session-4_reducing-recidivism_handout_final

Supported by

Criminal Justice Support for New State Administrations

Community Supervision, Improving Reentry Pathways, and Reducing Recidivism State leaders must focus on improving community supervision outcomes to improve recidivism rates, which can also be linked to improving public safety. In tandem, state leaders must plan for the successful reentry of people returning from prison. This session will demonstrate how states have improved recidivism rates and the experience of people returning to the community and will highlight innovative policies and practices.

Marsha Banks, Founder and Executive Director, Amiracle4sure, Inc. Jac Charlier, Executive Director, TASC Center for Health and Justice Nicole Jarrett, Director, National Reentry Resource Center Kalyn Hill, Senior Policy Analyst, NGA Homeland Security and Public Safety (moderator) 3 Ways to Identify Opportunities to Improve Outcomes for People on Community Supervision 1. Examine how your state holds people on probation or parole supervision accountable when they commit technical violations or are arrested—but not yet convicted—for low-level offenses that would not result in a prison sentence.

2. Explore whether your state devotes greater supervision resources to people who are assessed as being at the highest risk of reoffending. This practice helps states maximize limited resources in a way proven to reduce recidivism.

3. Consider policy changes that other states have made to address the large number of people on supervision and admitted to prison for technical supervision violations, such as: a. Restricting, in statute or through administrative policy, when violations can result in a revocation to prison b. Reducing maximum terms on supervision c. Incentivizing good behavior by creating opportunities to reduce supervision terms for people who comply with conditions d. Reducing overwhelming caseloads among probation and parole officers by providing less intensive supervision to people who are at a low risk of reoffending 5 Strategies to Foster an Evidence-Based Approach to Reducing Recidivism in Your State 1. Use data to understand recidivism drivers, inform policy development, and monitor progress: By collecting and examining recidivism data, state leaders can begin to identify key drivers of recidivism, craft targeted policies to address system challenges, and prioritize investments in specific areas that need reinforcement.

2. Establish partnerships with key stakeholders and organizations: Successful recidivismreduction approaches require collaboration and stakeholder commitment from community organizations and service providers. By establishing these partnerships, state agencies are better positioned to strengthen needed connections to programs and services upon someone’s release.

Collaboration across these entities also reduces duplication of services and improves information sharing during the case planning process.

3. Tailor supervision practices and programs based on risk and needs assessments: Administering risk and needs assessments to people who are incarcerated and on supervision is essential to ensuring they are connected to the right services and level of supervision intensity.

This evidence-based practice helps corrections agencies optimize their existing resources by

focusing on supervision programs and practices that have the greatest impact on recidivism reduction.

4. Strengthen correctional culture through committed leadership and staff engagement: State leaders need to cultivate a corrections and supervision culture that embraces recidivism reduction as a core focus. This requires buy-in from leadership and staff at all levels. Corrections leaders must demonstrate that commitment by placing the same emphasis on recidivism-reduction activities as they do on security and containment strategies.

5. Sustain funding for evidence-based programs and practices: Despite strapped state budgets and competing demands for resources, state leaders need to consistently invest in recidivism-reduction efforts to realize long-term outcomes.

3 Strategies to Advance State Reentry Efforts to the Next Level 1. Support a broad reentry coalition: Corrections leaders, police, prosecutors, and judges from across these diverse systems all say the same thing: We cannot do it alone. Criminal justice agencies are increasingly locking arms with those working in housing, behavioral health, employment, and other sectors to meet reentry challenges with a unified front. To be successful, these nascent partnerships must lead to a fundamental shift in how these governmental and nongovernmental actors think and work. Policy, funding, and programming decisions must be made collaboratively across multiple agencies in a way that is inclusive of the voices of those who have been affected by the criminal justice system.

2. Scale what works: There is a rich body of research on what works to reduce recidivism, yet state and local agencies still struggle to fund and implement these research-based practices.

Governors can invest in scaling what works, while also holding administrators accountable for implementing these practices with fidelity.

3. Improve measures and develop new knowledge: To understand whether reentry efforts are having their intended impact, administrations need timely access to recidivism metrics as well as data on other measures of success, such as housing, employment, treatment progress, and more. Right now, most states are woefully ill-equipped to report on recidivism; at least 35 states do not currently report reconviction or rearrest data on people released from prison.

While the research on what works is more robust than ever, efforts to evaluate existing and new initiatives will continue to be hindered without transforming how data on reentry is collected, analyzed, and shared.

10 Key Questions to Guide Decision-Making on Community Supervision Policies 1. How are technical violations of supervision handled in your state?

2. How do your state’s policies impact the length of time that people are on probation and parole?

3. For what types of new offenses are people on supervision being sent to prison?

4. How much does your state invest in supervision annually? How much do supervision violations cost your state annually?

5. What types of programs are provided to people who are incarcerated and on supervision? Are these programs prioritized for people who have the highest risk of reoffending? Are they based on the latest research on what works to reduce recidivism?

6. What has your state done to scale up implementation of supervision practices and programs designed to reduce new criminal behavior?

7. Are there requirements to evaluate programs on a regular basis? When were these programs last evaluated?

8. How might your state increase the performance of programs and treatment utilized by supervision agencies?

9. Does your state assess the availability of treatment and programming for people on supervision?

Criminal Justice Support for New State Administrations | 2

10. How does your state determine necessary funding levels to meet the needs of people who are at the highest risk of reoffending?

12 Key Questions to Guide Decision-Making on Reentry Policies 1. Do people who lack state identification automatically receive it upon release from prison or jail?

2. Are people in the criminal justice system prioritized for employment services based on their risk of reoffending?

3. How is the governor’s office coordinating criminal justice agencies and departments of labor/workforce to improve pathways to employment?

4. What physical and behavioral health services currently exist in the community to serve people in the justice system, and what opportunities exist to build capacity?

5. What state statutes exist that prohibit opportunities for employment based on certain types of criminal convictions?

6. What opportunities, if any, currently exist for people returning to society to expunge their criminal record?

7. How can your administration engage the business community in reducing barriers to employment?

8. What steps might your state take to reduce the impact a criminal record has on a person’s ability to find employment, when appropriate?

9. How can your state support local initiatives to reduce barriers to employment?

10. What steps might your state take to reduce the impact a criminal record has on a person’s ability to find housing, when appropriate?

11. What laws does your state have to protect landlord liability when renting to people who have criminal records?

12. Does your state provide funding for programs to provide housing for people who have criminal records and behavioral health needs?

Criminal Justice Support for New State Administrations | 3