effective sentencing and corrections policies

33
1 Lindsey Carlson Senior Associate Public Safety Performance Project Effective Sentencing and Corrections Policies

Upload: others

Post on 16-Apr-2022

4 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Effective Sentencing and Corrections Policies

1

Lindsey Carlson Senior Associate Public Safety Performance Project

Effective Sentencing and Corrections Policies

Page 2: Effective Sentencing and Corrections Policies

www.pewcenteronthestates.com

America’s Prison Population at an All Time High

National incarceration rate

1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

2.3 Million and Counting

Page 3: Effective Sentencing and Corrections Policies

www.pewcenteronthestates.com

1 in 33adults undersome form of correctional control

1 in 104adults now behind bars

Page 4: Effective Sentencing and Corrections Policies

4

Correctional Costs Have Exploded

1987 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

$51Billion

General FundExpenditures

for Corrections$10.6

Billion

$20.2Billion

Inflation Adjusted

Page 5: Effective Sentencing and Corrections Policies

5

Prisons Dominate Spending

CORRECTIONAL SPENDINGCORRECTIONAL POPULATION

PrisonsPrisons Probation

and Parole

Page 6: Effective Sentencing and Corrections Policies

6

America’s National Recidivism Rate Remains High

More than 4 out of 10 adult American offenders return to prison within three years of their

release.1999 - 2004

2004 - 2007

Page 7: Effective Sentencing and Corrections Policies

7

North Dakota Prison Population

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1983 1988 1993 1998 2003 2008

DOC Jurisdiction Population (1983-2012)

Page 8: Effective Sentencing and Corrections Policies

8

North Dakota Prison Population and Crime Trends

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

20000

1990 1995 2000 2005

Prison Population and Total Index Crime (1990-2009)

Total IndexCrime

PrisonPopulation

Page 9: Effective Sentencing and Corrections Policies

9

Public Safety Performance Project

Improving Public Safety

Holding Offenders Accountable

Controlling Corrections Costs

Page 10: Effective Sentencing and Corrections Policies

10

Research

www.pewpublicsafety.org

Page 11: Effective Sentencing and Corrections Policies

11

VT

HI

NH

MA

RI

CT

NJ

DE

MD

DC

MEWA

MT ND

SD

MNOR

IDWY

COUT

NV

CA

AZ NM

NE

KS

OK

TX

AK

LA

AR

MO

IA

WIMI

IL INOH

PA

NY

WVVA

KY

TN

MS AL GA

SC

NC

FL

2014 States

Prior Comprehensive Reforms

Technical Assistance

Page 12: Effective Sentencing and Corrections Policies

12

Strong Public Support for Reform

Source: Pew Center on the States, Public Opinion

Page 13: Effective Sentencing and Corrections Policies

13

Case Study: South Dakota

Key FindingsHigh proportion of inmates serving time for nonviolent crimes

More inmates serving time for drug possession than any other offense

Increasing number of inmates are parole violators

Page 14: Effective Sentencing and Corrections Policies

14

Case Study: South DakotaSB 70: The Public Safety Improvement Act

Strengthen Offender Supervision and Accountability

• Focus treatments on recidivism reduction• HOPE and tribal population pilot

probation programs• Earned discharge from probation

Focus Prison Space on Violent and Career Criminals

• Created more targeted punishments for certain property crimes

• Established presumptive probation for some nonviolent felonies

Ensure the Quality and Sustainability of Reforms

• Established an oversight council• Required regular reporting on

performance measures• Required fiscal impact statements

Page 15: Effective Sentencing and Corrections Policies

15

Case Study: South Dakota

Page 16: Effective Sentencing and Corrections Policies

16

Common Drivers of Prison Growth

Sentencing Policies and Practices• Increased use of prison in lieu of probation or

diversion

• Longer sentences by courts

• Actual time served increasing

Probation and Parole Revocations• Technical revocations often account for more than

50% of revocations

Page 17: Effective Sentencing and Corrections Policies

17

Common Drivers of Prison Growth

Lack of Community Supervision and Support• Insufficient supervision and services for released

offenders• Inaccurate or lack of risk assessment tools to target

supervision and reentry resources

Parole System Delays and Denials• Reduced parole grant rates• Long delays in release due to release procedures

Page 18: Effective Sentencing and Corrections Policies

18

VT

HI

NH

MA

RI

CT

NJ

DE

MD

DC

MEWA

MT ND

SD

MNOR

IDWY

COUT

NV

CA

AZ NM

NE

KS

OK

TX

AK

LA

AR

MO

IA

WIMI

IL INOH

PA

NY

WVVA

KY

TN

MS AL GA

SC

NC

FL

VT

HI

NH

MA

RI

CT

NJ

DE

MD

DC

MEWA

MT ND

SD

MNOR

IDWY

COUT

NV

CA

AZ NM

NE

KS

OK

TX

AK

LA

AR

MO

IA

WIMI

IL INOH

PA

NY

WVVA

KY

TN

MS AL GA

SC

NC

FL

+51%

+54%

+83% +69%

+75%

+166%

+86%

+91%+51%

+79%

>50%

Increases

VT

HI

NH

MA

RI

CT

NJ

DE

MD

DC

MEWA

MT ND

SD

MNOR

IDWY

COUT

NV

CA

AZ NM

NE

KS

OK

TX

AK

LA

AR

MO

IA

WIMI

IL INOH

PA

NY

WVVA

KY

TN

MS AL GA

SC

NC

FL

+51%

+54%

+83% +69%

+75%

+166%

+86%

+91%+51%

+79%

>50%

Increases

26-50%

+32%

+27%

+33%

+32%

+28%

+33%

+26%

+32%

+38%

*

* The most recent year of available data is 2005

VT

HI

NH

MA

RI

CT

NJ

DE

MD

DC

MEWA

MT ND

SD

MNOR

IDWY

COUT

NV

CA

AZ NM

NE

KS

OK

TX

AK

LA

AR

MO

IA

WIMI

IL INOH

PA

NY

WVVA

KY

TN

MS AL GA

SC

NC

FL

+51%

+54%

+83% +69%

+75%

+166%

+86%

+91%+51%

+79%

>50%

Increases

26-50%

+32%

+27%

+33%

+32%

+28%

+33%

+26%

+32%

+38%

*

0-25%

+17%

+11%

+18%

+12%

+7%

* The most recent year of available data is 2005

* +8%

+2%

VT

HI

NH

MA

RI

CT

NJ

DE

MD

DC

MEWA

MT ND

SD

MNOR

IDWY

COUT

NV

CA

AZ NM

NE

KS

OK

TX

AK

LA

AR

MO

IA

WIMI

IL INOH

PA

NY

WVVA

KY

TN

MS AL GA

SC

NC

FL

+51%

+54%

+83% +69%

+75%

+166%

+86%

+91%+51%

+79%

>50%

Increases

26-50%

+32%

+27%

+33%

+32%

+28%

+33%

+26%

+32%

+38%

*

0-25%

+17%

+11%

+18%

+12%

+7%

* The most recent year of available data is 2005

+8%

+2%

Decreases0-25%

-14%

-24%

-6%

-14%

-25%

-6%

-9%

-15%

*

No Data

Prison Growth: Increased Length of StayChange 1990-2009

Source: The Pew Charitable Trusts

Page 19: Effective Sentencing and Corrections Policies

19

What does the latest science tell us about what works to reduce recidivism?

Page 20: Effective Sentencing and Corrections Policies

20

• Focus on high-risk offenders

• Frontload resources

• Use swift & certain sanctions

• Incorporate rewards and incentives

• Combine surveillance with treatment

Proven Principles for Reducing Recidivism

Page 21: Effective Sentencing and Corrections Policies

21

Common Policy OptionsSentencing Policies and Practices

Reclassify/redefine drug and property offensesExpand eligibility for community corrections, drug courtsUse valid risk and need assessment tools at sentencing

Page 22: Effective Sentencing and Corrections Policies

22

Sentencing Policies and Practices: State Examples

Kentucky• Established a proportionate scale of penalties

to ensure penalties for serious drug traffickers are more severe than for those who sell small amounts for personal use

Georgia• Separated a single burglary sentencing range

into 2 degrees to differentiate between burglaries of residential and commercial dwellings

Arkansas• Revised drug statutes to distinguish between

drug users and career criminals by enhancing penalties for serious offenses and revising felony definitions for simple possession.

Page 23: Effective Sentencing and Corrections Policies

23

Common Policy OptionsProbation and Parole Revocations

Use Swift, Certain and Proportional Responses to Technical Violations:• Adopt graduated sanctions• Incorporate incentives and rewards for

complianceAdopt administrative use of jail sanctions for technical violationsCap revocation time for technical violations

Page 24: Effective Sentencing and Corrections Policies

24

Probation and Parole Revocations:State Examples

Kentucky • Created two pilot projects based on the HOPE model

NorthCarolina

• Limited incarceration time for technical violations to 3 months, but offenders who commit new crimes or abscond can be revoked

South Carolina

• Authorizes Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon Services to impose administrative sanctions for technical violations

Page 25: Effective Sentencing and Corrections Policies

25

What is HOPE?

• Created in 2004 by Judge Steven Alm of Hawaii’s First Circuit

• Swift and certain sanctions for probationers

• Aims to reduce recidivism

• Rigorously evaluated

Page 26: Effective Sentencing and Corrections Policies

26Source: Hawken and Kleiman

Hawaii’s HOPE Program Outcomes

47%

21%

46%

13%

23%

9%

15%

7%

HopeControl

Swift, Certain, and Proportional: Research

Page 27: Effective Sentencing and Corrections Policies

27

Common Policy OptionsCommunity Supervision and Support

Reinvest savings into community-based treatmentUse risk-needs assessments in supervisionFocus resources on high-risk offenders and target criminogenic needsOffer incentives for agencies, offenders

Page 28: Effective Sentencing and Corrections Policies

28

Community Supervision: State Examples

SouthCarolina

• Adopted a validated risk and needs assessment in probation and parole supervision, and in parole release decisions.

Texas• Reinvested $241 million to expand in-

prison and community-based substance abuse and mental health treatment and diversion programs

Kentucky• Reinvested savings achieved by drug law

changes into evidence-based community interventions to reduce recidivism.

Page 29: Effective Sentencing and Corrections Policies

29

Community Supervision: State Examples

SouthDakota

• Utilized evidence-based practices to better direct resources to high-risk offenders.

Arkansas• Required Department of Community

Corrections to conduct risk-needs assessment at intake and use the results to set the conditions of supervision and assign programming.

Page 30: Effective Sentencing and Corrections Policies

30

Common Policy Options

Release and Parole ProceduresEarned early release or reduced lengths of supervision Mandate re-entry supervisionStreamline parole proceduresExpand parole eligibility

Page 31: Effective Sentencing and Corrections Policies

31

Release and Parole Procedures: State Examples

Arkansas• Allowed the Department of Community

Corrections to discharge probationers and parolees at up to ½ of their supervision term if they comply with court-ordered conditions.

South Dakota

• Created earned discharge credits of 30 days for every month of compliance for offenders on parole.

Page 32: Effective Sentencing and Corrections Policies

32

Release and Parole Procedures:State Examples

SouthCarolina

• Requires non-violent inmates who have been incarcerated for at least two years be released to mandatory supervision 180 days before their release date.

Kentucky• Requires 6 months of supervision for

offenders who would otherwise be discharged without supervision except for serious offenders, who will be supervised for 1 year upon release.

Page 33: Effective Sentencing and Corrections Policies

33

Lindsey Carlson Senior Associate Public Safety Performance Project

Effective Sentencing and Corrections Policies