Managing Corrections Costs · 2014-03-18 · National Conference of State Legislatures 3 Managing...

Managing Corrections Costs

National Conference of State Legislatures2


Managing Corrections Costs By Alison Lawrence

Printed on recycled paper.© 2014 by the National Conference of State Legislatures. All rights reserved.

ISBN 978-1-58024-712-2

National Conference of State LegislaturesWilliam T. Pound, Executive Director

7700 East First PlaceDenver, Colo. 80230

(303) 364-7700

444 North Capitol Street, N.W., Suite 515Washington, D.C. 20001

(202) 624-5400

www.ncsl.org

February 2014

National Conference of State Legislatures 3


States will spend $40 billion to incarcerate and supervise offenders in fiscal year (FY) 2014, according to the National Confer-

ence of State Legislatures’ (NCSL) State Budget Actions: FY 2013 & 2014. This is a modest 2.5 percent increase over FY 2013 costs, with cor-rections a shrinking portion of overall state spending. In a growing number of states, legisla-tures have enacted policy shifts that make more effective use of corrections dollars but that also remain attentive to public safety.

This report examines corrections budget trends, cost-conserving changes to sentencing and cor-rections policies, actions taken to operate pris-ons more efficiently, and federal initiatives that provide support and assistance to states.

Budget Trends

Forty states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico budgeted more in general funds for correc-tions in FY 2014 than in the previous fiscal year (Figure 1, on page 4). Only six states—Con-necticut, Maine, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Dakota and Oklahoma—and Puerto Rico in-creased spending by more than 5 percent. Nine states—Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio, Rhode Island, Virginia and Wyoming—budgeted to spend less in the cur-rent fiscal year. Decreases range from .2 percent in New Mexico to 8.4 percent in Wyoming. Spending in New Jersey remains unchanged.

State budgets must accommodate corrections, health care, education, social services, transporta-tion, environment and other areas important to residents’ lives. Since 2000, corrections budgets have represented about 5 percent to 6 percent of state general funds (Figure 2). In FY 2014, this number is projected to be 5.3 percent.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

FY 1998

FY 2003

FY 2008

FY 2013

FY 2014FY 2014

FY 2013

FY 2008

FY 2003

FY 1998

5.3%projected

5.3%

6.3%

6.1%

5.8%

Figure 2. Corrections Portion of State General Fund Spending

Source: Compilation of NCSL annual surveys of legislative fiscal offices, 2998-2013.

The four major state spending categories are corrections, K-12 education, higher education and Medicaid. Medicaid represents the great-est portion of general fund spending, at more than 20 percent in FY 2014, and also is the fastest growing category, up from 12 percent in FY 2000. Since 2000, the portion of gen-eral fund spending devoted to higher educa-tion has declined from about 12 percent to 9 percent, and K-12 education has remained relatively constant (Figure 3).

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40FY 2014

FY 2000

OtherMedicaidHigher EducationK-12 EducationCorrectionsCorrections K-12

EducationHigher

EducationMedicaid Other

FY 2000FY 2014

5.9% 5.3%

33.4%32.6%

11.8%

9.1%

12.2%

20.4%

36.6%

32.6%

Figure 3. Major Components of State General Fund Spending, FY 2000 vs. FY 2014

Source: Compilation of NCSL annual survey of legislative fiscal offices, 1998-2013.



Figure 1. Percentage Change in Corrections General Fund Spending, FY 2013 to FY 2014

Source: NCSL survey of legislative fiscal offices, 2013.

MaineNorth Dakota

MississippiNebraska

Puerto RicoConnecticut

OklahomaArkansasVermont

TennesseeAlabama

South CarolinaWest Virginia

New YorkMassachusettsSouth Dakota

North CarolinaWashington

PennsylvaniaKansas

IowaHawaii

MinnesotaUtah

IdahoFloridaAlaska

New HampshireDelawareMichiganMontana

OregonColorado

District of ColumbiaCalifornia

ArizonaTexas

MarylandGeorgia

MissouriIllinois

WisconsinNew Jersey

WyomingLouisiana

IndianaNevadaVirginia

Rhode IslandKentucky

OhioNew Mexico

New JerseyWisconsin

IllinoisMissouriGeorgia

MarylandTexas

ArizonaCalifornia

District of ColumbiaColorado

OregonMontanaMichiganDelaware

New HampshireAlaskaFlorida

IdahoUtah

MinnestoaHawaii

IowaKansas

PennsylvaniaWashington4

North CarolinaSouth Dakota

MassachusettsNew York

West VirginiaSouth Carolina

AlabamaTennessee

VermontArkansas

OklahomaConnecticutPuerto Rico

NebraskaMississippi

North DakotaMaine

New MexicoOhioKentuckyRhode IslandVirginiaNevadaIndianaLouisianaWyoming

12.88.2

7.66.4

5.85.7

5.54.74.64.64.5

4.44.34.3

4.24.14.14.04.04.0

3.63.4

2.82.4

2.32.32.3

2.22.2

2.11.9

1.81.7

1.51.21.2

1.11.01.0

0.80.80.010.0

-0.2-0.4-0.4-0.5

-1.1-2.1

-2.4-5.2

-8.4



decline in the prison population, according to a December 2013 South Carolina Sentencing Reform Oversight Committee report. Prison space has been prioritized for violent offend-ers, who now make up 63 percent of the state’s prison population, compared to 46 percent in 2002.

According to BJS, the portion of violent of-fenders in prison nationwide has increased from 45 percent to 53 percent during the last two decades. States have taken steps to pri-oritize prison space for the most dangerous offenders by diverting some offenders from prison, creating alternatives for probation and parole violations, and expanding prison release options.

Prison Admissions

States have decreased the number of offenders who enter prison by expanding community-based supervision and treatment and creating alternatives to incarceration for probation and parole rule violations.

Diverting low-risk offenders to community supervision can reserve costly prison space for the most serious offenders. A number of states in recent years have enacted policies that allow drug offenders, who would otherwise be prison-bound, to be diverted into community supervision and treatment. States also have reviewed and revised drug classifications and penalties. Since 2001, the number of drug of-fenders entering prison has declined by more than 20 percent, according to BJS.

Leading this trend, New York’s decade-long prison population decline has been driven in part by changes to drug offender sentencing laws. The Legislature has eliminated some

Unlike other areas of state spending, correc-tions is supported almost entirely by general funds; in FY 2014, only about 2 percent of corrections spending came from other sources. Lawmakers’ policy and fiscal responsibilities include making decisions about how to best provide for public safety and, at the same time, manage corrections costs.

Sentencing and Corrections Policies

Since nearly $9 of every $10 spent on correc-tions goes to prisons, according to the Public Safety Performance Project of The Pew Chari-table Trusts, managing prison populations is key to managing corrections costs. The largest and potentially most sustainable reductions have resulted from changes to sentencing and corrections policies that have safely lowered prison populations.

Prison populations are determined by who goes to prison and how long they stay. After reaching a high of more than 1.4 million in 2009, the total state prison population steadily declined to 1.35 million in 2012, according to the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS).

In South Carolina, the purpose of a 2010 om-nibus act was to “ensure prison space exists for high-risk, violent offenders,” improve com-munity supervision and get “smart on crime, reduce recidivism and provide fair and effec-tive sentencing options.” The law added to the list of violent crimes; expanded diversion, treatment and prison good time; required evi-dence-based community supervision; and cre-ated alternatives for probation and parole rule violations. These measures led to an 8 percent



mandatory minimum sentence requirements, reduced the length of prison sentences for drug crimes, and expanded community- and prison-based treatment programs for drug and property offenders who are drug addicts. Since 2009, prison sentences have decreased by 40 percent, while sentences to diversion pro-grams, such as drug court, are up, according to the New York Department of Corrections and Community Supervision.

Since 2009, at least 12 states have authorized diversion of lower-level drug offenders into community supervision and treatment. Colo-rado has reduced the number of offenders sent to prison as a result of changes to drug laws, according to the state Division of Criminal Justice, and used savings to fund community-based treatment and related programs and services. Laws in 2003 and 2010 lowered penalties for low-level drug use and possession offenses, decreasing the number of offend-ers sent to prison. Savings from decreased prison admissions and a court surcharge for

all drug-crime convictions are used to support assessment and community- and prison-based treatment of offenders with substance-abuse and/or mental health disorders. In FY 2013, $14.1 million was spent on correctional treat-ment programs, and $16.7 million has been appropriated for FY 2014, according to the Colorado Correctional Treatment Board. The board is responsible for allocating funds to the state and local agencies responsible for super-vising offenders.

Authorizing non-prison alternatives for of-fenders who break the rules of their super-vision—known as technical violations—is another way states have safely decreased prison populations. From 2006 through 2011, the number of inmates who entered prison for pa-role violations declined by 31 percent nation-wide, according to BJS.

More than 20 states have authorized use of graduated sanctions to respond to probation and parole violations.

Graduated sanctions policies use clearly established community-based sanctions or short jail stays to quickly respond to technical violations; the severity of the sanction is pro-portionate to the violation. Arkansas adopted a graduated sanctions policy in 2011, and within one year the total prison population declined by 7 percent because fewer violators entered prison. A similar policy adopted in South Carolina in 2010 resulted in one-year savings of $4.2 million due to a 20 percent decline in revocations to prison.



Length of Stay and Reentry

States have trimmed lengths of stay in prison by accelerating the release date of certain in-mates who participate in prison programming. In addition, attention to reentry and more information to parole boards have increased parole release rates.

Awarding earned-time credits to certain inmates who comply with prison rules and complete self-improvement programs trims the amount of time spent in prison. In 2008, Pennsylvania created a Recidivism Risk Reduction Incentive that allows certain non-violent inmates to be eligible for a reduced minimum sentence upon completion of treat-ment, education courses or other in-prison programming. In three years, the state saved a total of $37 million due to shorter stays, ac-cording to the corrections department.

Programs that help inmates better prepare for release can lead to reduced crime and recidi-vism. In Connecticut, the prison population has been steadily decreasing since 2008 due, in part, to increased use of prison diversion and reentry programs. A Risk Reduction Earned Credit program created in 2011 is further contributing to prison population declines and has lowered recidivism rates. A prelimi-nary analysis conducted by the state Office of Policy and Management found that inmates who earned such credit were 10 percent less likely to be back in prison within 12 months, compared to the general inmate population. At least 38 states offer earned-time credits to certain inmates who participate in or complete prison programs.

Providing inmates with skills, services and supervision as they reenter the community has led parole boards in Michigan and Texas to approve more inmates for release on parole. Michigan established the Prisoner Reentry Initiative in 2005. The program includes an assessment of inmates when they enter prison to identify factors that contribute to criminal behavior and assign related in-prison pro-gramming. Inmates who are near their date of release receive assistance to secure housing, find a job, and access substance abuse and mental health treatment and other health care. Assessment results, program participation records and release plans of Michigan inmates go to the parole board to use when they con-sider whether an individual should be released. The parole board credits the increase in the number of paroles granted to the availability of this inmate information. The state’s prison population is down 15 percent from its peak in 2007, according to the corrections depart-ment. Each year, some savings that result from lower prison costs—$56 million in FY 2011—are invested in the reentry initiative.



State-LocaL SuperviSion and Funding

In 2011, local governments spent more than $26 billion to detain and supervise criminal offenders, according to BJS. The amount and type of responsibility assumed by state and local governments for offender supervision vary among states. In 44 states, jails are locally operated. In six, the state oversees a combined jail and prison system. Probation and parole supervision may be provided by local courts, local or state community corrections departments, state corrections departments or parole boards, or a combi-nation of these.

Some states have realigned state-local supervision responsibility in recent years. In response to a federal court order, California lawmakers enacted legislation in 2011 to reduce the state prison population from 144,000 inmates to approximately 110,000. Under the law, offenders convicted of non-serious and non-sex offenses serve their sentences in local jails rather than state facilities. Local probation departments supervise most inmates released to parole from jail and certain lower-level offenders released from state prison, while the corrections department supervises higher-risk offenders. All offenders for whom parole is revoked—except for those serving a life sentence—serve their time in county jails. As of January 2014, the state inmate population was about 118,000, according to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

A 2011 North Carolina law transferred responsibility for housing most misdemeanor offenders from the state corrections department to local counties. The law was designed to reduce prison costs and use existing jail space. Counties with available jail space can participate and are reimbursed for housing and transportation costs. As of June 2013, half the state’s counties were participating, according to the North Carolina’s Sheriffs’ Association, which is required by law to manage the realignment. County reimburse-ment is funded through court costs and fees.

Local jails generally detain offenders whose sentences are less than one year or defendants who are await-ing trial. In several states, however, prison inmates also are held in local facilities due to lack of space in state facilities or procedural delays related to inmate transfer. In 2012, 33 states were housing prison in-mates in local jails, according to BJS. This can strain local resources and limit inmate access to treatment and programming. Arkansas and Georgia are among states that have reduced jail backlogs in recent years through changes to sentencing laws that lowered prison populations. Arkansas saved nearly $6 million in FY 2013 because of reduced payments to counties for housing state inmates, according to NCSL budget data.

States also have provided local supervision agencies with funds to support successful community supervi-sion. One way states have done this is through “justice reinvestment” initiatives. For example, Georgia allocated more than $11 million in FY 2013 for local accountability courts. For FY 2014, North Carolina has appropriated $22 million for community-based treatment and additional probation officer positions.

Eight states have adopted “performance incentive funding” mechanisms that reimburse localities for suc-cessfully supervising some offenders in the community, rather than sending them to prison for supervision violations. In California, probation revocations have declined by one-third over three years, resulting in $535 million state savings; $220 million was distributed to counties that have contributed to the de-cline, according to the Administrative Office of the Courts. Four states—California, Illinois, Kansas and

Ohio—have awarded about $400 million to local supervision agencies for successfully diverting offenders.



In Texas, improved parole supervision, expan-sion of community- and prison-based treat-ment, and a revalidated risk assessment tool has led to a 7 percent increase in parole ap-proval rates during the past five years, accord-ing to the state Board of Pardons and Paroles. A valid risk assessment tool provides parole boards with information about an inmate’s risk of reoffending, program needs and readi-ness for release. Revalidating a risk assessment ensures the continued quality of the tool and can increase confidence in the results. Im-proved supervision and access to treatment also increase the parole board’s confidence that offenders will receive the appropriate amount and type of supervision and services upon release.

Operational Costs

Costs of operating prison facilities represent the largest share of corrections budgets. BJS reported that, in 2010, states spent three-

quarters of their corrections funds on secure housing and care for inmates, employee sala-ries and benefits, and other operational costs. To improve the cost efficiency of prisons, some states have made changes to the number and kind of prisons they operate. Others have increased the cost-effectiveness of providing inmate health care or addressed service con-tracts, inmate transportation and technology.

Facility Consolidations, Closures and Repurposing

Since 2011, 17 states have closed or consoli-dated prisons, which can result in significant savings (Figure 4). In at least nine states, sentencing and corrections laws have lowered prison populations enough to warrant closure or consolidation.

In Pennsylvania, a lower prison population prompted the corrections department to close two older prison facilities and replace them with one new one in 2013. The state will save an estimated $35 million per year and reduce

Figure 4. States That Closed or Consolidated Prisons, 2011-2013

Sources: NCSL research, 2013, and the Sentencing Project, 2014.



the operating capacity by 400 beds, accord-ing to the corrections department. The new facility is more secure, requires fewer resources to operate and can hold more inmates than either of the older prisons. Nevada is also among states that have closed older prisons that generally are less efficient and more ex-pensive to operate than newer facilities. Clos-ing the 150-year-old Nevada State Prison in 2012 saved the state nearly $15 million during the FY 2011-13 biennium, according to the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

New York has closed 18 correctional facilities during the last five years because of a de-clining prison population, according to the corrections department. The state used $12 million in savings from two of the closures to help offset costs for in-prison mental health and sex offender programs. Savings also have been used to provide economic development assistance to communities where prisons have closed. One prison will become a center for crime victim support and offender reentry services.

Like New York, a number of states are repur-posing closed facilities, providing new op-portunities for local communities. Colorado recently repurposed a closed prison to provide transitional housing and support services for people who are homeless. According to the Colorado Department of Local Affairs, this helps fill a gap in services that may not be available in a rural area of the state. The tran-sitional housing center also will offer employ-ment opportunities for former prison workers. A 2013 law requires that at least 15 percent of the employees at the repurposed facility be former correctional facility employees.

Inmate Health Care

Nearly 20 percent of prison costs in 2008 were spent on inmate health care, according to the State Health Care Spending Project of The Pew Charitable Trusts. High rates of disease, a growing elderly inmate population and prison location contribute to the high cost associ-ated with providing care. States have trimmed prison spending by making changes to inmate health care.

Prescription and over-the-counter drug costs are increasing inside and out of prisons. To control these costs, states have central-ized their prison pharmacy services, purchased generic drugs and taken advantage of bulk purchasing dis-counts. Iowa’s pharmacy costs are the second larg-est component of inmate health costs, according to the Legislative Services Agency. The recent move to a centralized pharmacy system saved the state a total of $1.2 million in FY 2013 and FY 2014, according to NCSL budget data. Texas’ participation in the federal 340B Drug Pricing Program allows the state to pur-chase drugs at reduced cost, which saved $50 million in FY 2012, according to the Legisla-tive Budget Board.

Prisons often are located in remote, non-urban areas, and transporting inmates for medi-cal care can be not only costly, but also can increase public safety concerns. In addition, contracting with specialty care doctors to travel to prisons can be expensive. Telemedi-cine uses video-conferencing technology to



provide inmates with timely access to specialty care. Over a 13-year period, the University of Texas Medical Branch—one of two provid-ers of inmate health care in the state—docu-mented $780 million in savings due to use of telemedicine. Michigan and Ohio also have realized savings from use of telemedicine in prisons.

Expansion of the federal Medicaid match also may offer savings to cor-rections departments. A 1997 federal memo allows Medicaid coverage for some health care costs of inmates if the care is provided at a location other than the correctional facility, the care lasts longer than 24 hours, and the inmate meets Medicaid eligibility crite-ria. Under the 2010 fed-eral Affordable Care Act, if states choose to participate, Medicaid eligibility will

be expanded to all those with incomes below 133 percent of the poverty level. At least six states passed laws in 2013 that allow state or local corrections departments to seek federal Medicaid funds for certain inmate health care services. According to NCSL budget data, a 2013 Arkansas law is estimated to save the state $2.2 million in FY 2014. The California Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates that, in FY 2012-2013, the state saved nearly $30 mil-lion by obtaining federal funds; in FY 2014-15, savings could reach $70 million. More inmates also will become eligible for Medicaid after release from prison, providing states with an opportunity to increase access to substance

abuse and mental health treatment and medi-cal care immediately upon an inmate’s release.

Prison Management

The Vera Institute of Justice and the Associa-tion of State Correctional Administrators have identified efficiency measures taken by correc-tions departments in recent years. Such mea-sures include changes to food service or utili-ties contracts. Investing in new technology, such as Internet-based information systems, reduces administrative workload and manual delivery of inmate files, court documents and other records. Video-conferencing for parole hearings or other inmate appearances has reduced transportation costs in some states.

Federal Leadership and Support

State efforts have been supported by federal initiatives, including those administered by the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) in the U.S. Department of Justice.

A public-private partnership of BJA and the Public Safety Performance Project of The Pew Charitable Trusts (Pew) leads national efforts in justice reinvestment. BJA administers funds that support a number of state and local ef-forts, while Pew provides technical assistance. Support and assistance include analyzing data and trends, developing strategies to improve offender accountability, contain costs and protect public safety. Once reforms have been adopted, states become eligible for seed funding that can be used for risk assessments development, program implementation and staff training. States also can receive help to implement information systems that can track and measure progress.



At least 27 states have engaged in a “justice reinvestment” process in recent years. A recent study of 17 of these states by the Urban In-stitute found a collective projected savings of $4.6 billion during the next five to 11 years. To date, 12 states have reinvested $165 mil-lion of the savings into public safety initiatives such as substance abuse and mental health treatment, evidence-based offender supervi-sion and use of risk assessments.

Since 2008, the federal Second Chance Act has provided grants to state, local and tribal governments and community-based organiza-tions to establish innovative and evidence-based reentry programs, including those related to employment, education, mentoring, and substance abuse and mental health treat-ment. BJA has awarded nearly 600 grants for programs such as reentry courts, family-based treatment services, technology career training, mentorship, and research and evaluation of effective reentry programs.

Other BJA initiatives include support for a variety of programs that address substance abuse and mental health needs of offend-ers, including development and expansion of

drug, mental health, veteran and other prob-lem-solving courts. Smart Probation grants support development and implementation of evidence-based probation programs aimed at improving probation success rates.

Results

Good research and evidence are the founda-tion for many effective corrections policies and programs. Evidence-based practices are improving many areas of offender supervision in the community. Federal resources such as CrimeSolutions.gov provide information about whether programs have undergone rig-orous evaluation and show evidence of achiev-ing goals. BJA’s National Training and Tech-nical Assistance Center also offers a resource for implementing evidence-based programs.

States are making more effective use of cor-rections dollars and are reaping the benefits. They are safely decreasing prison populations, reducing recidivism and improving public safety. While each policy change may have a modest or incremental effect, comprehensive and sustainable reforms collectively can help control corrections costs.



Resources

NatioNal CoNfereNCe of State legiSlatureS

www.ncsl.org The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) is committed to the success of state legislators and staff. Founded in 1975, it is a respected bipartisan organization providing states support, ideas, connections and a strong voice on Capitol Hill. NCSL’s mission is to improve the quality and effectiveness of state legislatures; promote policy innovation and communication among state legislatures; and ensure state legislatures is a strong, cohesive voice in the federal system.

Criminal Justice Programwww.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice The Criminal Justice Program is a resource for state lawmakers and staff on a wide range of topics that reflect the many aspects and functions of criminal justice systems. Special project work helps legislatures tap the best research and information available on sentenc-ing and corrections policies that meet both public safety goals and fiscal objectives.

Fiscal Affairs Programwww.ncsl.org/research/fiscal-policyThe Fiscal Affairs Program provides infor-mation, research, and technical assistance to legislators and legislative staff on a wide range of fiscal, economic development and cultural issues. The program also conducts regu-lar budget and tax surveys that are released as State Budget Updates, State Budget Ac-tions and State Tax Actions reports.

Bureau of JuStiCe aSSiStaNCe

www.bja.govThe Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), a component of the U.S. Department of Jus-tice’s Office of Justice Programs, disseminates state-of-the-art knowledge and practices across America’s justice systems and provides grants at the national, state, local and tribal level to fund the implementation of these crime-fight-ing strategies. BJA provides leadership and services on many crime prevention, recidivism reduction and justice improvement efforts that are guided by the principle “to reduce crime, recidivism, and unnecessary confinement, and promote a safe and fair criminal justice sys-tem.”

Bureau of JuStiCe StatiStiCS

www.bjs.govThe Bureau of Justice Statistics, a component of the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Justice Programs, collects, analyzes, pub-lishes and disseminates information on crime, criminal offenders, victims of crime, and the operation of justice systems at all levels of government.

PuBliC Safety PerformaNCe ProJeCt of the Pew CharitaBle truStS

www.pewstates.org/publicsafetyPew’s Public Safety Performance Project helps states advance data-driven, fiscally sound policies and practices in criminal and juvenile justice systems that protect public safety, hold offenders accountable and control corrections costs. The project provides expert, nonparti-san research, analysis and assistance to states to help explore sentencing and corrections reforms that will reduce reoffending and cut costs. The project also conducts and publishes



research on key criminal and juvenile cor-rections trends and highlights policies and practices that demonstrate better outcomes at less cost.

urBaN iNStitute

www.urban.orgThe Urban Institute gathers data, conducts research, evaluates programs, offers techni-cal assistance overseas, and educates Ameri-cans on social and economic issues to foster sound public policy and effective government. Urban’s Justice Policy Center conducts non-partisan research and evaluation designed to improve justice and public safety policies and practices at the national, state and local levels.

Vera iNStitute of JuStiCe www.vera.org The Vera Institute of Justice combines exper-tise in research, demonstration projects and technical assistance to help leaders in govern-ment and civil society improve the systems people rely on for justice and safety. Vera’s Center on Sentencing and Corrections works with government leaders to advance criminal justice policies that promote fairness, protect public safety, and ensure that resources are used efficiently. The Cost-Benefit Analysis Unit provides policymakers with clear, acces-sible information about the economic pros and cons associated with criminal and juvenile justice policies.



References

Association of State Corrections Adminis-trators. Cutting Costs: How States Are Addressing Corrections Budget Shortfalls. Hagerstown, Md.: ASCA, November, 2008.

Bucklen, Bret, and D. Lorraine Russell. Re-cidivism Risk Reduction Incentive: 2012 Report. Camp Hill, Pa.: Department of Corrections, January 2012.

California Administrative Office of the Courts. Report on the California Com-munity Corrections Performance Incen-tives Act of 2009. San Francisco, Calif.: AOC, April 2013.

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Three-Judge Court Up-dates website. Sacramento, Calif.: CDCR, Retrieved Jan. 17, 2014. from http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/News/3_judge_panel_deci-sion.html.

California Legislative Analyst’s Office. The 2013-14 Budget: California Spending Plan. Sacramento, Calif.: LAO, November 2013.

Carson, E. Ann, and Daniela Golinelli. Pris-oners in 2012: Trends in Admissions and Releases, 1991-2012. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. DOJ, December 2013.

Center for Medicaid and State Operations. “Clarification of Medicaid Coverage Policy for Inmates of a Public Institution.” Bal-

timore, Md.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Dec. 12, 1997. Let-ter to associate regional administrators.

Colorado Correctional Treatment Board. FY 2015 Funding Plan. Denver, Colo.: Judi-cial Branch, n.d.

Edwards, Aaron. The 2013-14 Budget: Ob-taining Federal Funds for Inmate Medical Care—A Status Report. Sacramento, Ca-lif.: California Legislative Analyst’s Office, Feb. 5, 2013.

Flick, Peg. H.B.10-1352 Savings Analysis Re-port: First Two Years of Implementation. Denver, Colo.: Colorado Department of Public Safety, Division of Criminal Justice, Office of Research and Statistics, March 2013.

Fort Lyon Facility Conversion Task Force. “Fort Lyon Presentation.” Denver, Colo.: Colorado Department of Local Affairs, n.d.

Geisler, Gregory T. The Cost of Correctional Health Care. Columbus, Ohio: Correc-tional Institution Inspection Committee, Ohio General Assembly, Dec. 15, 2010.

Haggerty, Todd. State Budget Actions: FY 2013 & FY 2014. Denver, Colo.: National Conference of State Legislatures, Novem-ber 2013.

Illinois Adult Redeploy Illinois Oversight Board. 2012 Annual Report to the Gover-nor and General Assembly on the Imple-mentation and Projected Impact of Adult



Redeploy Illinois. Chicago, Ill.: Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority, March 8, 2013.

Iowa Legislative Services Agency, Fiscal Ser-vices Division. Issue Review: Department of Corrections Centralized Pharmacy. Des Moines, Iowa: Iowa General Assembly, Feb. 4, 2011.

Kansas Department of Corrections. SB14 2010 Report. Topeka, Kan.: Jan. 3, 2010.

Kyckelhahn, Tracey. Local Government Cor-rections Expenditures, FY 2005-2011. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. DOJ, December 2013.

LaVigne, Nancy, et al. Justice Reinvestment Initiative State Assessment Report. Wash-ington, D.C.: Urban Institute, January 2014.

Lawlor, Mike. “RREC—The Administration’s Perspective.” Hartford, Conn.: Connecti-cut Office of Policy and Management, Criminal Justice Policy and Planning Divi-sion, March 22, 2013. Presentation to the Connecticut General Assembly Judiciary Committee.

_____ . State Corrections Expenditures, FY 1982-2010. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. DOJ, Dec. 2012.

Michigan Department of Corrections. “Mich-igan Prison Reentry: A Success Story.” Lansing, Mich.: MDOC, n.d.

_____. Michigan Prison Reentry Initiative: 2010 Progress Report. Lansing, Mich.: Public Policy Associates, 2010.

_____. Prison Population Projection Report. Lansing, Mich.: DOC, Feb. 2013. Report to the Legislature pursuant to P.A. 200 of 2012, section 401.

Naro-Ware, Wendy. “2012 Baseline Prison Population Forecast & Act 570 Imple-mentation Tracking.” Little Rock, Ark.: JFA Institute, Sept. 25, 2012. Presentation to the Arkansas General Assembly House Judiciary Committee.

Nevada Legislative Counsel Bureau, Fiscal Analysis Division. Nevada Legislative Ap-propriations Report, Seventy-Sixth Legis-lature, Fiscal Years 2011-12 and 2012-13. Reno, Nev.: Nevada Legislature, Novem-ber 2011.

New York Department of Corrections and Community Supervision. “2011 Prison Closures.” Albany, N.Y.: DOCCS, Janu-ary 2010.

_____. “2009 Drug Law Reform Update.” Albany, N.Y.: DOCCS, June 2013.

_____ .“DOCCS Fact Sheet.” Albany, N.Y.: DOCCS, Jan. 1, 2014.

_____ .“ Fact Sheet: 2009 Prison Closures.” Albany, N.Y.: DOCCS, May, 2009.



North Carolina Sheriffs’ Association. State-wide Misdemeanant Confinement Pro-gram, Annual Report, Fiscal Year 2012-13. Raleigh, N.C.: NCSA, Oct. 1, 2013.

Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Cor-rection. Probation Improvement and In-centive Grants Report. Columbus, Ohio: DRC, June 20, 2013.

Pellant, Keven. “SB 14.” Topeka, Kan.: Kansas Department of Corrections, August 28, 2008. Presentation to the Kansas State Legislature Joint Committee on Correc-tions and Juvenile Justice Oversight.

Pennsylvania Department of Corrections. “Corrections to Save $23 Million by Replacing Two Older Prisons.” Mechan-icsburg, Pa.: DOC, Jan. 9, 2013. Press Release.

Polycom. “Michigan Department of Correc-tions Reduces Costs with Polycom Solu-tions.” Pleasanton, Calif.: Polycom, 2009.

Porter, Nicole. On the Chopping Block 2013: State Prison Closures. Washington, D.C.: The Sentencing Project, January 2014.

Public Safety Performance Project. One in 31: The Long Reach of Americans Correc-tions. Washington, D.C.: The Pew Chari-table Trusts, March 2009.

South Carolina Sentencing Reform Oversight Committee. State Expenditure Savings Report. Columbia, S.C.: South Carolina General Assembly, Dec. 1, 2011.

_____. State Expenditure Savings Report. Columbia, S.C.: South Carolina General Assembly, Dec. 1, 2011.

State Health Care Spending Project. Manag-ing Prison Health Care Spending. Wash-ington, D.C.: The Pew Charitable Trusts, October 2013.

Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles. Annual Statistical Report: Fiscal Year 2012. Aus-tin, Texas: TBPP, June 2013.

_____. Parole Guidelines Annual Report: Fis-cal Year 2012. Austin, Texas: TBPP, June 2013.

Texas Legislative Budget Board. Legislative Budget Board Fiscal Size-up: 2012-13 Biennium. Austin, Texas: LBB, January 2012. Submitted to the 82nd Texas Legis-lature.

Vera Institute of Justice. The Continuing Fis-cal Crisis in Corrections: Setting a New Course. New York, N.Y.: Vera, October 2010.

Vo, Alexander H. The Telehealth Promise: Better Health Care and Cost Savings for the 21st Century. Galveston, Texas: University of Texas Medical Branch, May 2008.



State Laws

Ark. HB 1351 (2013); Ark. SB 750 (2011); Calif. AB 109 (2011); Calif. AB 117 (2011); Colo. HB 1352 (2010); Colo. SB 318 (2003); Conn. HB 6650 (2011); Del. SB 226 (2012); Ga. HB 742 (2013); Ga. HB 1176 (2012); Hawaii SB 2776 (2012); Hawaii HB 2514 (2012); Mo. HB 1525 (2012); N.C. SB 402 (2013); N.C. HB 642 (2011); N.Y. AB 156B (2009); N.Y. AB 11895 (2004); N.Y. SB 5880 (2005); Okla. HB 3052 (2012); Pa. HB 4 (2008); Pa. HB 135 (2012); Pa. SB 100 (2012); S.C. SB 1154 (2010).

Federal Laws

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Public Law 148. 111th Cong., 2nd sess., March 23, 2010.

Second Chance Act of 2007, Public Law 199. 110th Cong., 2nd sess., Jan. 3, 2008.



This document was supported by Grant No. 2010-DB-BX-K030 awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance. The Bureau of Justice Assistance is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, the Office for Victims of Crime, and the Office of Sex Offender Sen-tencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering and Tracking. Points of view or opinions in this document are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.



The National Conference of State Legislatures is the bipartisan organization that serves the legislators and staffs of the states, commonwealths and territories.

NCSL provides research, technical assistance and opportunities for policymakers to exchange ideas on the most pressing state issues and is an effective and respected advocate for the interests of the states in the American federal system. Its objectives are:

• Toimprovethequalityandeffectivenessofstatelegislatures.

• Topromotepolicyinnovationandcommunicationamongstatelegislatures.

• Toensurestatelegislaturesastrong,cohesivevoiceinthefederalsystem.

The Conference operates from offices in Denver, Colo., and Washington, D.C.

Managing Corrections Costs · 2014-03-18 · National Conference of State Legislatures 3 Managing...

Documents

Transcript of Managing Corrections Costs · 2014-03-18 · National Conference of State Legislatures 3 Managing...