recidivism at the state level.
This report is a great resource for those people looking for ideas on how to reduce statewide recidivism. It is highly worthwhile due to its data being current, coming from a diverse group of states, and showing that states can significantly reduce their recidivism rates. The statistics presented in this publication come from eight states – Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, and Wisconsin. A section is provided for each state that shows the degree to which recidivism has decreased and the strategies used by the state to achieve this reduction. Topics also covered include: comparing recidivism rates between states; certain practices that reduce recidivism; using a justice reinvestment approach; whether a decline in reincarceration rates are associated with increased public safety; tracking and reporting recidivism; the Second Chance Act—investing in program innovation and system-level change; and the remarkable reduction of recidivism in California.
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.
This article describes a innovative partnership between local and state agencies that can be used by other states to reduce costs associated with justice-involved juveniles. “Beginning in 1994, Ohio implemented RECLAIM Ohio, a performance-based funding partnership between the state and local governments that expanded counties' use of effective, cost-efficient community-based options for lower-risk juvenile offenders. The program has helped cut recidivism rates and saved the state millions of dollars.” Sections of this brief cover: program background; reforms enacted—authorizing legislation, incentive funding, program support, standardized tools, focused expansion, and evidence-based programs; program impacts- commitments down, costs reduced by $11 to $45 depending on placement type, public safety improved, and lower recidivism rates.