recidivism reduction: community-based supervision alternatives to incarceration

7/21/2019 Recidivism Reduction: Community-Based Supervision Alternatives to Incarceration

1/12

Summary

cross the United States, habitual oenders plague the

countrys courts, prisons and community-supervision pro-

grams. With high rates of recidivism, the broken system wastes

taxpayer dollars, threatens the safety of our communies and

demoralizes vicms by leaving many oenders unaccountable.

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal summed up the situaon well

when he said of Louisiana: Every year we end up locking up

about 15,000 of our people in prison. By the way we release

another 15,000. We end up re-arresng over half of them in

the rst ve years.1Louisianas situaon is far from uncommon.

The American Legislave Exchange Council (ALEC) model policy,

The Recidivism Reducon Act,oers tested and proven meth-

ods that empower lawmakers to combat recidivism by instut-

ing and maintaining correcons pracces and programs that are

proven to work.

The Problem

ore than four in every ten oenders released from pris-

on are back behind bars within three years of release.2

These recidivism rates contribute to the exploding costs of cor-

A PUBLICATION OF THE AMERICAN LEGISLATIVE EXCHANGE COUNCIL

STATE

FACTOR

the

alec.org

Recidivism Reduction: Community-Based SupervisionAlternatives to Incarceration

To learn more about how the American

Legislatve Exchange Councilhelps developinnovave soluons in partnership with

lawmakers and business leaders, or to become

a member, please visit www.alec.org.

American Legislatve Exchange Council

2900 Crystal Drive, Suite 600

Arlington, VA 22202

Tel: 703.373.0933

Fax: 703.373.0927

www.alec.org

recons, higher crime and the revolving door of oenders. Ajurisdicons recidivism rate is most simply dened as the rate

at which oenders released from jail or prison relapse into crim-

inal behavior within a set amount of me. In many jurisdicons,

it is one of the key drivers of prison populaon growth.

In an eort to reduce recidivism, lawmakers have oen in-

creased the funding of the same broken programs with only the

APRIL 2015

A

M
http://www.alec.org/model-legislation/recidivism-reduction-act/http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_2/alec.orghttp://../Applications/Adobe%20InDesign%20CS6/Adobe%20InDesign%20CS6.app/Contents/MacOS/InDesign%20ClipboardScrap1.pdfhttp://alec.org/http://alec.org/http://../Applications/Adobe%20InDesign%20CS6/Adobe%20InDesign%20CS6.app/Contents/MacOS/InDesign%20ClipboardScrap1.pdfhttp://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_2/alec.orghttp://www.alec.org/model-legislation/recidivism-reduction-act/


2/12

THE STATE FACTOR

2 AMERICAN LEGISLATIVE EXCHANGE COUNCIL

hope not the likelihood of improved results. Simply throw-

ing more money at the system will not solve its problems. In-

stead, policymakers must demand that funding is allocated to

programs that are proven to work; in this case, programs that

are proven to reduce recidivism. The Recidivism Reducon Act

ensures genuine accountability of government programs, pro-

tects communies by lowering recidivism rates and providesthe highest public safety return on taxpayers investment.

The Solution

n response to record-level violent crime rates in the late

1980s and early 1990s, policymakers at all levels of gov-

ernment got tough on crime by passing legislaon calling for

broad mandatory minimum sentences, such as three strikes

laws, and adopng strategies that called for the arrest and pros-

ecuon of all crimes large and small.

Since then, the United States has seen a decline in crime. The

number of vicms of violent crime in America has dropped

from 758.2 per 100,000 in 1991 to 367.9 per 100,000 in 2013.3

The relaonship between the rates of incarceraon and crime

is complex, and experts aribute the decline in crime rate to

a variety of factors including populaon demographics, 1990s

economic growth and new policing strategies. Some esmates

aribute approximately 25 percent of the decline in crime rate

during the 1990s to increased imprisonment, while others ap-

proximate that increased imprisonment accounts for about 6

percent of the decline.4,5

These policies of mass incarceraon came at a high cost; tax-

payers now spend $80 billion per year on the criminal jusce

system.6In addion to the economic costs of high incarceraon

rates, the societal costs such as broken families, interrupted

lives and permanent criminal records, are many.

Unfortunately, this enormous investment has failed to deliver

proporonate public safety returns. Forty percent of oenders

released from prison wind up back behind bars for violang the

terms of their supervision or comming a new oense.

In response, many states have implemented evidence-based

programs to reduce recidivism, maintain public safety and lim-

it correcons costs. Data and research show that communies

can be beer protected by reserving lengthy prison sentences

for violent and serious oenders, while holding low-level of-

fenders accountable through community-based supervision

pracces and programs that are shown to produce results. If the

criminal jusce system can safely supervise certain oenders in

the community, those individuals can remain with their families,

hold a job and contribute to societyand America can slow itscostly addicon to incarceraon.

ALEC members developed The Recidivism Reducon Act, which

implements the best of these evidence-based pracces to im-

prove public safety outcomes across the country.

In addition to the economic costs

of high incarceration rates, the

societal costs such as broken families,

interrupted lives and permanentcriminal records, are many.

If the criminal justice system can

safely supervise certain offenders in

the community, those individuals

can remain with their families, hold

a job and contribute to societyand

America can slow its costly addiction

to incarceration.

I


3/12

THE STATE FACTOR 3

RECIDIVISM REDUCTION

Requires within four years a certain percentage of oenders be supervised in accordance with evidence-based pracces

Examples include: risk and needs assessment, individualized case plans and graduated sancons

Requires within four years a certain percentage of state funds for oender programming be spent on programs that are

evidence-based

Requires community correcons agencies to improve policies and pracces for crime vicms

Requires agencies to provide employee training on evidence-based pracces

Sets aside a poron of agency funds for research on program eecveness

The Recidivism Reduction Act:

Why it Works

esearch and pracce by a variety of stakeholders have

idened new strategies and policies that slow the rate

at which oenders return to criminal behavior. The Recidivism

Reducon Act and similar reforms implement evidence-based

programs such as graduated sancons and personalized case

programs informed by an oenders risk and needs assessment.

These reforms measure outcomes to ensure policies are work-

ing as intended to reduce recidivism and protect public safety.

The following aspects of The Recidivism Reducon Act, taken to-

gether, can safely supervise low-level oenders in the commu-

nity, slow the rate at which oenders return behind bars aer

their release and, ulmately, protect our communies.

>> Evidence-Based Practices

To enable measureable success and ensure accountability

in the system, programs and pracces should be grounded

in methods proven to achieve results. Implemenng evi-

dence-based pracces in criminal jusce programs has de-

creased crime by an average of 10 to 20 percent, while pro-

grams that are not evidence-based saw no decrease and even

a slight increase in crime.7

Many state statutes and administrave regulaons specify

that certain correconal services and programs must be evi-

dence-based or that a specic percentage of the budget must

be used for evidence-based programming. In 2003, Oregon

passed legislaon that required at least 75 percent of all state

programming funds to be spent on evidence-based programs.8

Research on the eecveness of Oregons programs informed

methods to reduce the number of oenders violang the terms

of their supervision. For example, Oregon found that drug

courts reduced recidivism by 26 percent.9 Previously, policy-

makers depended on tesmony by advocates and bureaucrats

to determine where and how to allocate funds. Now lawmakers

in Oregon can allocate money to programs based on the eec-

veness of each program, and can hold funding and programs

accountable for real results.

R

MODELPOLICY


4/12

THE STATE FACTOR


al programs should respond to an individuals specic needs in

order to have the best chance at rehabilitaon. For example, if

an oender has a substance use disorder, supervision programs

should be aimed at treang that disorder.

>> Individualized Case Plans

The Recidivism Reducon Act minimizes the one-size-ts-all

approach that is oen found in the criminal jusce system. It

instead provides individualized case plans for each oender

based on their criminogenic needs and risk level. The individ-

ualized case plan helps ensure oenders and their supervising

ocers focus their me, energy and resources on acvies

that are most likely to reduce the likelihood of future criminal

behavior. Individualized plans address the dierent needs of

each oender, whether it is housing assistance, mental health

treatment, anger management, addicon treatment, or someother program. Plans should couple surveillance and treat-

mentwhich is proven to be more eecve than surveillance

aloneand be combined with more exibility for the parole or

probaon ocer to modify terms of supervision in response to

the oenders behavior.12

Some jurisdicons incorporate the individualized case plan into

a signed agreement between the oender and their supervision

ocer known as a behavioral contract. The contract approach

can boost the eecveness of an individualized case plan by

requiring the oender to discuss and agree to expectaonsset forth in the individualized plan and by outlining the conse-

quences of violaons of supervision.

>> Management of Size and Nature of CaseloadsThe size of caseloads for parole and probaon ocers should

reect the level of risk and the individual needs of the su-

pervised oenders. Caseload size should also reect an anal-

ysis of the workload and available resources of the agency.

Varying caseload size based on the risk prole of oenders

allows probaon and parole ocers to focus their resources

on higher-risk oenders, and use less intense supervision forlow-risk oenders.

Many jurisdicons are also adopng geographically based

caseloads known as place-based supervision. Rather than

meeng with oenders in bureaucrac and oen far-removed

government buildings, supervision ocers work with oenders

Te Recidivism Reduction Act

minimizes the one-size-fits-all

approach that is often found in thecriminal justice system.

>> Risk and Needs Assessment

Correconal programs are most eecve at reducing an oend-

ers likelihood of re-oense when they accurately assess the

oenders risk and needs and use that assessment to assign su-

pervision levels and programming.

Certain factors such as age and criminal history can help deter-

mine the likelihood that an oender will reoend and therefore

can help to assign an appropriate risk level for each oender.

Using risk and needs assessments to ascribe risk levels and

determine oender supervision condions allows community

correcons agencies to more eciently allocate resources and

concentrate on the most serious oenders. The assignment of

an oender to the correct supervision level is crucial. Research

shows that too much supervision of low-risk oenders is likely

to lead to worse outcomes.10High-risk oenders, on the other

hand, need more intensive supervision to reduce their likeli-hood of re-oense.

In addion to an assessment of an oenders risk of re-oense,

risk and needs assessments also measure an oenders specif-

ic criminogenic needsthe crime-producing factors that are

strongly correlated with risk of criminal behavior.11Correcon-


5/12

THE STATE FACTOR 5


directly in the oenders communies. By supervising oenders

where they live, probaon and parole ocers can foster rela-

onships with an oenders friends and family, become familiar

with local resources and high-risk areas and develop a deeper

understanding of the challenges they face. This beer posionssupervision ocers to manage their caseloads and provide

higher levels of treatment and supervision.

>> Graduated Sanctions

Research has shown that proporonate, swi and certain sanc-

ons can increase oender compliance and save taxpayer dol-

lars by helping to prevent long and costly prison stays for minor

violaons. The immediate and certain response to a violaon of

the condions of supervision helps reduce the mentality that

oenders can break the rules without consequences. In addi-

on, posive reinforcement, such as rewards, can incenvizeoenders to stay on track.

The pracce is used in many jurisdicons to reduce crime and

drug use among oenders supervised in the community. In Ha-

waii, Judge Steven Alm instuted a successful swi and certain

sancons system for probaon violaonsHawaiis Opportuni-

ty Probaon with Enforcement (HOPE) Court. Parcipants in the

HOPE Court were 55 percent less likely to be arrested for a new

crime, 72 percent less likely to use drugs and 53 percent less

likely to have their probaon revoked than nonparcipants. 13

>> Outcome and Performance Measurements

Finally, all community-based supervision programs should un-

dergo regular evaluaon to ensure they are successful in their

goal of reintegrang oenders into society. The Recidivism Re-

ducon Act requires a poron of the correcon agencys bud-

get to be used for data collecon, analysis and research. The

appraisal of the eecveness of the agencys programs and

pracces is a crical component of the use of evidence-based

pracces in community-based supervision. Yearly reporng re-

quirements on what programs are working or oversight councils

established to monitor progress are necessary to gauge successand ensure community-based supervision programs are per-

forming as intended.

Hand-in-hand with the monitoring and reporng of outcomes

must be the appropriaon of funds to only the programs that

work. By providing praconers and lawmakers with data upon

which to base funding and resource allocaon decisions, the

performance measurement of programs and pracces ensures

taxpayers are geng the most public safety per taxpayer dollar.

Throwing money at a broken system will only perpetuate itsproblems. Policymakers cannot allow public safety spending to

go unevaluated because the protecon of our communies is

so vital. Rather, a careful eye must be turned to these programs

because they are so important.

All community-based supervision

programs should undergo regular

evaluation to ensure they are successful

in their goal of reintegrating offenders

into society.


6/12

THE STATE FACTOR


Recidivism Reduction at Work inNorth Carolina

n 2010, the number of inmates in North Carolina state pris-

ons had risen 27 percent over 10 years while correcons

spending skyrocketed by 49 percent to more than $1.3 billion

per year.14The state faced a projected prison populaon growth

of an addional 10 percent and an esmated $378 million in

addional costs by Fiscal Year 2020.15 In response, the North

Carolina General Assembly worked with state leaders and di-

verse criminal jusce stakeholders to study the correcons pop-

ulaon and the driving factors behind the increase. The state

found that more than half of people entering prison were pro-

baoners who violated the terms of supervision. The state alsofound substance use disorder treatment opons were spread

thinly across the probaon populaon and 15,000 convicted

felons were leaving prison every year with absolutely no super-

vision.16As a result of these ndings, the North Carolina General

Assembly passed comprehensive criminal jusce reformthe

Jusce Reinvestment Act of 2011almost unanimously.

The reforms were based on data-driven approaches to improve

public safety while reducing correcons spending. Among other

aspects of the legislaon, North Carolina HB 642 (2011):

expanded the use of administrave graduated sancons

required the use of a validated assessment of each oend-

ers risk of re-oense and the placement of that oender

to supervision level based on that risk level

limited the caseloads of community supervision ocers

supervising high and medium-risk oenders

authorized the creaon of incenves to be placed on ad-

vanced supervised release if the oender parcipated in

recidivism reducon programs such as treatment, educa-

on and rehabilitave programs17

Instead of seeing the projected increase, in North Carolinas

prison populaon fell by 8 percent from 2011-2014 and the

state averted $560 million in spending.18 Most importantly,

North Carolina, like many other states, was able to make this

reducon to its prison populaon while maintaining the safety

of its communies. Between 2011 and 2013, probaon revoca-

ons dropped 50 percent and the overall crime rate dropped

11 percent.19Further, because the state realigned spending, the

number of convicted felons released from prison without com-munity supervision dropped from 84 to 48 percent.20

Conclusion

ccountability and transparency are necessary for an ef-

cient government that best serves taxpayers. Unfortu-

nately, one of the most broken areas of governmentcriminal

juscehas escaped needed scruny. The Recidivism Reduc-

on Actimplements the commonsense principle of supporng

programs that work and defunding programs that fail. These

types of reforms will bring genuine accountability to govern-ment funding with the use of evidence-based pracces such

as appropriate case management, assignment of risk and

needs and outcome measurements. Implemenng programs

and pracces that are proven to work will help to combat the

high recidivism rates that increase crime in neighborhoods and

stretch ght correcons budgets. With resources such as The

Recidivism Reducon Act, lawmakers can help x the revolving

door of oenders.

Te Recidivism Reduction Act implementsthe commonsense principle of supporting

programs that work and defunding

programs that fail.

CASESTUDY

I

A


7/12

THE STATE FACTOR 7


Section 1. {Definitions}

(A) Agency means:

(1) The Department of Correcons or the state agency responsible for supervising individuals placed on probaon by the

courts or serving a period of parole or post-release supervision from prison or jail; and

(2) Any regional, local or county governmental agencies responsible for supervising individuals placed on probaon by

the courts or serving a period of parole or post-release supervision from prison or jail provided such agencies receive

state funding.

(B) Evidence-based pracces means supervision policies, procedures, programs and pracces that scienc research

demonstrates reduce recidivism among individuals on probaon, parole, or post-release supervision.

(C) Community supervision means:

(1) The placement of a defendant under supervision, with condions imposed by a court for a specied period during

which:

(a) criminal proceedings are deferred without an adjudicaon of guilt;

(b) a sentence of imprisonment or connement, imprisonment and ne, or connement and ne, is probated and the

imposion of sentence is suspended in whole or in part; or

(2) The placement of an individual under supervision aer release from prison or jail, with condions imposed by the releasing

authority for a specied period.

MODELPOLICY

Summary

Research and pracce over the past 25 years have idened new strategies and policies that can make a signicant dent in recid-

ivism rates. Implemenng these research-backed programs and procedures is called evidence-based pracce. This Act requires

that a to-be-determined percent of oenders be supervised in accordance with evidence-based pracces within four years, as well

as that a to-be-determined percent of state funds for oender programming be spent on programs that are evidence-based within

four years. This Act also requires community correcons agencies to improve policies and pracces for crime vicms, to provide

employees training on evidence-based pracces, and to set aside a poron of funds for research on program eecveness.

The Recidivism Reduction Act:


8/12

THE STATE FACTOR


(D) Supervised individual means an individual placed on probaon by a court or serving a period of parole or post-release

supervision from prison or jail.

(E) Supervision ocer means a person appointed or employed by the Agency to supervise individuals placed on community

supervision.

(F) Criminal risk factors means characteriscs and behaviors that when addressed or changed aect a persons risk for comming

crimes. Scienc research idenes these characteriscs and behaviors as including: ansocial atudes, values, and beliefs;

poor impulse control; criminal personality; substance abuse; criminal peers; dysfunconal family; and lack of employment

or educaon.

(G) Case plan means an individualized accountability and behavior change strategy for supervised individuals that:

(1) Targets and priorizes the specic criminal risk factors of the oender;

(2) Matches programs to the oenders individual characteriscs, such as gender, culture, movaonal stage, developmental

stage, and learning style;

(3) Establishes a metable for achieving specic behavioral goals, including a schedule for payment of vicm restuon, child

support, and other nancial obligaons;

(4) Species posive and negave acons that will be taken in response to the supervised individuals behaviors.

(H) Program means an intervenon that:

(1) is intended to reduce recidivism by supervised individuals; and

(2) is funded in whole or in part by the state or administered by any agency of state government;

(3) Program does not include medical services.

Section 2. {Implementation of Evidence-Based Practices to Reduce Recidivism}

(A) The Agency shall adopt policies, rules and regulaons that within [four] years of the eecve date of this Act result in

at least [X percent] of supervised individuals being supervised in accordance with evidence-based pracces.

(B) The policies, rules and regulaons shall include:

(1) Adopon, validaon and ulizaon of an objecve risk and needs assessment tool;


9/12

THE STATE FACTOR 9


(2) Use of assessment scores and other objecve criteria to determine the risk level and program needs of each supervised

individual, priorizing supervision and program resources for oenders who are at higher risk to re-oend;

(3) Denions of low, moderate and high risk levels during the period of supervision;

(4) Development of a case plan, based on the assessment, for each individual who is assessed to be moderate to high risk;

(5) Swi, certain, proporonate and graduated responses that an Agency employee will apply in response to a supervised

individuals compliant and non-compliant behaviors;

(6) Caseload size guidelines that are based on oender risk levels and take into account Agency resources and employee

workload; and

(7) Establishment of protocols and standards that assess the degree to which Agency policies, procedures, programs andpracces relang to oender recidivism reducon are evidence based.

(C) Within [four] years of the eecve date of this Act, [X percent] of state monies expended on programs shall be for programs

that are in accordance with evidence-based pracces.

(D) Within [four] years of the eecve date of this Act, the Agency shall eliminate supervision policies, procedures, programs

and pracces intended to reduce recidivism that scienc research demonstrates do not reduce recidivism.

Section 3. {Improvement of Policies and Practices for Crime Victims}

(A) The Agency shall adopt policies, rules and regulaons that improve crime vicm sasfacon with the criminal juscesystem, including:

(1) Payment by supervised individuals of vicm restuon and child support;

(2) The opportunity for vicms to complete vicm impact statements or provide input into pre-sentence invesgaon

reports;

(3) Providing vicms informaon about their rights and services, and referrals to access those rights and services;

(4) Oering vicms the opportunity to complete a vicm sasfacon survey, with data used to measure Agency

performance; and

(5) Facilitate vicm-oender dialogue when the vicm is willing.


10/12

THE STATE FACTOR


FL

Section 4. {Professional Development}

(A) The Agency shall provide its employees with intensive inial and on-going training and professional development services

to support the implementaon of evidence-based pracces.

(B) The training and professional development services shall include assessment techniques, case planning, risk reducon and

intervention strategies, effective communication skills, substance abuse and other topics identified by the Agency

or its employees.

Section 5. {Data Collection, Analysis and Research}

(A) The state [Department of Correcons] shall allocate a minimum of [X] percent of its operang budget to support data

collecon, analysis and research on supervision and programmac eecveness.

(B) The state [Department of Correcons] may form partnerships or enter into contracts with instuons of higher educaon

or other qualied organizaons for assistance with data collecon, analysis and research.

Section 6. {Agency Report}

(A) By [March 1] of each year, beginning in 201X, the Agency shall submit to the Governor, the Legislature and the judicial

branch a comprehensive report on its eorts to implement this Act. The report shall include:

(1) The percentage of supervised individuals being supervised in accordance with evidence-based pracces;

(2) The percentage of state monies expended for programs that are evidence based, and a list of all programs with

idencaon of which are evidence based;

(3) Specicaon of supervision policies, procedures, programs and pracces that were eliminated;

(4) The results of vicm sasfacon surveys administered under Secon 4 of this tle;

(5) The Agencys recommendaons for resource allocaon, and any addional collaboraon with other state, regional or

local public agencies, private enes, or faith-based and community organizaons.

(B) The Agency shall make the full report and an execuve summary available to the general public on its website.

Section 7. {Severability Clause}

Section 8. {Repealer Clause}

Section 9. {Effective Date}


11/12

THE STATE FACTOR 11

End Notes

1. Jindal, Bobby. Transcript of Governor Jindals Remarks for the Opening of the 2010 Legislave Session. March 29, 2010. Available:

hp://www.houmatoday.com/assets/pdf/HC19870330.PDF

2. Public Safety Performance Project. State of Recidivism The Revolving Door of Americas Prisons. The Pew Charitable Trusts. April 11,

2011. Available: hp://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/reports/0001/01/01/state-of-recidivism

3. Crime in the United States 2013.The Federal Bureau of Invesgaon. 2013. Available: hp://www.i.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-

the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/violent-crime/violent-crime-topic-page/violentcrimemain_nal

4. Stemen, Don. Reconsidering Incarceraon: New Direcons for Reducing Crime. Vera Instute of Jusce. January 2007. Available: hp://

vera.org/sites/default/les/resources/downloads/veraincarc_vFW2.pdf

5. Bowling, Julia, Lauren-Brooke Eisen, and Oliver Roeder. What Caused the Crime Decline? Brennan Center for Jusce. 2015. Available:

hps://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/les/analysis/Crime_rate_report_web.pdf

6. Smart on Crime; Reforming the Criminal Jusce System for the 21stCentury. Department of Jusce. August 2013. Available: hp://www.

jusce.gov/sites/default/les/ag/legacy/2013/08/12/smart-on-crime.pdf

7. NGA Center for Best Pracces. State Eorts in Sentencing and Correcons Reform. Naonal Governors Associaon. October 27, 2011.

Available: www.nga.org/les/live/sites/NGA/les/pdf/1110SENTENCINGREFORM.PDF

8. Oregon 182.525. Available: hp://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/182.525

9. Oregon Criminal Jusce Commision. Criminal Jusce Commison, Agency Report on SB 267, Interim Commiee on Judiciary. Available:

hp://www.oregon.gov/oha/amh/ebp/reports/crim-jusce.pdf

10. Center on Sentencing and Correcons. The Potenal of Community Correcons to Improve Safety and Reduce Incarceraon. Vera Insi-

tute of Jusce. July 2013. Available: hp://www.vera.org/sites/default/les/resources/downloads/potenal-of-community-correcons.pdf

11. Latessa, Edward J., and Christopher Lowenkamp. What are Criminogenic Needs and Why are they Important? Division of Criminal Jusce,

University of Cincinna. 2005. Available: hp://ojj.la.gov/ojj/les/What_Are_Criminogenic_Needs.pdf

12. Pung Public Safety First; 13 Parole Supervision Strategies to Enahnce Reentry Outcomes. The Urban Instute, Jusce Policy Center.

December 2008. Available: hp://www.urban.org/uploadedpdf/411791_public_safety_rst.pdf

13. Larkin, Paul. The Hawaii Opportunity Probaon with Enforcement Project: A Potenally Worthwhile Correcononal Reform. The

Heritage Foundaon. February 28, 2014. Available: hp://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/02/the-hawaii-opportunity-proba-

on-with-enforcement-project-a-potenally-worthwhile-correconal-reform

14. Jusce Center. Jusce Reinvestment in North Carolina: Three Years Later.The Council of State Governments. November 2014. Available:

hp://csgjuscecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/JRinNCThreeYearsLater.pdf

15. Jusce Center. Jusce Reinvestment in North Carolina; Analysis and Policy Framework to Reduce Spending on Correcons and Reinvest

in strategies to Increase Public Safety. The Council of State Governments. April 2011. Available: hp://csgjuscecenter.org/wp-content/

uploads/2012/12/JR_North_Carolina_policy_framework_v8mg_mc.pdf

16. Ibid

17. North Carolina General Assembly. House Bill 642. Legislave Session 2011-2012. Available: hp://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/BillLook-

Up/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2011&BillID=h642

18. Jusce Center. Jusce Reinvestment in North Carolina: Three Years Later. The Council of State Governments. November 2014. Available:

hp://csgjuscecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/JRinNCThreeYearsLater.pdf

19. Ibid

20. Ibid

http://www.houmatoday.com/assets/pdf/HC19870330.PDFhttp://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/reports/0001/01/01/state-of-recidivismhttp://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/violent-crime/violent-crime-topic-page/violentcrimemain_finalhttp://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/violent-crime/violent-crime-topic-page/violentcrimemain_finalhttp://vera.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/veraincarc_vFW2.pdfhttp://vera.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/veraincarc_vFW2.pdfhttps://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/analysis/Crime_rate_report_web.pdfhttp://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/ag/legacy/2013/08/12/smart-on-crime.pdfhttp://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/ag/legacy/2013/08/12/smart-on-crime.pdfhttp://www.nga.org/files/live/sites/NGA/files/pdf/1110SENTENCINGREFORM.PDFhttp://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/182.525http://www.oregon.gov/oha/amh/ebp/reports/crim-justice.pdfhttp://www.vera.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/potential-of-community-corrections.pdfhttp://ojj.la.gov/ojj/files/What_Are_Criminogenic_Needs.pdfhttp://www.urban.org/uploadedpdf/411791_public_safety_first.pdfhttp://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/reports/0001/01/01/state-of-recidivismhttp://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/JRinNCThreeYearsLater.pdfhttp://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/JR_North_Carolina_policy_framework_v8mg_mc.pdfhttp://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/JR_North_Carolina_policy_framework_v8mg_mc.pdfhttp://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2011&BillID=h642http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2011&BillID=h642http://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/JRinNCThreeYearsLater.pdfhttp://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/JRinNCThreeYearsLater.pdfhttp://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2011&BillID=h642http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2011&BillID=h642http://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/JR_North_Carolina_policy_framework_v8mg_mc.pdfhttp://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/JR_North_Carolina_policy_framework_v8mg_mc.pdfhttp://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/JRinNCThreeYearsLater.pdfhttp://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/reports/0001/01/01/state-of-recidivismhttp://www.urban.org/uploadedpdf/411791_public_safety_first.pdfhttp://ojj.la.gov/ojj/files/What_Are_Criminogenic_Needs.pdfhttp://www.vera.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/potential-of-community-corrections.pdfhttp://www.oregon.gov/oha/amh/ebp/reports/crim-justice.pdfhttp://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/182.525http://www.nga.org/files/live/sites/NGA/files/pdf/1110SENTENCINGREFORM.PDFhttp://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/ag/legacy/2013/08/12/smart-on-crime.pdfhttp://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/ag/legacy/2013/08/12/smart-on-crime.pdfhttps://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/analysis/Crime_rate_report_web.pdfhttp://vera.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/veraincarc_vFW2.pdfhttp://vera.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/veraincarc_vFW2.pdfhttp://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/violent-crime/violent-crime-topic-page/violentcrimemain_finalhttp://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/violent-crime/violent-crime-topic-page/violentcrimemain_finalhttp://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/reports/0001/01/01/state-of-recidivismhttp://www.houmatoday.com/assets/pdf/HC19870330.PDF


12/12

To learn more about how the American

Legislave Exchange Council helps develop

innovave soluons in partnership with

lawmakers and business leaders, or to become a

member, please visit www.alec.org.

American Legislave Exchange Council


Arlington, VA 22202

Tel: 703.373.0933

Fax: 703.373.0927

www.alec.org


Arlington, VA 22202

APUBLICATION

OFTHEAMERICAN

LEGISLATIVEEXCHANGECOUNCIL

STA

TE

FACTOR

the
http://../Applications/Adobe%20InDesign%20CS6/Adobe%20InDesign%20CS6.app/Contents/MacOS/InDesign%20ClipboardScrap1.pdfhttp://../Applications/Adobe%20InDesign%20CS6/Adobe%20InDesign%20CS6.app/Contents/MacOS/InDesign%20ClipboardScrap1.pdfhttp://../Applications/Adobe%20InDesign%20CS6/Adobe%20InDesign%20CS6.app/Contents/MacOS/InDesign%20ClipboardScrap1.pdfhttp://../Applications/Adobe%20InDesign%20CS6/Adobe%20InDesign%20CS6.app/Contents/MacOS/InDesign%20ClipboardScrap1.pdf

recidivism reduction: community-based supervision alternatives to incarceration

Documents