NCJ Number
238401
Date Published
April 2012
Length
28 pages
Annotation
This report on lessons from the experiences of 14 States that passed research-driven sentencing and corrections reforms in 2011 is based on interviews with stakeholders and experts, as well as the experience of technical-assistance staff at the Vera Institute of Justice.
Abstract
This report is intended to be a guide to policymakers and others interested in achieving evidence-based justice reform in their jurisdictions. In highlighting significant legislative changes enacted by States in the past year, this report documents a new approach to reform in which bipartisan, multidisciplinary policy groups are using analysis of State population and sentencing data, driven by the political will fueled by the budget crisis, relying on decades of criminal justice research, and reaching out to key constituencies. This legislation intends to make more cost-effective use of incarceration and the channeling of cost savings into community programs proven to reduce recidivism and victimization. Three main themes characterized 2011 legislation in the 14 States. First, policymakers are using data to increase their knowledge about how system elements such as sentencing laws, parole revocations, and eligibility for "good time" influence their corrections population; and they are relying on that data analysis in the development of laws, policies, and practices that are cost-effective in promoting public safety. Second, State legislatures are recognizing that bipartisan, multidisciplinary efforts typically have the greatest chance of producing cost-effective changes. Third, it is critical to measure what counts and evaluate the outcomes. The authors advise that for policymakers to achieve the benefits of evidence-based policy changes, new laws must be adequately funded for effective implementation. The States included in this analysis are Kentucky, Vermont, North Carolina, Arkansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Texas, Colorado, Montana, Rhode Island, Illinois, Maryland, New Hampshire, and Ohio. Appended brief descriptions of relevant legislative provisions from each State