The chart available at this website provides “information on statutory guidance for setting pretrial release conditions” by state. Data presented includes the state, regulating statute, presumption of personal recognizance or unsecured appearance bond, least restrictive conditions required, and whether a risk assessment is required.
This report, “based upon a statutory review of geriatric release provisions…offers recommendations for responding to the disparities between geriatric release policies and practice” (p.2). Agencies will want to look this document over to see if they are compliant with their own geriatric release laws. These sections follow an executive summary: introduction; background; state approaches to releasing older inmates vary; examining the gap between intent and impact; recommendations; and conclusion.
"This report summarizes the CSG Justice Center’s findings and describes the data-driven policy framework that was provided to state policymakers and the legislation that was ultimately enacted to address key issues in Hawaii. The 10 distinct policy options outlined in this report are organized around the 3 priorities that emerged from the analyses" (p. 1). Sections included report are: background; summary of challenges; justice reinvestment framework; projected outcomes; key findings—crime and arrest, pretrial, sentencing, corrections, and probation and post-release supervision; Objective 1—Increase efficiency; Objective 2—Reduce Recidivism; Objective 3—Ensure Accountability; understanding risk assessment; and the projected impact of the enacted legislation.
"If implemented, the package of policies outlined in the framework has the potential to generate significant savings in Idaho and estimates a 15-percent reduction in recidivism. By slowing the growth in the state prison population between 2015 and 2019, these policies will help the state avoid at least $288 million in construction and operating costs that would otherwise be needed to accommodate the forecasted growth. To achieve these outcomes, a portion of the expected savings must be reinvested in funding for training probation and parole officers, providing community-based treatment services to people on probation and parole supervision who are at a higher risk of reoffending, and implementing quality assurance measures." Sections of this report cover: overview of the data-driven justice reinvestment approach; summary of three challenges and related strategic policy solutions; justice reinvestment policy framework; projected impact of justice reinvestment policy framework on Idaho's prison population; reinvestment; Challenge 1—A Revolving Door and five related policy strategies to "strengthen supervision practices and programs to reduce recidivism"; Challenge 2—Insufficient Use of Prison Space and four related policy strategies to "tailor sanctions for supervision violations, provide recidivism outcomes at sentencing, and structure parole to make more productive use of prison space"; and Challenge 3—Insufficient Oversight and four related policy strategies to "access, track, and ensure impact of recidivism-reduction strategies".
"Three years after North Carolina enacted justice reinvestment legislation, this report reviews the policies the state enacted and their impact on North Carolina’s correctional and criminal justice system. Through transforming the state’s probation system, reinventing how treatment is delivered, and expanding supervision, the state has seen declines in its prison population, the number of probation revocations, and releases from prison without supervision." Sections of this report include: background; transforming probation supervision; reinventing how treatment is funded and delivered; reserving prison space for the most serious offenders; crafting a win-win for counties and the state; supervising the reentry process; impact on the prison population, public safety, and costs; and summary of North Carolina's Justice Reinvestment Act.
"This report summarizes comprehensive analyses of sentencing, corrections, and arrests data presented to the Washington State Justice Reinvestment Taskforce. It outlines strategies and policy options to avert prison population growth by reducing property crime, holding offenders accountable with supervision, reinvesting to strengthen supervision policies and practices to reduce recidivism, and supporting victims of property crime. If implemented, the package of policies outlined in the framework has the potential to avert up to $291 million in prison construction and operating costs and reinvest $90 million by FY2021." Sections of this report cover: overview of the evidence-based, data-driven justice reinvestment approach; projected 6-year outcomes of justice reinvestment policy framework; a summary of the three challenges and strategic policy solutions; Washington State justice reinvestment policy framework; three goals; projected impact of justice reinvestment policy framework on Washington's prison population; reinvestment; Challenge One—High Property Crime and three related policy strategies to reduce property crime and support victims of property crime; Challenge 2—Limited Accountability and two related policy strategies to hold people convicted of property offenses accountable with supervision and, if needed, treatment; Challenge 3—Recidivism and two related policy strategies to reinvest savings from reduced corrections spending to strengthen supervision policies and practices to reduce recidivism; and sustainability.
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.
“Persons convicted of crime are subject to a wide variety of legal and regulatory sanctions and restrictions in addition to the sentence imposed by the court. These so- called “collateral consequences” of conviction have been promulgated with little coordination in disparate sections of state and federal codes, which makes it difficult for anyone to identify all of the penalties and disabilities that are triggered by conviction of a particular offense … Through the National Inventory, each jurisdiction’s collateral consequences will be made accessible to the public through a website that can be searched and sorted by categories and keywords. The website will make it possible for criminal and civil lawyers to determine which collateral consequences are triggered by particular categories of offenses, for affected individuals to understand the limits on their rights and opportunities, and for lawmakers and policy advocates to understand the full measure of a jurisdiction’s sanctions and disqualifications. It will also be possible through the website to perform inter-jurisdictional comparisons and national analyses.” Points of entry include: project description; User Guide Frequently Asked Questions; links to a bibliography and additional resources; and contact information.
“Since 2000, at least 29 states have taken steps to roll back mandatory sentences, with 32 bills passed in just the last five years. Most legislative activity has focused on adjusting penalties for nonviolent drug offenses through the use of one or a combination of the following reform approaches: 1) expanding judicial discretion through the creation of so-called “safety value” provisions, 2) limiting automatic sentence enhancements, and 3) repealing or revising mandatory minimum sentences. In this policy report, Vera’s Center on Sentencing and Corrections summarizes state-level mandatory sentencing reforms since 2000, raises questions about their impact, and offers recommendations to jurisdictions considering similar efforts.” This report contains these sections: introduction; background; new approaches to mandatory sentences; the impact of reforms; research and policy considerations; and future directions.
“State constitutions and statutes specify which defendants may be detained before trial … However, denial of release is not absolute. A court must make certain determinations before ordering detention … While state laws broadly provide for presumption of release, they also define who is and is not eligible for pretrial release, and under what conditions.” A chart showing pretrial release eligibility by state is available at this website. The chart shows the state and its governing statute, presumption of pretrial release (whether stated in the state constitution and/or in the statue), and when pretrial release may be denied (whether stated in the constitution and/or in the statute).