Members of the

U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations

(February 1993)

Private Citizens

Daniel J. Elazar, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Robert B. Hawkins, Jr., Chairman, San Francisco, California

Mary Ellen Joyce, Arlington, Virginia

Members of the U.S. Senate

Daniel K. Akaka, Hawaii

Dave Durenberger, Minnesota

Charles S. Robb, Virginia

Members of the U.S. House of Representatives

Donald M. Payne, New Jersey

Craig Thomas, Wyoming

Vacancy

Officers of the Executive Branch, U.S. Government

kancy

F/acancy

Vacancy

Governors

I/acanq

Kicancy

Vacancy

kancy

Mayors

Victor H. Ashe, Knoxville, Tennessee

Robert M. Isaac, Colorado Springs, Colorado

Edward G. Rendell, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Bruce Todd, Austin, Texas

Members of State Legislatures

Paul Bud Burke, President, Kansas State Senate

Samuel B. Nunez, Jr., President, Louisiana Senate

kancy

Elected County Officials

Ann Klinger, Merced County, California, Board of Supervisors

Barbara Sheen Todd, Pinellas County, Florida,

Board of Commissioners

~cancy
AN INFORMATION REPORT

Guide to the Criminal Justice System

for General Government Elected Officials

Supported by interagency agreement from the National Institute of Justice,

Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Points of view in

this document are those of the Commission and do not necessarily represent

the official position of the U.S. Department of Justice.

ADVISORY COMMISSION ON

INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS M-l 84

Washington, DC 20575 1993
U.S. Advisory Commission on

Intergovernmental Relations

800 K Street, NW

South Building

Suite 450

Washington, DC 20575

(202) 6535640

FAX (202) 653-5429

2
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This guide was prepared as part of a project on the role of elected officials in the

criminal justice system. The project director and author of the guide is Vivian E. Watts,

a former Virginia legislator and Secretary of Public Safety.

ACIR commends the dedication of the following individuals in helping launch these

studies: Donald Murray of the National Association of Counties, Nolan Jones of the National Governors’ Association, Jon Felde of the National Conference of State Legislatures, Patrick V Murphy of the U.S. Conference of Mayors’ Police Policy Board, and Edwin W. Zedlewski of the U.S. Justice Department’s National Institute of Justice.

At ACIR, Ronald D. Allen and Erica Jacoby Price provided research support for

the project. Joan A. Casey edited the report for publication. . Funding for the project was assisted by the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of

Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice, under NIJ’s program to facilitate the

exchange of information to improve state and local criminal justice administration.

John Kincaid

Executive Director

Bruce D. McDowell

Director, Government Policy Research
Using This Guide

Each of the 14 sections that follow concentrates

on a different aspect of the criminal justice system.

Each provides a page of background information and

a page of relevant questions, any one of which can be

used by officials or their staff to begin exploring improvements within a particular agency and ways the

agency can function better within the criminal justice

system.

Each section is designed to stand alone as a ready

reference when issues emerge. Reading them in order, however, will aid in understanding the criminal

justice system.

Although specific functions are predominantly the

responsibility of the county, state, or city, there are

many overlapping concerns and impacts, as well as

different assignment of responsibility from system to

system. From each section, state, local, and federal officials all can gain understanding of the total governance challenge presented by each component of the

criminal justice system.

For a more in-depth discussion of policy development and management oversight issues, see ACIR’s

report The Role of General Government Elected Ojjiciais in Criminal Justice.

4
CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . , , . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . 7-12

INTAKE

Policing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..a................ 14-15

Jails . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16-17

ADJUDICATION

Prosecution......................................................... 18-19

IndigentDefense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-21

Pretrial Release . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22-23

Courts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24-25

Victims and Witnesses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..*............................ 26-27

CORRECTIONS

Probation and Sanction Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28-29

Prisons............................................................. 30-31

Prison and Jail Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32-33

Sentencing and Parole . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34-35

Prison and Jail Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , 341-37

THE JUVENILE SYSTEM .................................................. 38-39

FINANCING .............................................................. 40-41

APPENDICES

&pen& A-Crime Definitions ....................................... 4 3

Appendix B-Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44-48

Appendix C-Sources Of Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . 49-52

5

INTRODUCTION

WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THIS GUIDE?

The purpose of this Guide is to assist general government officials in effective

oversight of their criminal justice system. The Guide assumes that, even if crime rates

could be cut in half, taxpayers are entitled to efficient, effective, and responsive government services. Criminal justice is no exception,

While comprehensive, the Guide:

Is limited to actions once crime occurs. This does not underestimate the crucial role of prevention in reducing crime and the need for greater prevention efforts.

Emphasizes state and local governments, reflecting the fact that the federal

justice system handles only about 6 percent of criminal cases.

Focuses on concerns that have major cost impacts across agencies andgovemments and over time.

Provides basic tools to help officials improve the functioning of criminal justice agencies.

WHAT ARE THE ,ROLES OF GENERAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS?

Much of what is written about criminal justice addresses officials inside the system,

such as prosecutors, judges, police, and corrections administrators. Little has been

done to inform officials whose responsibilities include the full breadth of government

activities, officials who must be equally concerned about schools, sewage treatment,

land use, tax policy, social services, business regulation, roads, and even barking dogs.

These general government officials are:

n Elected Executives

governors, county executives, mayors, and the President

w Legislators

state legislators, county commissioners, members of city councils, and

members of Congress

n Nonelected administrators and advisors, especially

county and city managers, budget and planning directors, and key legislative and executive staff.
These general government officials play pivotal roles in many aspects of criminal justice, including:

n

n Working with citizens to prevent and reduce crime.

Supporting civil order and exemplifying a high standard of ethical behavior;

Legislatively defining behaviors that constitute crime;

Setting criminal penalties through sentencing legislation;

Appropriating over $70 b’ll’ 1 ion to fund criminal justice agencies;

Serving as ombudsmen for the public;

Holding program managers accountable for effective use of tax dollars;

Arguing for adequate intergovernmental funding;

Bringing together independent criminal justice officials and public and private agencies to focus on common goals;

Setting social, economic, and educational policies that reinforce prevention;

and

WHAT Is THE KRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEMT

There is no one system of criminal justice. Each state and, to some extent, each

local government, as well as the federal government has its own system. The U.S. Constitution originally left most criminal law to the states, with each state expected to reflect community standards through enforcement of its own criminal laws. State delegation of police protection to local governments and independent selection of local

judges, prosecutors, and sheriffs further reflected a fear of centralized law enforcement. This diversity underscores that:

n No jurisdiction’s criminal justice system can be understood without asking

questions about it directly (as encouraged by this Guide).

w National criminal justice initiatives are limited by the constitutions of the

United States and the states.

w Criminal justice in America is based on a system of checks and balances that

presents unique challenges to general government officials.

n Lawmakers and chief executives must work with court officials and agency

heads whom they have no authority to hire or fire.

n The independently selected criminal justice officials interact with police departments, public defenders, forensic services, parole boards, probation

departments, and prison systems separately authorized and/or funded by

municipal, county, state, or federal governments or the judiciary.

n Criminal sanctions and prevent@ efforts may need to involve other general government agencies and private sector initiatives that provide education, substance abuse, and employment services essential to offenders’

successful reentry into society.

These components of the criminal justice system are depicted in Figure 1.

8
7

CRIMINAL JUSTICE RESPONSIBILITIES

THE PEOPLE

lawmakers

(State Legklatoq County Commissioners,

Ciry Council, Con-)

. Enact laws that define crimes,

set penalties, and establish pmcedmes

n Define policy direction

n Fund program budgets

n Provide oversight

-PublicOpinion

Chief Executives

(Governors, County Executives,

Mayors, President)

n Propose laws that define crimes

and recommend penalties

. Set program policies

n Initiate program budgets

9 Monitor results

m Hold agencies accountable

I

Juvenile Justice

System

n Separate facilities from adults

. Confidentiality

n Informal hearings

n Treatment

CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

Arrest and Investigation

n Police

Court Activity

n Clerk of Court*

n 56% Municipal . Prosecutor*

m SherifT or County -mm*

Police Department

m Indigent Defense

n State Police

= victim/witness Programs

. Federal Agencies

=fudees*

r -

. Crime Labs

. Coroners*

(No charges filed) 4- - - - y;js

Community Options: 1

Non-Criminal Justice

Treatment Programs

n Education

n Employment

n Family Services

n Alcohol & Drug Treatment

n Mental Health

Corrections

l County JaWSheriffZ

n Minor offenders (misdemeanants)

sentenced to less than one year

9 Serious offenders awaiting transfer

to prison

m State Prison

n Serious offenders (felons) serving

more than one year

m Federal Prison

m 8% of all prison inmates

““‘:,.,,,,, n Determmed by state executive

l Usually are elected officials

- Judicial Branch or sometimes administered by Judicial Branch

- - - Path of persons accused under state or local laws

9
How SERIOUS Is THE CRIMINALJUSTICE CHALLENGE?

Unprecedented growth has occurred in all criminal justice agencies. The clearest picture of this

growth is represented by the increase in prison populations since 1973, as shown in Figure 2.

SENTENCED PRISONERS IN Si%iND FEDERAL INSTITUTIONS

1925-l 990 RI-Ml

0

1925 1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990

Year

Source: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Sourcebook of Crimina/ Justice

Statistics, 1989, 1991.

The growth pictured reflects the policies established by general government officials and the actions of the criminal justice system and has been driven by five elements in the approximate proportions shown in Figure 3:

(’

FACTORS CONTRIBUTING %;;lSONCRO~JVTH, 1974-l 9%)

and Sentencing 60.9%

This estimate of contributing factors reflects the following statistics:

The total number of people in prison grew

General population growth* was

Reports of serious crime (UCR felonies)* grew

Arrests* for felonies and drug offenses grew

The combined likelihood of arrests being prosecuted,

of conviction, and of a prison sentence grew

The residual is a growth in time actually served of

-973-1989, all other 1974-1990.)

238.2%

18.3

63.5

76.3

221.2

17.0

1 0
Because of this extraordinary growth throughout the criminal justice system:

n The United States has more of its population behind bars than any other country in the

world.

n Criminal justice is the fastest growing area of state and local spending. In constant dollars,

.expenditures grew 232% between 1970 and 1990. In comparison, public expenditures on

hospitals and health care increased 71%; public welfare, 79%; and education, 32%.

n Spending pressures are not equal across governments (Figure 4).

figure 4

OWN-SOURCE FUNDING, BY GOVERNMENT,

AS A PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE SPENDING, 1973-l 990

Police 38.4

36.5 m Corrections

0 Judicial & Legal Services

1973 1990 1973 1990 1973 1990 1973 1990

State County Municipal Federal

Source: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Justice Expenditure and Employment, 1990.

State own-source spending increased by 759%

State budgets now carry the largest total share of funding due to prison costs and state assumption

of financial responsibility for county and municipal courts in many states.

County spending increased by 491%

Jail growth has been almost as great as prison growth, and many counties still bear significant

court costs. Highly urbanized counties also bear some of the crime prevention costs noted below for

municipalities.

Municipal spending increased by 330%

This growth is modest compared to that of states and counties, which have had to fund higher

court and corrections costs associated with increased local police activity. This average also masks

significantly higher increases for large cities and does not include expenditures to prevent crime, such

as street lights, recreation programs, and social services.

Federal spending increased by 345%

Federal prisons house only 8% of inmates, and the federal justice system accounts for just 12% of

total criminal justice spending. In 1973,27% of federal criminal justice spending went for grants to

state and local governments, compared to only 7% in 1990.

1 1
How Do CITIZENS PERCEIVE CRIMINAL JUSTICE?

Public opinion polls and focus groups held across the country indicate that:

H Fear of crime causes many people to discount reported successes in crime fighting. This

fear makes it difficult to establish correctional programs in community settings.

n Because people are concerned about safety, they are more interested in preventing future

criminal activity than in punishment, and a majority favors restitution and alternatives to

incarceration for nonviolent first offenders.

n People have more faith in the police to protect them from crime than in any other component of the criminal justice system.

WHAT Is THE CHALLENGE TO GENERAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS?

These and other beliefs challenge officials to educate their constituents and themselves about:

n Understanding crime statistics and criminal justice programs;

w Criminal justice system constraints and the potential to deal with management, personnel,

facility, and/or turf problems;

n The need to support a response capability throughout the criminal justice system to gain

full value from expanded police resources;

n The make-up of jail and prison populations in order to realistically judge the potential for

relief from sentencing options; and

w The cost of program and security options versus the cost of incarceration.

Because lawmakers and chief executives raise and allocate tax revenues, they ultimately are held

accountable if funds are not spent economically and individual programs do not produce results.

This Guide emphasizes the need to measure the success of each agency by its contribution to the

ability of the whole system to control costs and reduce crime. Officials also will gain insight into how

their sentencing policies and budget priorities contribute to these goals.

12
THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
POLICING

There are more than 17,OOOpolice and sheriff departments in the United States. More than half of the 15,000 local forces

have fewer than 10 sworn officers. Municipal governments account for 55.9% of the funds spent on policing; counties,

16.8%; states, 14.6%, and federal, 12.7%.

Is CRIME INCRWING?

Pdlicymakers often get contradictory answers to this question, depending on whether the answer reflects:

n The number of crimes or the crime rateChanges in the crime rate per 100,000 people always will be less than the number of additional crimes if a

jurisdiction’s population is growing.

n The timeframeFor example, nationally, the crime rate in 1990 was lower than in 1980 but higher than in 1985.

n Reported crime versus an estimate of crimes actually committedIn part because the likelihood of victims reporting crime increased from 32% in 1973 to 38% in 1990, the

FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) shows an increase in crime rates. However, the annual National Crime

Victimization Survey (NCVS) estimates that the average number of crimes actually committed against

households has not increased.

w The type of crimeViolent crime rates increased 33% from 1982-1990; however, the overall crime rate showed little change

because property crimes are far more numerous, and their rate increased only 2%. Violent crime committed

by juveniles is one of the fastest growing categdries.

CATEGORIES OF CRIME

Acts that legislatures have defined as crimes are grouped as follows:

Misdemeanors-minor crimes that may be punished by jail time but not by time in a state prison.

Felonies-crimes that may be punished by more than one year in prison. Types of felonies include:

Violent Crime-crimes that can result in personal injury, such as manslaughter, robbery, rape, assault, and

arson, which are included in the UCR.

Nonviolent (or Property) Crime-crimes that involve intent to take property and are typically committed

when no one is present. The UCR covers burglary, larceny/fraud, and auto theft.

“White Collar” Crime-crimes involving violation of trust or poiition, such as embezzlement, bribery,

and fraud.

Drug Crimes-crimes that involve possession, use, sale, distribution, cultivation, and manufacture of

controlled substances. Crime statistics never reflect drug crimes because victims do not report them.

Drug crime is reflected only in arrest statistics.

WHY AREN’T ALL ARRESTS PROSECUTED?

Police and sheriffs’ deputies have the REPORTED CRIMES CLEARED BY ARREST,

authority to choose to arrest or not ar- By Offense Category, 1990

rest and what crime(s) to charge the suspect for violating. Arrests are made on

“probable cause.” However, conviction

requires “proof beyond reasonable

Aggravated AssaultE;w\\Y

doubt.” Evidence problems (no wit- Violent

nesses, victim reluctance to testify), Crimes Forcible RapeI;I\\\\\\\\\\U

constitutional issues (no search warrant), and overcharging (arresting evRobbery-WY

eryone at a drug scene, arrests related to ArsonI

other crimes) may lead prosecutors to

not prosecute some arrests. Property Crimes LarcenyjTheft_h

Source: U.S. Department of justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Unifbrm Crime

Reports, 1991.

14
QUESTIONS AN ELECTED OFFICIAL MIGHT ASK ABOUT

POLICING

NEIGHBORHOOD R ESPONSE

l What are the differences in reported crime and arrests between precincts or neighborhoods?

l How do patrol ofleers feel about “community policing “? 0 Do supervisors feel the same way?

Targeted use of limited resources and equitable protection of all citizens are important policy issues.

Many departments are refocusing policies toward building positive relationships with the community.

The concept of community policing encourages police officers to be seen, to take preventive action at

sites of repeated criminal activity, to enlist other agencies in meeting community needs, and to encourage citizen help. Instituting community policing raises a variety of personnel issues, from how to evaluate

patrol officers/deputies to the concerns of senior officials that they will lose control over patrol officers’

priorities. Special training of both patrol officers/deputies and senior officials may be necessary.

MANAGEMENT AND TECHNOLOGY

l What proportion of time is spent on activities, such as paperwork, court appearances,

patrol, tra$ic enforcement, 911 responses, criminal investigations, VIP duties, and community relations?

This analysis is essential for identifying system bottlenecks and establishing priorities. Court schedules should focus on efficient use of all participants’ time. Jurisdictions with high levels of criminal

activity may benefit from having magistrates and prosecutors available on weekends or at night.

l What available technology has been brought on-line?

l Has increased effectiveness been documented?

Some of the systems available include computerized fingerprint identification (AFIS), career

criminal (ROPES) and residential burglary (ReBES) profiling, patrol car laptop computers, or

computer-aided dispatch.

CONVICTION RATES

l What is the conviction rate for the department?

l How do these rates compare with neighboring police departments working with the same prosecutor’s o@e?

l Is there regular communication with the prosecutor’s ofie to improve conviction rates?

Most departments keep data only on arrests. They do not track the prosecutor’s refusal to file charges

and/or the effectiveness of police practices in achieving convictions. A large number of arrests not

resulting in prosecution wastes police/sheriff, prosecutor, and court time and requires additional jail

(detention) beds to hold suspects.

PLANNING

l Does the department participate, at least annually,

in reviewing projections for jail or prison bed needs?

Lack of correctional options also can waste funds spent on policing. It is important that forecasts for

prison and jail needs reflect current priorities and criminal activity, not just historic trends.

INTERGOVERNMENTAL C OOPERATION

l How many different agencies can make arrests in this community

and what are their responsibilities?

Response to citizens, effectiveness, efficiency, and action by the rest of the criminal justice system are

affected by how many police agencies operate in a community. Authority may be spread over several

municipal police forces, county police, county sheriff departments, constables, state police, plus approximately 50 federal agencies, campus security, park police, and transportation authorities.

l How is performance enhanced through intergovernmental cooperation?

Multijurisdictional and local/state/federal cooperative efforts are used to combat drugs and support

rural departments. Computer networks give immediate access to expanded criminal data banks.

Training academies and consolidated forensic services provide greater professionalism. Intergovernmental arrangements should be set forth in formal negotiated agreements.

1 5
JAILS

MOST ARE IN LARGE JAM

Although almost every county operates a jail, over 80% of all

inmates are housed in the jails of 508 urban jurisdictions with

an average daily jail population of over 100 inmates.

THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE CROSSROADS

Many criminal justice agencies converge at the jail. Here,

arrestees are brought for booking, magistrates charge suspects and set bail, prosecutors review information with arresting officer(s), defense attorneys interview indigent clients, and pretrial services screen defendants for release

eligibility. Jails do not control how long they will hold offenders awaiting trial or, in most instances, how quickly

state-sentenced felons will be transferred out. During 1990,

there were nearly 20 million jail admissions and releases.

AVERAGE LENGTH OF STAY

The average length of stay for jail inmates is 110 days. The

average stay for pretrial inmates is 66 days and for sentenced inmates, 156 days.

JAILS UNDER C OURT ORDER

128 jurisdictions, with 25% of all large jails, had at least

one facility under court order to reduce crowding, while

23% of all jails were ordered to improve conditions.

PROFILE OF JAIL INMATES

Jails house many populations with special needs, including

the mentally ill, drug and alcohol abusers, females, and juveniles under special circumstances. The range of criminal types varies from those serving sentences for drunk

driving to approximately 1 in 5 who are violent career

criminals awaiting trial.

Between 1983 and 1989, increases occurred in the percentage of females (9.5%), high school graduates (46.2%),

those employed full time (64.5%), blacks (41.7%), and

Hispanics (17.4%). These shifts were due in part to an increase from 9.3% to 22.8% in those being held for drug offenses.

POPULATION PROFILE OF LOCAL JAILS, 1989

In 1987, states provided $932 million in corrections aid to

local governments. Of this amount, 61.3% went for jails.

Twenty states accounted for 97% of the intergovemmental aid; assistance ranged from $27 per capita to $1.50.

Awaiting Sentence

7.3%

1 Source: “Profile of Jail, Inmates, 1989,” 61s Bulletin, April 1991

STATE AID TO JAU

STATE AID TO LOCAL CORRECTIONS,

FY 1985

500

5

z 400

n

5

g 300

5

$ 200

I100

0

$492,731

U.S. Total = $802,951

Institutions Probation Other

and Parole Corrections*

* Includes juvenile, construction, and training programs.

Source: National Conference of State Legislatures, “State Aid

to Local Government.” 1989.

16
QUESTIONS AN ELECTED OFF-ICIAL MIGHT ASK ABOUT

JAILS

SPACE

l How is the number of inmates the jail will hold determined?

The number of inmates held in any jail is affected by court orders, state standards, the sheriff’s management philosophy, the original design of the facility, physical limits (such as lavatories), and security

needs. These and other valid concerns make it necessary to approach comparisons between facilities

and systems with care.

INMATE CLASSIFICATION

l How are inmates classified? l How is information about arrestees obtained?

l What are the most critical concerns in separating people?

Separating the populations held in a local jail is a critical management challenge. Lack of access to

information, space limitations, and the priorities of the sheriff or jail administrator are concerns.

Some jails still hold juveniles, despite the resulting loss of federal funds. Many jails report difficulty

handling the larger numbers of mentally ill persons in the system. A separate detention facility for

persons awaiting trial reduces some of these problems, and some municipalities operate holding cells

for arrestees who have not been charged.

SENTENCED P RISONERS

a What has been done to provide less costly bed space for people sentenced for misdemeanors?

Misdemeanors are minor offenses, such as shoplifting, drunk and disorderly conduct, drunk driving,

and violations of local ordinances involving noise, litter, etc. Some jurisdictions house these inmates in

renovated motels, schools, or other surplus space. Weekend or evening sentences, however, must be

scheduled so as not to further crowd the jail when the number of arrestees being detained is the highest.

l What determines whether a misdemeanant will serve a full sentence in jail?

l Is early release in line with reductions given state felons?

By definition, misdemeanors are punished by a sentence of less than one year in a local jail; felonies are

punished by at least one year in a state prison. Several states are more generous to prison inmates in

deducting days for “good time” than they are to people serving misdemeanor jail sentences. Such a

policy can add to jail crowding.

MOVING TO TRIAL

l Have you been able to work with the prosecur& and the court to reduce crowding on weeken&?

The availability of assistant prosecutors and court magistrates may reduce the number of arrestees

being held awaiting arraignment.

l How do you work with the court to assure that persons arraigned are moved to trti as quickly as possible?

l What improvements have you discussed with the prosecutor, public defender, and defense bar?

Some sheriffs provide the court with daily reports of the status of each prisoner awaiting trial or sentencing. Counties whose jails are not physically close to their courts may be able to cut transportation and

security costs and speed preliminary proceedings through closed-circuit television or other technology.

FINANCING

l How does the state or federal government make payments related to the jail?

When federal authorities use a local jail to hold persons awaiting trial, it is done under the terms of a

mutually agreed upon contract that sets the per diem payment. State payments can take many forms,

including:

Q The actual cost of housing inmates for whom the state is responsible or a flat rate per diem;

0 Payments for all persons charged with a state felony or only for sentenced felons;

0 A fixed percentage of actual construction costs or a fixed amount; and/or

Q The sheriff’s salary and the salaries of all state-authorized deputies or no salary assistance.

(See additional questions in sections on Prison and Jail Programs, Prison and Jail Construction, and the Juvenile System.)

17
PROSECUTION

The prosecutor’s office is the key to how many people will be in the criminal justice system, where, for how long, at what

level of security and, therefore, at what cost.

SOME OBSERVERS MAINTAIN THAT THE PROSECUTOR Is THE MOST POWERFUL OFFICIAL IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM:

PROVIDING COUNSEL DURING CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS AND OBTAINING WARRANTS strengthen major cases by assuring that police work is conducted according to the law.

CHARGE SCREENING practices vary by region. In most large jurisdictions and in the West and Midwest, the

prosecutor decides whether an arrestee will be charged, based on probable cause that the charge will hold up in

court. In the South and Northeast, the prosecutor typically is not informed until after charges are filed in a special

“police court.” After the charge is filed-even if the prosecutor agreed-the prosecutor has the power to drop a

charge (noile prosequi) at any point.

Charge screening also depends on the prosecutor’s philosophy. One survey reported a range from zero to

47% for arrests declined for prosecution. Typically, the higher the number of arrests rejected by the prosecutor,

the higher the number of convictions in the remaining cases.

BAIL SETTING AND PRETRIAL RELEASE are other points at which most prosecutors play a significant role.

The prosecutor’s input as to whether it is safe to let the defendant await trial in the community has a strong influence on the magistrate or other court official making the decision.

GUILTY PLEAS produce 91% of all felony convictions, and at least one-third result from PLEA BARGAINING.

This is a process of negotiation with the defense, in which the prosecutor can reduce the charges and/or agree to

recommend a reduced sentence to the judge in exchange for a guilty plea. Because the judge can sentence based

only on the charges and the facts presented by the prosecutor (e.g., did the offender “brandish” or merely “possess” a weapon), mandatory sentencing guidelines have not diminished plea bargaining.

AVERAGE DISPOSITION OF ARRESTS

IN STATE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEMS

5 2 2 1 8 5 2 3

Diverted Rejected Dismissed Guilty Pleas Tried

I I

100 Arrests I

Source: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, l3)S Annual Report, 1988.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM PROCEDURES CHECK THF PROSECUTOR’S POWER:

A PRELIMINARY OR PROBABLE CAUSE HEARING, depending on state law, must take place from 24 hours to

10 days after an arrest and determines whether the defendant is to be charged and/or detained. In a preliminary

hearing, the prosecutor must merely show probable cause to proceed with the case. In a trial, it must be proven

beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty.

GRAND JURIES allow a body of citizens to decide whether to indict the accused. In 18 states, grand juries must be

used in all felony cases unless the accused waives this right. In other states, grand juries are used only in selected

cases. In over half the states that use this system, the prosecutor must file charges before the case is referred to

the grand jury for indictment.

SPEEDY TRIAL LAWS establish specific restrictions on how long an accused may be held before charges are

filed, before being brought to court for the first time, and before being tried. The constitutional right to a speedy

trial and a trial by jury protect the accused in plea bargaining.

LEGISLATORS prescribe minimum and maximum penalties, and JUDGES have the discretion to reject a prosecutor’s pleadings.

18
QUESTIONS AN ELECTED OFFICIAL MIGHT ASK ABOUT

PROSECUTION

CASELOADS

l How many felony cases are handled by the prosecutor’s o&e now compared to 5 years ago?

l What types of cases are expedited?

l How has the increase in drug cases been handled?

l How are seasonal caseload fluctuations handled?

l Who decides if a new attorney’s position should be added and on what basis?

Sound management of the prosecutor’s office is crucial to reducing the cost of holding people in jail

longer than is warranted at most steps in court processes. Case management changes also may reduce

the need for new positions.

SUPPORT SERMCES

l What support does, or should, the prosecutor3 o@e receive for training and legal research?

Almost two-thirds of all prosecutor offices employ two or fewer assistant prosecutors (some have

none). Some states have established computerized legal research systems that can be accessed by these

small offices. In addition, the state may organize in-service training.

IMPROVING CAKE MANAGEMENT

l Does the chief prosecutor meet regularly with the chief judge or court administrator,

the sheriff or jail administrator, chiefs of police, the clerk of court, and the public defender?

l Have they engaged in a thorough case management analysis?

The policies and procedures of the prosecutor’s office affect the size of the local jail population and

court efficiency. Significant elements include:

0 Early case screening, including weekends;

0 Access to a coordinated criminal record base;

0 Support of pretrial release alternatives;

0 Expedited processing of detained defendants;

0 Document transmission;

0 Case tracking and review; and

0 Appearance of witnesses and defendants.

l Have forensic laboratory backlogs delayed trials because evidence is not analyzed

in a timely manner?

Criminal evidence analysis varies greatly. Services may be provided by the state health department, by

an elected county coroner or a medical examiner, in a municipal police laboratory, or by a regional

service contract with the laboratory in the largest jurisdiction. Staffing may not have increased with the

rise in criminal caseloads.

l How does the prosecutor work with the police andlor sherips department

to keep cases that cannot be prosecuted from entering the system?

Routine feedback on why cases are being rejected and in-service training for prosecutors can reduce

costs and frustration.

DEVELOPING COMMUNITY SANCTIONS

l Lhxs the prosecutor participate in the development of sentencing options and pretrial release strategies?

If prosecutors lack confidence in these programs, they will reject them in plea bargaining and argue

against their use before the judge or magistrate. In contrast, some prosecutors have initiated deferred

prosecution and will drop the charge if the defendant participates in a treatment program. Others have

championed improved data gathering and risk assessment models to enable pretrial release decisions

to be made on more than just the criminal record.

1 9
INDIGENT DEFENSE

RIGHT TO COUNSEL

U.S. Supreme Court rulings on the Sixth Amendment to

the U.S. Constitution and more stringent rulings by some

state courts require that counsel be provided to any indigent accused of a crime if the charge can result in a prison

sentence. Counsel may be assigned as early as a police

lineup or as late as a probable cause hearing. Usually, this

takes place at the first court appearance, when bond or

bail is set and indigence is determined.

TYPES OF SYSTEMS

There are three types of indigent defense systems. In 1986,

H Assigned Counsel was used in 52% of counties;

n Public Defenders in 37%; and

n Contract Attorneys in 11%.

The most populous counties have public defender offices;

they cover over 213 of the nation’s population.

IMPACT ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

Public defenders play an important role in protecting individual rights. Their role in the efficient functioning of the

criminal justice system also is important, if less obvious.

Mishandled, the indigent defense process can produce a chain of events that drives up costs throughout the criminal justice system. For example:

n Indigent persons represented by lawyers who are not prepared because of heavy caseloads or lack of experience may have more serious charges brought against them.

w This can result in higher bail being set and indigents being more apt to remain in jail.

n The more serious the charge, the weaker will be the defendants’ negotiating position in plea bargaining.

This makes it more likely that indigent defendants will receive longer sentences and be incarcerated compared to nonindigent persons committing the same act.

EXPENDITURE FOR INDIGENT DEFENSE

700

600

$ 500

=

2i

5 400

E

e 300

200

100

0

BY GOVERNMENT, 1988

$617.910

$427.788

Federal State Local

Source: Justice Expenditure and Employment, 1988.

FUNDING

There is no uniform funding approach. In 18 states, indigent defense is funded fully by the state; in 10 states, it is

supported by county funds; in the remaining 22 states, it is

funded by a combination of both. Most systems also received some assistance from municipalities, the federal

government, and private grants.

INTERGOVERNMENTAL C HALLENGE

Counties with high concentrations of poor people often

have high crime rates, resulting in a need for more public

defenders. Typically, the same communities have weak tax

bases. States are being criticized because their support has

not kept up with actual costs. These states as well as those

that provide no support need to consider the impact on

prison budgets if defendants are not diverted.

20
QUESTIONS AN ELECTED OFFICIAL MIGHT ASK ABOUT

INDIGENT DEFENSE

USE OF PRIVATE ATTORNEYS

l How are public defense attorneys selected?

l What level of criminal law experience is usually represented?

Some courts assign counsel from a list of attorneys who volunteer. It is not uncommon for these lawyers

to be inexperienced or, for other reasons, not be able to attract many private clients. Other courts

assign counsel at random from a list of bar members. Under this system, criminal law experience may

be lacking and/or indigent cases may be competing with heavy private caseloads.

l How do public &fender fees, fees paid assigned counsel, and fees paid by private clients compare?

l Are fees set in the state budget or local budget? l When were they last adjusted?

Eighteen states use only state funding, 10 states use only local, and the remainder are jointly funded. In

some states, such as Alabama and Louisiana, the system is funded largely through fees and court costs

imposed on litigants.

USE OF P UBLIC D EFENDER’S OFFICE

l How many cases are handled by the public defender’s o@ce compared to 5 years ago?

l How do prosecutor and the public defender caseloads compare?

l Who decides whether a new attorney’s position should be added and on what basis?

The total caseload reported nationwide for 1986 was about 4.4 million cases, an increase of approximately 40% between 1982 and 1986.

l What is the experience level of staff attorneys?

l What training and research support does the state provide?

l Does the public deferuierr’s oJice have the same Iegal research capability as the prosecutor’s o$ice?

Competent representation can ensure that jail or prison time will be served only for cause.

IMPROVING T HE P ROCESS

l Is the public defender’s oftie andlor representatives of the private bar included

in meetings or task forces on criminal justice problems?

Efforts to deal with system problems usually concentrate on judges, prosecutors, and sheriffs. Including the public defender’s office, probation office, and clerk of court/court administrator will add more

experience in handling large numbers of cases.

l What is the most crucial change needed in the indigent defense system

to assure both speedy and just court action?

Public defenders and assigned counsel frequently raise issues about lack of resources for expert witnesses, investigation, and legal research. Steps to improve court case management by moving cases

more quickly often exacerbate concerns about perfunctory client contact and lack of familiarity with

each case because of large caseloads.

l Are indigents represented by counsel when charges arefiled?

In counties utilizing public defenders, representation is most likely within 24 hours of arrest and usually results in earlier dispositions and less jail time.

DEVELOPING COMMUNITY SANCTIONS

l Is the public defender’s ofice and/or the local bar association involved

in the development of community sanctions and pretrial release options?

Typically, alternatives to jail or prison do not have a broad base of support and advocacy. Especially,

the private defense bar can play a role in urging policy consideration of long-term cost savings through

effective alternative programs.

2 1
PRETRIAL RELEASE

The decision to release a defendant to await trial in the community and the conditions of that release traditionally have

been based on the likelihood of the defendant appearing for court dates. By 1984,32 states and the federal government

had enacted laws directing courts also to consider danger to the community. General government support of pretrial programs must balance similar concerns: confidence that programs protect public safety, while using costly jail space wisely

and supporting efficient court proceedings.

BAIL

Until the 196Os, bail was the principal form of pretrial release. The basic forms of bail are:

n Full Cash Bond-The defendants must deposit the full amount of bail. In a 1988 study of felony defendants in

the 75 largest counties, 43% of those who were fugitives (failed to appear after one year) had been released

on full cash bonds.

H Surety Bond-The defendant pays a bondsman a nonrefundable fee to post bail, and the bondsman pays the

court the full amount of the bond if the defendant fails to appear. In the 1988 study, 26% failed to appear after

one year.

n Deposit Bond-The defendant pays the court a specified percentage of the full bail. This deposit is refunded

after the trial, minus a small administrative fee.

N Unsecured Bond-The defendant pays no money at first, but is liable for the full amount if he or she fails to

appear for court.

OTHER RELEASE OPTIONS

A presumption in favor of release without bail was included in the 1966 Federal Bail Reform Act. At least 18

states passed similar statutes. Options include:

DISTRIBUTION OF DEFENDANTS

BY TYPES OF PRE-TRIAL RELEASE,

1988

n Release on Recognizance (ROR)-The defendant is released on good faith that he or

she will return for trial.

n Third-Party Custody-The defendant is released into the custody of a third party. For

example, a juvenile often will be released

into the custody of parents.

Released

Without Having

to Pay Bail

(ROR)

Paid Bail:

Released

Held

Withoui

Bail

n Supervised Release-The defendant is required to meet court conditions (e.g., drug

testing). Failure to do so can result in incarceration.

n Citation Release-The arrestee is issued a citation to appear in court. This option is being

used increasingly for minor offenses other

than traffic.

0

I I

Unsecured

100

Could Not

Bail

6%

Pay Bail: Held

30%

Source: ‘Pretrial Release of Felony Defendants, 1988,” B]S

Bdetin, February 1991.

REFORMS

Manhattan Bail Project, developed in the early 196Os, was the first notable bail reform project. The project established Risk Assessment Models that identified factors relating to the likelihood of defendants appearing for trial. The

project was the first to document that a defendant with roots in the community was not likely to flee, whether or not he

or she had the ability to pay a bondsman. This led to establishment of Release on Recognizance, which is used for

approximately half of the felony defendants released before trial.

Pretrial Services Programs investigate defendants’backgrounds, make recommendations for release and conditions,

and may monitor those who are released. In some jurisdictions, the initial investigation includes voluntary drug testing, To counter simple negligence in remembering court dates, some jurisdictions find it cost-effective to hire personnel to remind defendants when to appear.

Although not technically pretrial release, there also are programs, such as ‘lkeatment Alternatives to Street Crime

(TASC), that divert offenders from trial. Criminal charges are suspended and will be dropped if the offender meets

certain conditions. When used for minor drug arrests, fees charged for drug treatment typically equal the fines that

would have been paid if the offender was found guilty.

22
QUESTIONS AN ELECTED OFFICIAL MIGHT ASK ABOUT

PRETRIAL RELEASE

ACCOUNTABILITY

l Who is accountable for developing and managing each aspect of pretrial release?

There are three components of pretrial release: defendant information, a decision to release the defendant, and release options. While the release decision usually is made by a court official, the responsibility to establish release options and to provide better offender information varies considerably from

one jurisdiction to another. The questions that follow help identify who is taking the initiative.

Police

l How often do police use the pretrial option of summons-in-lieu-of-arrest? l Has use increased?

Traffic tickets are a familiar use of summons. Extending the use of summons to other minor offenses

saves all the costs related to bringing arrestees to the detention intake, charging (booking) them, and

then making a routine decision to release them to await trial.

Sheriff

a Is the information gathered by jail intake o$cers used for risk assessment

to determine pretrial release? l If not, why not?

Typically, the information gathered at intake is targeted to meet the need to separate (classify) jail

inmates. To reduce jail overcrowding, however, some sheriffs obtain information at intake that also will

support use of a “risk assessment model.” The degree to which this information is used by the court -

and not challenged by the prosecutor- depends on whether staffing levels are adequate to validate

what the arrestee says and to access criminal data banks.

The Court

l What information does the court rely on in making pretrial release decisions? l Who provides it?

The person or agency responsible for providing the court with pretrial release information varies, although several national organizations caution that defendant information should be gathered by a

neutral source, and not by the police, prosecutor, or public defender.

Tradition often governs in small systems. The person who provides the information could be in the

clerk of court’s office, a sheriff’s deputy, or a court employee, or the court may simply rely on what is

said by the prosecutor and/or arresting officer. At least 500 systems have established pretrial screening

units; 38% of them are administered by courts, 24.5% by probation offices, and 10% by sheriffs. A few

courts have contracted with private agencies for these services.

Especially where staffing is a problem, simple cases may be sorted out initially, based on a judgment that background information is not necessary for a pretrial release decision.

Prosecutor

l Does the prosecutor support the use of summons-in-lieu-of-arrest? conditional release?

deferred prosecution? using risk assessment rather than the nature of the crime to determine release?

In our adversarial criminal justice system, the prosecutor’s support of pretrial options can be crucial to

how much they are used.

Public Defender or Court

l Are indigents represented by counsel in the pretrial release decision?

See section on Indigent Defense for discussion of the added cost to the criminal justice system when

offenders do not have adequate initial representation.

/ail or Court

l How long are people who will be released pretrial held in jail before release actually occurs?

l What is the range?

In 1988, in the 75 largest counties, 23% were released on the day of their arrest, another 23% were

released the next day, and 13% were released on the third day, while 22% spent more than a week in jail

before they could meet the conditions of release. Each day saved, at any point, by altering procedures

or using different options can save unwarranted jail costs.

23
COURTS

FELONY AND CIVIL FILINGS PER JUDGE,

U.S. DISTRICT COURT AND FOUR STATES,

1989

1100

1.010 I

1000 Civil

900 Felony

& 800

2 700

ii5

z 600

z 500

$ 400

2 300

200

100 I I

0

Total California Oregon Michigan North

STRUCWRE OF JUDICIAL SYSTEM

State-94% of criminal cases are heard in state courts,

which are organized with three levels of jurisdiction:

n Appellate Courts hear appeals from lower

courts; they do not try criminal cases.

n Courts of General Jurisdiction, also known

as major trial courts, hear criminal and civil

cases unlimited by type.

n Courts of Limited Jurisdiction hear minor offenses, such as misdemeanors, traffic and ordinance violations, and small civil cases. Within

this category, Family or Juvenile Courts hear

most charges brought against juveniles.

Federal-The federal judiciary has jurisdiction over federal laws andU.S. constitutional appeals. It consists of the

Supreme Court, 12 U.S. Courts of Appeal, and 94 District

Courts. Organized crime, federal regulation, and five anticrime bills during the 1980s are major factors in the shifting of cases from state to federal jurisdiction. More than

3,000 acts are defined as federal crimes; the Constitution

named only treason and counterfeiting.

COURT CUELOADS

Federal Carolina

* Includes misdemeanors.

Source: National Center for State Courts, State Court Caseload Statistics, 7 989 Annual Report, 1991.

Because each state determines the jurisdiction of its courts differently, caseloads are hard to compare. The graph above

provides one valid comparison of the caseloads of the federal district courts and four state courts that handle similar cases.

Although only about 1 out of 10 arrests in which charges are filed ultimately results in trial, judges pass sentence in all

cases or dismiss the charges.

FUNDING

State shares of state/local courtfundingvaryfrom 11% to 100%. Almost two-thirdsof all court systems (31 states)received

less than a third of their budgets from the state. In most systems, counties provide the remaining funds. Local govemments fund courts of limited jurisdiction in 21 states and family courts in 9 states.

KEY COURT OFFICERS

In addition to judicial decisions, other court activities significantly affect the functioning of the criminal justice system:

n A Court Administrator can improve efficiency

through professional administration of budget,

court personnel, information and record systems,

and court scheduling.

n Magistrates are lay persons selected by the court

to set bail or other conditions for release based on

the information they receive and options available. Their decisions have a significant impact on

how many people the jail must hold.

w The Clerk of the Court is responsible for all paperwork between the court, the prosecutor, the

defendant, the jail, and state prison system. The

fact that clerks of court are independently

elected can create friction.

n Probation Officers prepare pre-sentence reports

and supervise releases. Pre-sentence reports can

cause a judge to disregard plea bargaining agreements. Probation officers may be employees of

the court, the state, or the locality. Court probation departments are the most dependent on judicial leadership to establish community sanctions.

24
QUESTIONS AN ELECTED OFFICIAL MIGHT ASK ABOUT

COURTS

CUELOADS

l Have criminal caseloads grown in the last 5 years?

a Has this delayed civil cases?

l Are certain types of cases expedited?

l Who decides whether new judgeships are created and on what basis?

Because speedy trial laws require that cases be heard or dismissed, in some jurisdictions the flood of

criminal cases virtually has eliminated hearing civil suits, which do not have time constraints. Alternatives include special courts to hear drug possession charges, using hearing examiners, and encouraging

police to use summons-in-lieu-of-arrest to eliminate preliminary court procedures for minor offenses.

SCHEDULING AND APPEARANCES

l How are criminal cases scheduled?

During the 197Os, many state court systems reorganized and established fewer courts with greater administrative support. Professional administration, along with the computer capability to track all the

components of case scheduling, can reduce bottlenecks. Cost savings accrue from freeing jail beds,

reducing the time police spend waiting for their cases to be taken up, and reducing the need to reschedule cases because all parties are not present.

l What is the average time between arraignment and cases being decided

for released defendants accused of misdemeanors? of felonies?

l What is the average time for defendants held in jail?

State law stipulates the maximum time that can elapse; however, it is equally important for the system

to analyze average and median times to uncover case management problems.

l What technological innovations are under consideration to expedite court procedures?

Records can be kept on an integrated computer system from arrest through sentencing.Closed-circuit

television can reduce the need to transfer defendants from the jail for preliminary court appearances.

Computer access can give defense attorneys and prosecutors immediate information on case scheduling.

l How are persons reminded of court appearances?

Even if the original charge was minor, nonappearance in court can lead to jail time. Some systems have

avoided jail costs by funding notification initiatives.

CUE MANAGEMENT ANALYSIS

l Has the court participated in a thorough case management analysis with the police, prosecutor,

public defender private bar, chief probation oficer, jail administrator or sherifi and clerk of court?

The more the courts and other agencies can understand each other’s constraints and coordinate initiatives to reduce delays and institute other case management improvements, the better they can carry

out their functions. Accountability for improvements must be established.

a How does the state judicial system help local courts improve case management?

Many court reorganizations established a state court administrator. This has facilitated in-service

training and consultation to local courts. However, annual statistical summaries were not always revised to allow monitoring of local court compliance with performance standards.

DEVELOPING COMMUNIN SANCTIONS

l Do judges participate in the development of community sanctions and pretrial release strategies?

Within limits set by the legislature, judges make the sentencing and pretrial release decision. Even if

the prosecutor, defense, probation officer, and pretrial services recommend a community option, if

judges do not have confidence in the program, it will be underutilized. Court-run probation departments are especially dependent on judicial leadership.

25
VICTIMS AND WITNESSES

The National Ctirrze F/ictimizatian Survey (NCVS) estimated that more than 36 million crimes occurred in 1989; almost 20

million involved violence and/or personal theft. Since the 197Os, programs have been developed to cope with the physical,

emotional, and economic pain to victims, in addition to helping victims and witnesses cope with criminal justice processes.

General government elected officials may need to serve as ombudsmen to help victims get their needs addressed and to

ensure that funds are spent responsibly.

VICTIMS BILL OF RIGHTS

45 states have adopted a Victims’ Bill of

Rights, which includes:

VlCTlMlZAllON TRENDS, 1973-1990

(excluding murder and crimes against businesses; including unreported crimes

and misdemeanors)

50

63 Violent Crimes 0 Personal Theft q Household Crimes I Notification of case status

and scheduling;

n Information about financial

aid and social services;

H Reducing legal jargon to lay

terms;

H Protection from harassment

and intimidation; and,

n Speedy return of property

held as evidence.

PROGRAMS

No single approach is appropriate for all

victims, and demand for targeted programs is high. The women’s movement

initiated programs dealing with rape, but

different considerations are involved in

domestic violence and child abusecases.

r 8 101

/ ,,,a

t

2

1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989

Source: “Criminal Victimization, 1990,” BjS Bulletin, 1991.

The anti-drunk driving movement produced demands for greater court and sentencing access. Finally, demographic shifts

are producing more pressure to respond to the vulnerabilities and special needs of the elderly.

VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENTS

Impact statements give victims or their survivors input into the ultimate outcome of the case (sentencing). In a 1988 survey, 84% of the judges report routinely requesting information about the physical, economic, and mental impact of the

crime on the victim. Usually, this information is gathered in writing by the probation officer who prepares the pre-sentence

report, but sometimes it is requested of the prosecutor. Some systems provide for notification of and statements from

victims or their survivors when offenders are eligible for parole.

VICTIM COMPENSATION

During the 198Os, most states established programs to provide compensation for medical bills, lost wages, and funeral

services. As of 1987, recovery limits ranged from $10,000 to $50,000. Funds usually are generated by court fees. In addition,

compensation for property losses can occur if the judge orders restitution as part of the sentence and ensures that the

offender pays it.

RESTITUTION PROGRAMS

Public surveys show strong support for restitution. In 1986, half of the sentences for felony property crimes required that

the offender pay restitution to the victim; restitution was ordered in 25 percent of the sentences for violent crimes. While

the average amount was $3,368, half of the orders were under $500.

NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH AND COMMUNITY POLICING

In the 198Os, citizens working with the police through Neighborhood Watch programs were very effective in preventing

crime in cohesive residential and business communities. Community policing extends this concept to high-crime areas by

helping repeatedly victimized residents regain control. Community policing emphasizes:

n Enlisting other government agencies in meeting the neighborhood’s needs;

n Treating witnesses with respect;

m T&rgeting frequent crime scenes rather than just reacting to calls; and

n Working with residents to organize neighborhood watch assistance.

26
QUESTIONS AN ELECTED OFmCIAL MIGHT ASK ABOUT

VICTIMS AND WITNESSES

SPECIAL PROGRAMS

l What victim/witness services are provided?

0 Are there special programs for the el&rly? for victims of domestic violence? for victims of sexual crimes?

l Are core services coordinated to improve the level of service of each program?

In many jurisdictions, citizens started individual victim programs before the state or county provided

services for all court users. If public funds are received by all programs, one program for basic assistance may save funds and expand service.

l Have any crime prevention aspects of communitv policing been tried? l If not, why not?

l If community policing is used, how is its success evaluated?

By the fall of 1990, it was estimated that more than 250 departments were considering instituting community policing. Some departments resist community policing as a catch phrase, but many, especially

small departments, may have been using its concepts for years.

Building a law enforcement partnership with citizens where none exists includes establishing credible review processes for officer conduct, repairing damage done during arrests or searches, and training employees who receive crime reports, in addition to working with community residents to take

responsibility.

COMPENSATION/RESTITUTION

l Is there a compensation program for personal injuries suffered by victims?

l Who administers it? l How is it publicized? l How is it funded?

l If it is funded from a dedicated source of revenue (e.g., court fees), what is the fund balance?

An excessive fund balance generally indicates lack of use of the program. There may be problems with

lack of publicity, victims not being informed of their rights, complex application procedures, and inappropriate approval standards.

l How often is restitution ordered for violent fehmies? for nonviolent felonies (burglary, fraud, etc.)?

for misdemeanors (shoplifting, vandalism, purse snatching, etc.)?

l What is the collection rate?

The use of restitution varies with the sentencing judge’s philosophy and assessment of the offender’s

ability to pay. Collection rates often reflect the probation agency’s priorities. Payment may be regarded as secondary to keeping the offender from new criminal activity and participating in work,

education, or drug treatment programs. If fees and court costs help fund the agency’s budget, collecting restitution amounts may have low priority.

In a 1989 survey of offenders given probation in 1986,60% of those who were not imprisoned for

another crime had paid the restitution in full.

AGENCY RESPONSIBILITY/SUPPORT

l What agency or agencies are responsible for victim/witness programs?

l What are the sources of funding?

Many programs are built on a base of private contributions. Where state funding is provided, matching federal block grant funds are available under the federal victim of CrimesAct (VOCA). Local budget support is a common outgrowth of citizen initiatives.

a How does the court support victim/witness programs?

a How are victims assisted by the police department in making contact with support services?

l Has the local bar been involved in setting program goals?

l How does the prosecutor’s ofice keep victims informed of the progress of a case?

A major reason for the formation of victim/witness programs was the perception that the criminal

justice system was bewildering, if not intentionally intimidating. Official acceptance is important to

their success.

27
PROBATION AND SANCTION OPTIONS

ADULTS UNDER CORRECTIONAL SUPERVISION

1990

lail

Prob

61

WHAT Is PROBATION?

Probation is correctional supervision in the community, which judges can order instead of or in addition to tune in prison or jail.

An offender who is arrested for a new crime or violates conditions of probation may serve the entire sentence in jail or prison.

WHO DECIDES?

The judge specifies how long the offender will be on probation and establishes conditions, such as participation in a drug

abuse program, community service, curfew, travel restrictions, and paying a fine, court fees, and/or restitution to the victim. The judge often gets recommendations from the prosecutor, the defense attorney, and/or the probation department’s

pre-sentence report.

THE MOST COMMON SENTENCE

Probation is the most common criminal sentence, received

by almost 2 out of 3 offenders. Nearly 9 out of 10 misdemeanants are put on probation, but only 1 out of 3 felons receives

straight probation with no prison or jail time. However, because serious offenders are on probation longer, about half

of those on probation at any given time are felons.

SUPERVISION

Probation officers oversee both rehabilitation and law enforcement. They monitor behavior and decide when to

bring offenders back before the court to have the probation revoked for serious violations. They also may play an

active role in getting probationers into appropriate job

counseling, drug treatment, or education programs.

VIOMTORS

According to a survey of felons placed on probation in

1986, after 3 years, 38% had no disciplinary hearing or

rearrest, while 19% had only a disciplinary hearing. A total

of 46% had been sent back to prison or jail, or absconded,

with over 80% of these having at least one new felony ar- Source: “Probation and Parole, 1990,” 6/S Bulletin, November

1991.

rest.

PROBATION PROGRAMS

Intermediate Sanctions are more punitive than traditional probation, yet less severe than long-term imprisonment. Some

involve reduced incarceration, such as boot camp or work release programs, but most take place in the community, such as:

n Residential Drug Treatment-confinement for 30 days to a year in a therapeutic environment with professionally trained staff;

n Intensive Supervision Probation (ISP)-greater control and monitoring of an offender than traditional probation (e.g., at least once a week rather than once every 2 months or less);

w Electronic Monitoring-using telephone and signal devices to check offenders’ whereabouts;

n Home Detention-may or may not involve electronic monitoring;

m Day Reporting Centers-used for job training, drug treatment, and education programs;

n Urine Screens-used to detect drug abuse (one dirty urine is seldom a basis for probation revocation);

w Community Service-a specified number of hours of work, such as hospital aide or cleaning up litter.

COMMUNIN CORRECTIONS ACTS (CCA)

At least 18 states have CCAs that provide financial incentives to local governments for planning and operating intermediate sanction options in the home communities of offenders.

28
QUESTIONS AN ELECTED OFFICIAL MIGHT ASK ABOUT

PROBATION AND SANCTION OPTIONS

CASELOADS

l How have total caseloads per probation oficer changed in the last 5 years?

l Has this a$ected the number of contacts with oflenders?

During the 198Os, in many jurisdictions, the number of probation officers increased at only half the

rate of the number of probationers. Therefore, although the national survey summarized below indicates that only 40% of probationers are ordered to see their probation officer more than once a month,

the same survey points out that actual contact may be less:

Initial supervision level Prescribed number of contacts Percentage of caseload

Intensive 9 per month 10%

Maximum 3 per month 32

Medium 1 per month 37

Minimum 1 per 3 months 12

Administrative None required 9

COSTS

l What are probation program costs per oBnder compared to jail or prison costs?

a What are rearrest (recidivism) rates for similar offenders who participated in various programs?

Many agencies target funds to reducing caseloads rather than evaluation. However, even when programs are evaluated, caution should be exercised in looking at reported good results. Frequently, low

recidivism reflects the criminal histories of the participants selected more than the success of the program. A Florida study found that for those who could have been placed on regular probation, intensive

supervision did not reduce recidivism; likewise, for those who could have been placed on intensive

supervision, imprisonment did not reduce recidivism.

l What is the agency’s success in collectingfinancialpenalties?

In 1986, judges ordered 84% of felony probationers to pay an average of $1,812 in fees and penalties.

Three years later, less than half of these probationers had paid their obligations in full.

SECURITY

l Are there any state codes or regulations that bar local o$icials

from placing certain types of offenders in community programs?

Typical restrictions include absolute bars on offenders who have a history of violent action (e.g., sex

offenders and murderers) rather than all who threaten violence (e.g., robbers).

COOPERATION

l Does the chief probation oflcer meet regularly to discuss alternative programs

with the chief jmige, district attorney, the shertx andlor the defense bar?

Use of community sanctions often depends on the confidence that court officials have in their management. Busy attorneys and criminal justice officials may not know all the options.

l Are the police notified about the status and location of probationers?

Involvement of police in monitoring probationers can assist their crime investigations, improve enforcement, and refocus more of the probation officers’ efforts on rehabilitation.

l How have the probation department, the court, and general government oficials

addressed concerns of educators, treatment providers, and public employment programs?

Agencies outside the criminal justice system often resist working with offenders because:

0 They may feel that reporting probationers for nonparticipation compromises their treatment

goals.

0 There may be conflicts in treatment philosophy.

Q Probationers have multiple problems that make progress difficult.

0 They fear their existing client services and priorities will suffer.

29
PRISONS

State prisons hold 92% of all prison inmates; federal prisons hold the remainder. From 1974 to 1984, state prison populations increased over 100% while the federal prison system grew only 14%, in large part because the federal system handled

predominantly white collar crime compared to the street crimes handled by the states. From 1988 to 1992, however, due to

increased drug convictions and sentencing reform, the federal prison population doubled, state prison populations grew 44%.

WHAT FACTORS AFFECT IMPRISONMENT RATES?

n Crime and the Criminal Justice Re.

spouse--A state’s imprisonment rate is affected by reported crime, arrest rates, conviction rates, use of probation, length of

court-ordered sentences, release policies,

parole enforcement, and state legislation

that controls sentencing and release.

n War on Drugs -The number of persons sentenced to prison for drug offenses increased

150% from 1986 to 1991.

w Baby Boom-Prison populations did not fall

as the “baby boom” generation moved

through the prime crime age (15-35) during

the 1980s. While criminal activity peaks at

age 21, those who continue to commit

crimes spend increasing time in prison.

WHO Is IN PRISON?

Age-Half are over 28.

Race-47% are black, 38% white, 12% Hispanic, and 3% other.

Education-Only 38% have completed high school.

Marital Status-20% are married and 54% were never married; 80% of the females have at least one child, and

over 40% of them had their first’child before age 18.

Drug and Alcohol Use-54% admitted to being under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol at the time of the

crime; drug testing surveys show a higher percentage.

Family Crime-About 40% had an immediate family member with a prior incarceration record.

Prior Criminal Record-82% had a prior felony conviction. Almost half of inmates with nonviolent records were

in prison for at least the third time. Only 7% were nonviolent first offenders, and over 25 percent of these were

convicted of drug trafficking.

As the charts below demonstrate, because of the length of time served by violent and repeat offenders, prison populations

as a whole have more violent offenders than new admissions.

New Admissions

by Current Offense

1991 STATE PRISON POPULATIONS

Total Population

by Current Offense

Total Population

by Criminal History

Violent

27.4%

Property

34%

Violent

46%

Property

25%

Violent

6’3%

Drugs Nonviolent

31% Drugs Recidivists

22% 33%

m er* 7 6% Other* 7% . .

wst Time Nonviolent 7%

* Gambling, weapon offense, DUI, nonviolent sex crime, commercial vice, etc.

Derived from U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prisons and Prisoners in the United States, 1992

30
QUESTIONS AN ELECTED OFFICIAL MIGHT ASK ABOUT

PRISONS

INMATES AND S ENTENCING

l What have been the emcts of new sentencing laws over the last decade?

l Are impact statements required? l What can be done to enhance their e$etiveness?

The 221% increase in prison populations has been influenced by legislation leading to increased prosecution and prison sentences. Some states now require budget appropriations to accompany new sentencing laws; however, impacts typically do not occur until after current terms of office.

l What is the profile of inmates in the state’s prison system?

On average, only 7% of prison inmates are nonviolent, first-time offenders, and 25 percent of these are

drug traffickers; 60% are either serving or have previously served time for a violent offense. Of recidivist property offenders, almost half have served time in prison at least twice before.

l How can inmate classificetion be improved?

Good classification can save security costs and improve correctional programming. Answers might

include:

Q Lack of classification personnel or space increases have compromised initial screening.

Q Space is not available to separate out groups of inmates within the prisons.

Q Better background information from police and court records would be useful.

SPACE NEEDS

l How many convicted felons are in local jails awaiting transfer to state prison?

l What agreements are there with local jails regarding removal of convicted state felons?

Backups of state prisoners in overcrowded local jails, often produced by prison overcrowding, has

generated significant controversy in many states. Lawsuits have resulted. Increased state payments to

cover full costs of keeping state prisoners in local jails may mitigate local reaction. In addition, if prison officials work with sheriffs, administrative changes can reduce tension. Examples include pooled

transportation, priority transfers of medical and security problems, and agreement among sheriffs on

a formula for determining how many inmates are taken from each jail.

l What are projections for the types of offenders that need to be housed in the next 2,S, and 10 years?

l Is there a long-range building and program plan that reflects the levels of security required?

Prison population projections require complex tracking of sentencing trends, parole policies, and

criminal histories of offenders as they differ among offense categories, Tracking only total prison population growth masks trends.

0 Do police, court, prosecution, parole board, and legislative representatives, along with criminal justice

statistical experts from outside the department of corrections, review prison population projections?

Insight into policy directions regarding arrest, prosecution, and sentencing priorities will be at least as

predictive of future space needs as historic trends.

MANAGEMENT

What is the projected need for corrections personnel? l How long a&s it take to recnsi and train ofiers?

l How often is overtime used to sta$all security posts because of personnel vacancies?

l What is being done to develop future managers?

Rapid population growth in most prison systems has put great pressure on personnel management.

Increased cost and decreased security can result.

l How does the private sector work with the state prisons?

It is common to contract for medical services, prison industries, and construction. Security and liability issues are major concerns in turning over an entire facility to a private contractor.

31
PRISON AND JAIL PROGRAMS

Probation programs do not require prison or jail bed space, but space also can be freed through programs for offenders

whom the courts have determined must be confined. Goals of these programs are shorter periods of incarceration and/or

less likelihood of reincarceration for new crimes.

TYPICAL PROGRAMS

WorkCrews and nustees-Most jails and prisons try to keep inmates busy simply to reduce security problems. It also

is possible to realize operational cost savings.

Prison/Jail Industries--Only 10% to 15% of state prisoners are involved in prison industries; the federal prison system has a 25% to 30% participation rate. Almost all programs are limited by state or federal law to providing products

for government agencies (license plates, printed material, furniture, uniforms, etc.) and not for sale to the public.

Work Release- Jail inmates may be released to work

in the community. Supervision methods vary throughout the country and may include probation officers,

private security firms, sheriffs’ deputies, or the inmates’ employers in cooperation with the sheriff.

Vocational Training and Apprenticeships-Prisons

may use skilled instructors in structured classrooms to

teach such subjects as electronics, mechanical engineering, sewage plant operation, or cosmetology.

Only about 25 percent of state prison inmates are involved in full- or part-time academic or vocational

education programs.

Basic Literacy-At least 20 states encourage prison

inmates to participate in literacy programs. Inducements include favorable parole review, additional

“good time,” or a higher paying prison job.

GED (High School Graduate Equivalency Diploma)-More than half of those in jail failed to complete high school. Jail GED programs conducted in

conjunction with the community’s adult education

agency assure that the inmate will continue working

toward a GED after release. Prison programs typically are conducted by prison personnel.

Drug Therapy-Long-term positive results require at least six months of treatment. Very few treatment programs

exist in prisons; most involve only counseling and group therapy.

Mental Health Programs-Mental health services can include treatment for depression, schizophrenia, and other

clinical disorders. Therapy for sex offenders also is important. However, because most prisons are located in rural

areas, it is difficult to attract professionals to work in prison settings even part time.

Boot Camp/Shock Incarceration- In exchange for a reduced sentence, first-time, nonviolent offenders are voluntarily subjected to the rigors of military-type discipline. Programs also may include drug counseling, education, and employment training. Although ongoing research by the National Institute of Justice finds no evidence that the strict

regimen reduces recidivism, recidivism is not increased and the shortened stays save prison costs.

32
QUESTIONS AN ELECTED OFFICIAL MIGHT ASK ABOUT

PRISON AND JAIL PROGRAMS

REHABILITATION

l How can we get individuals who have industrial, educational,

or mental health and drug therapy expertise to work in corrections?

Approaches include hiring experts, training existing correctional personnel, contracting for services

from the private sector, and contracting with public agencies.

l What efforts are made to track the success of rehabilitation programs in reducing recidivism?

Budget pressures created by rapid prison and jail growth and lack of coordination with other criminal

justice agencies have tended to limit follow-ups and evaluations of correctional programs.

l Is pre-release programming conducted in cooperation with parole authorities to assure that

inmates will be realistically prepared while in a controlled setting

and will be in contact with follow-up in the community immediately on release?

Especially, if there are no prison institutions near urban settings, contact between the prison and the

parole personnel who will supervise released inmates is minimal. This can undercut the effectiveness

of programming efforts.

l Describe efforts to involve local government agencies that can provide

adult education, drug treatment, alcohol abuse, and employment services in jail programming.

As with prisons, lack of coordination and follow-up can undercut the effectiveness of any programming begun in the jail. Given the proximity of a jail to local services, it also may not be cost-effective to

develop. additional staff within the jail.

PRISON I NDUSTRIES

l Describe legislation that limits sale of prison and jail products.

l What would be the potential for increased inmate work if these restrictions were removed?

Federal legislation affects state and local programs because it applies to products sold over state lines

or for interstate use. Many states also have laws that limit sales of prison and jail products in order to

reduce competition with private firms and with labor. Some systems allow private companies to bid to

run a prison/jail shop as a branch of their business.

SECURITY

l How are decisions made about which inmates will participate in reduced security programs?

l Are there written guidelines? When were they last reviewed and by whom?

l How is institutional understanding and application of these guidelines tracked?

It only takes one incident to set back a program. However, guaranteeing security would eliminate most

programs outside of an institution’s secure perimeter, such as work release, furloughs, and halfway

houses.

l What are the security requirements for private halfivay houses and work release contracts?

l How do you enforce those requirements?

As in the previous question, assuring the capability for and performance of ongoing monitoring is

important for the long-term viability of alternative programming and to answer concerns about public

safety.

INTERAGENCY COOPERATION

l Do corrections department representatives regularly participate in meetings

of the state’s judicial council and the bar?

Understanding the current efficacy and operational constraints of prison and jail programs may influence sentencing. It also could lead court officials to back initiatives to assure effective carry-through of

intended sentences.

3 3
SENTENCING AND PAROLE

SENTENCING

Legislatures determine criminal acts and the minimum and maximum penalties that a judge may impose.

Indeterminate Sentencing-The judge designates a minimum and maximum range of incarceration (e.g., 3 to 6years

in prison). The release date within that range is determined by parole authorities. In most states, the majority is not

released at the first parole hearing, and there is usually a subsequent annual review.

Determinate Sentencing-The judge designates a fixed period of incarceration that must be served (minus “good

time” credit). Ten states and the federal government have adopted determinate sentencing.

Sentencing Guidelines-Sentencing guidelines restrain judicial discretion through a grid of prescribed sentences,

which correlates the nature of the offense and the offender’s criminal background. In some states, the guidelines are

advisory; in other states and in the federal courts, judges must impose a penalty consistent with the criteria or provide

a written explanation. Departures may be appealed.

Mandatory Sentencing Laws-Some legislatures have prescribed mandatory sentence lengths for specific crimes.

The judge may not suspend the sentence or give probation. However, in states with an indeterminate system, the

offender may be paroled.

GOOD TIME

Good time is a reduction in the sentence given by the judge, based on good behavior while in prison or jail. The amount of

time by which a sentence can be reduced usually is limited by legislation.

PAROLE

Offenders typically are released from prison by a parole

board before their sentences (as reduced by good time) are

completed. Parolees are required to follow certain rules

(e.g., report whereabouts, obtain counseling) while serving

the remaining portion of their sentences in the community.

PAROLE S UPERVISION

Eke probation officers, parole officers perform both “cop”

and “social worker” roles. However, parolees generally have

far more serious uiminal histories than probationers, requiring greater levels of surveillance and supervision. Parole off&

cers can arrest parole violators and return them directly to

jail or prison to await the parole board’s review of the violation. As rehabilitation counselors, parole officers may make

job training or drug treatment referrals and assist in the reestablishment of family and community ties.

TRENDS IN USE OF PAROLE

State and federal determinate sentencing policies have

led to a decrease in discretionary parole from almost 72%

of all releases in 1977 to only 39% in 1989. The proportion

of inmates serving their full sentence has stayed at 17%.

STATUS OF ADULTS LEAVING PAROLE

1985

Leturn

Prison

15.1%

Other

5.3%

Source: U.S. De rtment of justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics,

Natbna p”Corredons Repwting Rogram 1985, December 1990.

However, the drop in discretionary parole has been countered almost completely by mandatory releases brought about by

prison overcrowding.

MORE PAROLEES BEING SENT BACK TO PRISON

Parole and probation violators made up less than 10% of prison admissions in 1974; in 1989, they accounted for over 25%.

Reasons for this increase include

n The relatively indiscriminate conditions of mandatory or emergency releases to relieve overcrowding;

n Increased emphasis on enforcing conditions of parole; and

n Large caseloads for parole officers, preventing them from focusing on rehabilitation.

34
QUESTIONS AN ELECTED OFFICIAL MIGHT ASK ABOUT

SENTENCING AND PAROLE

GRANTING P AROLE

l what percentage of inmates is granted parole on thefirst eligibili(y date? Second? Third.3 Fourth or more?

l What factors govern the granting of parole? l Does the board have guidelines?

The most misleading impression of indeterminate sentencing is that an inmate eligible for parole will

be granted parole. In many states, this is the exception rather than the rule. However, state parole rates

and procedures for subsequent reviews vary considerably.

l How many cases were reviewed last year? What is the total time spent per case?

l How has the amount of time spent per case changed in the last 5 years?

Parole personnel review the inmate’s prison disciplinary record, past offense record, rehabilitative

program participation, and plan on release (e.g., residence, job prospects, and community contacts). A

victim impact statement also may be available, as well as letters on the inmate’s behalf. Parole authorities may agree to hear such appeals directly. Prison population growth means parallel growth in parole

caseloads and can compromise the procedures outlined above.

l Are there statutory requirements for not$cation of an inmate’s parole eligibility?

l Are there notification requirements before an inmate is released?

State laws include routine notification of the prosecutor and sentencing judge, the local law enforcement agency, and, on request, of the victim or immediate family.

l What authority should the parole board have in &ecting that oflenders

participate in treatmentprograms?

Paroling authorities often would like to see inmates given a trial period in reduced security settings

before they are granted parole. Prison authorities may feel that as long as they will be held responsible

for the security of these inmates, they will determine placement. Once inmates are released, paroling

authorities often do not have the ability to ensure that community treatment is available for parolees.

MANAGEMENT

l Could an inmate who has been granted parole still be behind bars after the parole eligibility date?

How automated is the system to compute an inmate’s eligibility date, schedule a hearing,

reach a board decision and, if parole is granted, complete the paperwork for timely release?

Delays in releasing inmates can add significantly to prison costs. In a prison system of 10,000 inmates,

5,000 on average are released during the year. Even a one-day average delay would add $250,000 to the

prison budget, computed at an average annual cost of $18,000 for a minimum security bed.

CASELOADS

a What is a parole oficer’s caseload? l How has this changed in the last 5 years?

o How many contacts per month take place between parole o$-icer and parolee?

a What percentage of prisoners successfuly completes parole?

This information is important in judging whether growth in the percentage returned to prison for parole violations is the result of a direct policy decision to increase enforcement or the inadvertent result

of weakened parole supervision.

l In budget development, are parole caseload projections coordinated with techniques used

to project the prison population?

Many states have realized the need for ongoing sophisticated tracking of prison population growth

trends to assure timely construction of needed space. If parole agencies use these data in developing

their budget requests, bottlenecks in timely review and release could be avoided.

35
PRISON AND JAIL CONSTRUCTION

NEED FOR PRISON SPACE

Prison populations grew 134% during the 1980s. The average annual increase was 8.9%. Growth in 1990 translated into a

need for over 1,100 new prison beds every week. As the table indicates, growth and the need for additional prison beds are

not limited to one region or to hinhlv urbanized states:

NEED FOR JAIL SPACE

The average annual increase in local jail populations was 8.9% from 1983-1990, although greater changes occurred in

some years. Record growth of over 15% was reported in 1988 and in 1989. This growth reflected increased demands to hold

drug arrestees for trial and, in some states, large numbers of state inmates awaiting transfer into overcrowded prisons. In

1990, the growth in jail populations was only 5.9%, due in part to the fact that there were 17% fewer state inmates awaiting

transfer.

COURT OVERCROWDING SUITS

Eighty percent of jail inmates are in 508 jurisdictions with large jails holding more than 100 inmates, and 25 percent of

these large systems have at least one jail under court order to reduce overcrowding. Thirty-three states are under federal

court order to relieve overcrowding in prisons.

How Is CAPACIN MGWJRED?

Different definitions of prison and jail capacity often frustrate policymakers and make comparisons between systems confusing. Most overcrowding suits are based on interpretations of Supreme Court rulings in 1979 and 1981, which held that

two inmates in a 75-square foot cell or even a 63-square foot cell was not unconstitutional, depending on the totality of

conditions.

Prisons or jails built before these rulings may have an original design capacity based on fewer square feet, but

their operating capacity to meet court standards will be less. In contrast, the design capacity of other facilities,

such as those in the federal prison system, may exceed court standards. These systems may report that they are

operating over capacity at levels other systems would not.

Capacity also may be determined by interpretations of totality of conditions. For example, American Correctional Association (ACA) standards cover items such as out-of-cell space and hygiene requirements, as well as availability of individual cells to isolate prisoners for safety. Adherence to ACA standards generally is regarded as

important in defending liability suits. Finally, Clean Water Act requirements may limit capacity because the institution cannot exceed sewage discharge limits.

COST SAV~NCS IN DESIGN

Lifetime operating costs are about 10 times the cost of construction. Reducing the number of required security posts required can produce real savings. Standardized components save design and engineering costs, improve construction bids,

and support better management and personnel training in large prison systems.

3 6
QUESTIONS AN ELECTED OFFICIAL MIGHT ASK ABOUT

PRISON AND JAIL CONSTRUCTION

SPACE NEEDS

a How is need for future space projected?

l Does the projection include the types of inmates expected and the mix of security levels required?

Computer technology has fostered development of several sophisticated projection models. These

models require jurisdiction-specific data to track trends, such as the types of crime committed and, for

each major class of crime, the likelihood of arrest and sentencing to prison or jail, the length of sentence, and the likelihood of early release. Modeling can project security needs, thus avoiding unnecessarily costly construction and poor program support.

l What criminal justice system changes have been made to reduce the need for new space?

l Have all key criminal justice oflcials reviewed population projections

to delermine whether they are in line with their insights and intentions?

These questions are particularly appropriate for jails because they are affected by all other elements of

the criminal justice system. Need for more jail space represents an opportunity for general government

officials to press for system coordination, planning, and use of alternative procedures.

a What is the need for juvenile facilities?

At this time, juvenile facilities do not have the overcrowding problems of the adult system. On average,

juvenile institutions operated at 87% of capacity in 1987. These facilities tend to be old, however, and

the 15% that are designed to hold more than 100 youths may not serve current programming goals.

SITING

l What are the prime operating concerns about the location of the new facility?

Depending on the type of facility, concerns will vary from the availability of a large enough labor pool

to access to the community for offender reintegration and work release.

o Is this jurisdiction working with other localities to develop a regional jail facility?

In rural counties, regional facilities can replace substandard jails and cut operating costs. In other

areas, they often supplement existing jails to avoid siting controversies and/or to provide less costly

housing for sentenced misdemeanants who do not require the security precautions needed for repeat

or violent felons awaiting trial.

STAFFING

l What is the current inmate/staff ratio?

l What policy options can reduce that ratio and what are the estimated cost savings?

If the inmate/staff ratio is decided before design work is started, correctional professionals can maintain control over the type of facility design that meets their management philosophies, while long-term

operating costs are kept down. Over 30 years, operating costs will be at least 10 times more than the

cost of construction.

FUNDING

l What assistance is available?

States that fund a portion of jail operating costs are particularly active in helping localities avoid

long-term inefficiencies. In addition, the National Institute of Justice has a National Directory of Corrections Construction, which enables states and localities to review the design of facilities throughout

the nation. Standardized prototype design elements are being developed to save construction time and

money.

37
THE JUVENILE SYSTEM

JUVENILE OFFENSES

There are two types of juvenile offenses:

n Delinquent Acts-acts that would be considered crimes if committed by adults; and

n Status Offenses-acts that are illegal only when committed by children, such as truancy, curfew violation,

alcohol and tobacco use, and ungovemability.

Children in Need of Services (CHINS, CINAs, or other acronyms) are children brought into the juvenile

justice system usually as status offenders and have not committed serious crimes. Status offenders sometimes are kept in juvenile facilities more often and for longer periods than delinquents. I

REFORMS TYPES OF OFFENSES AND OTHER REASONS

FOR WHICH JUVENILE OFFENDERS WERE HELD

IN PUBLIC JUVENILE FACILITIES, 1989

In 1974, Congress passed the Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act

(JJDP) to remove status offenders from

detention centers and training institutions and to keep juveniles out of local

jails or lose federal funding. In 1989, $46

million was given to the states to support

the mandates of JJDI? Its success is measured by the fact that 95% of the juveniles in publicly run facilities in 1989

were committed for a delinquent act.

In 1972, Massachusetts became the

first state to close its large state juvenile

justice institutions and establish a system

of small community-based facilities and

services. More states are moving in this

direction. Evaluations indicate that this

approach is less expensive and at least as

effective as institutionalization for most

juveniles.

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN JWENILE AND ADULT Svskw

25%

Alcohol/Drug Offenses,

-

Public Disorder Offenses, ‘\ or Probation Offenses

or Mental Retardation

Source: “Children in Custody, 1989,“]uvenik justice Bulletin, January 1991.

n An arrest is not necessary to bring a juvenile into the criminal justice system. Juveniles can be referred by police

officers, school officials, social services agencies, neighbors, and even parents.

n Most cases are handled informally by an intake unit staffed by either the juvenile court, a general government

agency, or the prosecutor’s office.

H For a juvenile case to proceed to court adjudication, the intake unit must file a petition. If the juvenile is detained,

there is no bail system in most states.

n The informality of juvenile procedures has raised concerns about due process. For example, less than 50% of

juveniles are represented by a lawyer.

n On a finding of “not innocent,” the judge may use many alternatives, including probation, restitution, foster care,

treatment programs (drug rehabilitation, shoplifting prevention, driver education), or commitment to a juvenile

correctional institution.

n Juvenile court proceedings are closed to the public to protect the child.

n A person’s juvenile record remains confidential under the assumption that a person should not be marked for life

because of youthful indiscretion.

TREATING J UVENILES A S A DULTS

Of the juveniles arrested, 5% are transferred from the system and are tried as adults if the juvenile court judge agrees. The

growing number of juveniles being arrested for serious crimes, combined with research documenting high levels of juvenile crime in the backgrounds of adult career criminals, has opened new debate over whether the adult justice system

should gain access to the juvenile record the first time a person is charged with a felony as an adult.

38
QUESTIONS AN ELECTED OFFICIAL, MIGHT ASK ABOUT

THE JUVENILE SYSTEM

COMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL LAW

l Is this jurisdiction in compliance with the&feral Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act

to remove status oflenders from detention centers and training institutions

and to remove juveniles jiom the adult jail?

The 1988 Children in Custody census reported that only 9,741 status offenders were being held in secure detention, a 95% drop since 1977. There were still 18,417 juveniles in adult jails, with two states

accounting for almost 14,000 of that number.

TRENDS

l What is the pattern of growth in the number of juveniles in the juvenile justice system?

From 1975 to 1982, juvenile courts handled 8% fewer cases, due in large part to the 37% reduction in

status offender cases. However, from 1985 to 1989, admissions to juvenile facilities increased 14%,

even though the number of lo- to 19-year-olds in the general population has decreased since 1980.

l What percentage of juvenile cuses is removed to adult courts for trial?

l What are current trends in juvenile crime?

The percentage of juveniles tried as adults varies greatly among court systems. This may reflect the

treatment alternatives available through the adult courts as much or more than the type of crime committed. Disturbing trends in crimes committed by juveniles include:

Q In 1990,19.2% of the arrests for violent crime were juveniles, compared to only 8.5% in 1987.

0 Arrests of males under 18 for murder increased from 1,178 in 1982 to 2,352 in 1990, despite only

a 3% increase in the total number of juvenile arrests.

0 In 1987,48% of the juveniles in state-operated correctional facilities reported at least 6 prior

arrests; 58% had a current or prior history of a violent offense.

PLACEMENT

l How many juveniles are housed outside their home area in state facilities? in private facilities?

l What policies determine these placements?

l Does one ofice approve private facilities used by all education, mental health, and juvenile agencies?

Many state facilities were developed under a philosophy of equal access to treatment. However, systems without the coordination necessary for a juvenile’s effective transition back into the community

are putting more emphasis on local public and private facilities and programs. Centralized approval

and oversight of private treatment facilities can save costs.

INTERAGENCV COOPERATION

l Is there a coordinated effort to ident@ the needs of and provide services to families of juveniles?

“New Beginnings” in San Diego County is one example of an integrated program. It uses facilities on

school grounds for the delivery of health, welfare, education, and juvenile justice services to families.

The goal is to reduce the red tape that discourages families from pursuing help and to coordinate

services.

l What mechanisms exist for cooperation among all agencies serving juveniles?

l Are there regular procedures for coordination on individual cases?

for agency budgeting, planning, and innovation?

If a facility’s education program is not provided by or conducted in close cooperation with the local

school system, juveniles may be discouraged when their efforts are rejected on return to a regular

school. The National Institute of Medicine found that a follow-up period of least 6 months is necessary

for drug treatment. Community and victim restitution programs must be organized to assure that juveniles take court orders seriously.

39
FINANCING

FATTEST GROWING A REA OF SPENDING PER CAPITA SPENDING BY STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

Criminal justice has been the fastest

growing area of state/local expenditures.

ON MAJOR PROGRAMS

From 1973 to 1990:

1970-l 990

n State own-source funding increased by 759% due to prison population growth and, in many

states, the merging of local

courts into state systems.

n County own-source funding

growth was held to 491%, despite

jail growth, due to increased

state funding.

w Municipal own-source funding,

which is principally for policing,

increased by 330%.

n Federal funding increased by 345%. Although federal direct costs grew more, federal aid to states and localities dropped.

Per Capita Spending Percent

Governmental m Constant 1985 DOW Change

Functions 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1970-1990

Education $710 $807 $824 $807 $934 32%

Public Welfare 2n9 268 292 300 374 7 9

Hospital and Health Care 148 182 193 2.08 253 71

Highways 247 204 189 189 207 -16

Police Protection Corrections 70 2.5 8 33 2 8 23 8 885 4 1048 3 2E

Court Related na na na 34 48 na

Source: Compiled from U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census data.

URBAN FISCAL STRESS

These averages mask the stress on urban counties and cities. Spending for police has increased significantly faster in large cities

than in small municipalities, and u&an counties have experienced equal growth in courts and jails. Urban governments that do

not fund schools may spend half their budgets on criminal justice agencies. The fiscal stress of expanding criminal j&a demands has been greater on many urban budgets than on most states, where criminal justice comprises only 10% of the budgets.

CRIMINAL J USTICE R NENUES

Criminal justice often takes surpluses that could be used for more popular programs or tax relief. Therefore, many officials

want to raise more revenue through criminal justice activities. ‘Ib help budget these potential revenues realistically, the following list is presented in the order of likelihood of collection and of meeting full program costs. The actual amount of fees, fines,

court costs, and restitution collected will depend on ability to pax collection rate, the amount of the fee, and judicial priorities:

Prison and Jail Industry Sales-The price of goods made by inmates or wages paid by their employers can be set

to cover total program costs.

DUI Fines and Counseling Fees-Most drunk drivers are employed; therefore, court-ordered drunk driving programs usually can be supported completely by fees.

Drug lkeatment Fees-Although it is estimated that 213 of all persons illegally using drugs have jobs, drug and

alcohol abuse treatment programs also need to serve all types of criminals.

Supervisory Fees-It is increasingly common to charge offenders a fee for their supervision:

NUMBER OF STATE CORRECTIONAL FEE ENABLING STATUTES

Years Prison Inmates Jail Inmates Parolees Probationers

Before 1970 12 17 3 8

1970-1987 15 9 12

Total 36 2 6 1 5 z

Court Costs and Fines-The less serious the crime, the more criminal justice costs can be covered by court costs

and fines. Day fines relate the amount of the fine to a person’s income.

Restitution-In a 1986 survey, 24% of violent offenders and 50% of property offenders were ordered to pay restitution. Only half were order to pay more than $500.

Drug Assets-Nearly every state has a civil asset forfeiture statute; however, procedures are highly technical and

revenues for localities and most states can vary considerably year to year.

INTERGOVERNMENTAL F UNDING

In 1988, on average, state governments funded 40% of state/local criminal justice expenditures. Six states funded more

than 60% (Alaska, Delaware, Kentucky, North Carolina, Vermont, and Virginia). Although 7% of federal criminal justice

spending went to state and local governments in 1990, this constituted only 1% of total state-local criminal justice expenditures. In 1973,27% of federal funds went to state and local assistance and made up 5% of their expenditures.

40
QUESTIONS AN ELECTED OFFICIAL MIGHT ASK ABOUT

FINANCING

FUNDING R ESPONSIBILITIES

a What criminal justice agencies arefunded by this unit of government?

l What is the funding arrangement for each agency?

There are wide differences between states and between urban and rural localities in the criminal justice agencies for which they are responsible. It also is common for the state and localities to fund only

some aspects of court-related agencies and of juvenile services. Split responsibilities require that governments agree on budgeting assumptions related to caseload, staffing, and facility needs.

REVENUES

l What portion ofjines, fees, and court costs actually are collected?

Generally, the amount collected is higher if enforcement is perceived to help fund the collecting

agency’s budget or support its program goals. Fines and court costs for misdemeanors and traffic

offenses often equal the cost of adjudication and collection. In contrast, felony courts generate a much

smaller percentage of their costs.

l who and what determines the size of fines, restitution, or fees charged for criminal justice services?

Ability-to-pay affects collection rates, program participation, and relative punishment. Day fines are

an alternative that multiplies units of punishment as determined by a judge times ability-to-pay as

determined administratively; however, legislative limits on fine amounts may need to be removed to be

able to charge high-income offenders the relatively higher penalties.

SAVINGS

l How can costs be cut?

See questions related to budgeting issues under individual agency and program discussions. Important considerations in financing criminal justice and controlling system impacts include:

0 Projecting personnel needs to maintain program quality and control overtime;

Q Statistical modeling for long-term facility needs and to project policy impacts; and

0 Improved case management.

To assure true cost savings, private sector contracts need to contain specific performance standards,

and liability and contract monitoring costs need to be fully estimated.

l What mutual aid arrangements exist or are being explored to save costs?

Many localities share expensive seldom-used investigative tools; crime lab services; detention or jail

facilities to house women and juveniles; and innovative programs for sex offenders or other special

populations.

INTERGOVERNMENTAL A ID

l How is the amount of money localities receive from the state determined?

If by formula, how could the formula be improved?

Many states pay a portion of local services through formula allocations for costs such as indigent defense, community corrections, per diem jail payments, or selected salaries. Regular increases to reflect

actual local costs is key. Block grant formulas that combine crime rates and poverty measures target

funds to where criminal justice needs are the greatest, while formulas that reflect local justice expenditures or prime crime age population support law enforcement generally.

l What determines how much federalfunding the state receives?

l What proportion of federal funding is used for state programs? for local programs?

Federal funds typically are allocated to states based on population and must be suballocated to localities in the same proportion as existing state/local criminal justice funding.

4 1
42
APPENDIX A

CRIME DEFINITIONS

FELONIES

Widely defined as crimes that have the potential of being punished by more than one year in prison. The major felony

catagories are:

Violent felonies

Murder

Intentionally causing the death of another person without extreme provocation or legal justification; causing the

death of another while committing or attempting to commit another crime. Murder excludes any type of manslaughter, conspiracies to commit murder, solicitation of murder, and attempted murder,

Non-negligent (voluntary) manslaughter

Intentionally and without legal justification causing the death of anotherwhen acting under extreme provocation.

Forcible intercourse (vaginal, anal, or oral) with a female or male. Includes forcible sodomy or penetration with a

foreign object (which is sometimes called deviate sexual assault); excludes statutory rape or any other nonforcible

sexual acts with a minor or with someone unable to give legal or factual consent. Includes attempts.

Robbery

The unlawful taking of property that is in the immediate possession of another, by force or the threat of force.

Includes forcible purse snatching, but excludes nonforcible purse snatching, which is classified as larceny/theft.

Includes attempts.

Aggravated assault

Intentionally and without legal justification causing serious bodily injury, with or without a deadly weapon, or

using a deadly or dangerous weapon to threaten, attempt, or cause bodily injury, regardless of the degree of injury

if any. Includes attempted murder, aggravated battery, felonious assault, and assault with a deadly weapon.

Property Felonies

Burglary

The unlawful entry of a fixed structure used for regular residence, industry, orbusiness, with or without the use of

force, to commit a felony or theft. Includes attempts.

larceny

The unlawful taking of property other than a motor vehicle from the possession of another, by stealth, without

force or deceit. Includes pocket picking, nonforcible purse snatching, shoplifting, and thefts from motor vehicles.

Excludes receiving and/or reselling stolen property (fencing) and thefts through fraud or deceit. Includes attempts.

Motor vehicle theft

The unlawful taking of a self-propelled road vehicle owned by another. Includes theft of automobiles, trucks, and

motorcycles but not theft of boats, aircraft, or farm equipment (which are classified as larceny/theft). Also includes receiving, possessing, stripping, transporting, and reselling stolen vehicles and unauthorized use of a vehicle (joyriding). Includes attempts.

Drug trafficking

Includes manufacturing, distributing, selling, smuggling, or “possession with intent to sell.” Includes attempts.

Other Felonies

All felony offenses not listed above. Includes drug possession, forgery or fraud, arson, weapon possession, negligent manslaughter, receiving stolen property, statutory rape, and sexual assault (excluding rape). Includes attempts.

MISDEMEANORS

An offense that is punishable by less than one year of incarceration in a county or city corrections facility, including

drunk driving, minor drug offenses, simple assaults, drunkenness, vandalism, and shoplifting.

4 3
APPENDIX B

GLOSSARY

ADJUDICATION

The point in the criminal process at which a judge renders the official judgment of the trial court as to the defendant’s guilt

or innocence.

ALTERNATIVEANCTIONS S

Punishments used mainly for nonviolent offenders that serve as an alternative to jail or prison time. See Intermediate

Sanctions, Community Service, Intensive Supervision Probation, Electronic Monitoring, Residential Drug Treatment.

ARRAIGNMENT

Acourt proceeding in which the defendant is informed of the formal charges and asked to enter a plea. Thisproceeding normally occurs after the issuance of an indictment or information but, for certain crimes, may take place during

the initial appearance.

AUTOMATED FINGERPRINT IDENTIFICATION SYSTEM(AFIS)

A system that utilizes computers for extensive searches of fingerprint files for close matches to a fingerprint. Without

computerization, manual searches can be made using only a suspect’s name.

BAIL

A sum of money or other security that is posted to assure the future appearance of the defendant at every stage of the

criminal proceedings. Such money or security is to be forfeited if the defendant does not appear in court as directed. Includes Full Cash Bond, Surety Bond, Deposit Bond, and Unsecured Bond.

CASE MAN~EMENT

Differentiating types of cases by processing requirements and monitoring and facilitating the movement of the case by

continuing contact and coordination.

CHARGE SCREENING

Usually undertaken by the prosecutor. The decision is made whether or not an arrestee is charged with a crime based on a

review of the legal elements of the case and whether there is probable cause that the charge will hold up in court.

CITATION

An order issued by a law enforcement officer directing that a person appear in court at a later date to answer criminal

charges. Often refers to orders issued to traffic offenders which may require only payment of a fine.

COMMUNIN CORRECTIONS

Encompasses a range of residential and nonresidential programs and services including those that are designed to divert

prison-bound nonviolent offenders, control and supervise offenders with community sentences (i.e., probation withconditions), and supervise offenders at the conclusion of prison terms. Probation and parole with varying levels of supervision

remain the mainstays of community-based corrections.

COMMUNIN POLICING

Encourages police officers to be seen, take preventive action at sites of repeated criminal activity, enlist other agencies to

solve problems for the community, and build positive relationships with the community.

COMMUNIN SERVICE

Requires offenders to perform public service work, such as assisting in a hospital emergency room or collecting trash in

parks, as a means of alternative sentencing.

COMPLAINT

A prosecution document filed with the court listing criminal charges.

CONCURRENT SENTENCES

The total sentence time is the same as the time for the longest sentence. Concurrent means “at the same time.”

CONDITIONAL RELEASE

Requires a defendant to meet court conditions (i.e. drug testing) in order to be released into the community. Failure to

meet the conditions usually results in incarceration.
CONSECUTIVE S ENTENCES

The total sentence time is the sum of the sentence lengths. Consecutive means “one after another.”

COURT COSTS

A flat, monetary rate that a person who has been convicted of a crime is required to pay to the court.

COURT ORDERS

Orders initiated by the court, usually to change the policy of any one of the criminal justice branches. Widely used to

change jail or prison inmate capacity policies.

DETERMINATE S ENTENCING

The judge sets the type and length of prison sentences within statutory limits, but the parole board may not release prisoners before their sentences have expired, minus time off for good behavior or “good time.”

DISCRETIONARY P AROLE R ELEASE

Release date is decided by a parole board or other administrative authority.

DIMRSION

The suspension at any point of formal criminal processing of an alleged offender and the referral of that person to a treatment program inside or outside the criminal justice system. Successful completion of treatment results in dismissal of the

case; violations of conditions set at the time of diversion may result in reactivization of the case.

ELECTRONIC MONITORING

Electronic technology that allows law enforcement or corrections personnel to determine whether an offender remains at

home during house arrest; used as alternative sanction to jail or prison.

EMERCENCV RELGUE

Legislation, a court order, or an executive order that automatically releases certain prisoners when prison capacity exceeds institutional limits.

F E E

An amount of money a person must pay in return for some type of service (e.g., counseling, drug treatment, or supervision).

FELONV

Widely defined as crimes that have the potential of being punished by more than one year in prison.

FINE

The penalty imposed on a convicted person by a court, requiring the payment of a specified sum of money to the court.

Fines are used as a punishment to the convicted person and may be utilized with other punishments.

GOOD TIME

Days earned for good behavior by prisoners that are used to reduce the stay in prison.

GRAND J URY

A jury of citizens that decides whether or not to charge an accused person with a crime. The police, prosecutor, and some

witnesses are present. The defendant is never present.

HALFWAY H OUSE

A facility in which offenders are housed within the community under some form of supervision. Used generally for offenders just released from prison (halfway out) or offenders considered too risky for probation but not dangerous enough for

prison (halfway in).

HOUSE A RREST

Alternative sentence under which offenders serve their sentences at home and are allowed to leave only for approved

activities, such as work or community service.

INDETERMINATE S ENTENCING

The judge has primary control over the upper and lower bounds of the length of prison sentences within statutory limits,

but actual time served is determined by the parole board.

45
INDEX C RIMES (P ART I O FFENSES)

Eight classes of offenses included by the FBI in Part I of its Uniform Crime Report. They are labeled the “serious” crimes

and include criminal homicide, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny/theft, motor vehicle theft, and

arson (see also Part II Offenses).

INDICTMENT

A document by which a grand juty formally files charges against a person. It arises out of matters placed before the grand

jury by a prosecutor.

INDIGENT D EFENSE SYSTEMS

Counsel is provided to those accused of crimes who cannot afford a lawyer to defend them. Includes three types of defenders: assigned counsel, who are randomly appointed by the court from a list of practicing lawyers; public defenders, who

work specifically with indigent cases; and contract attorneys, who are contracted out to the courts.

INFORMATION

A document filed by a prosecutor with the court formally charging the accused with a specific crime.

INTENSIVE S UPERVISION P ROBATION (ISP)

Increased supervision, surveillance, and program support for offenders on probation; caseloads for supervising officers

are smaller than regular probation caseloads.

INTERMEDIATE S ANCTIONS

Sanctions issued to offenders that do not involve jail time. Includes community service, intensive supervision probation,

day reporting centers, home detention, intensive drug treatment with urine screens, boot camp, and work release programs.

JAIL

Secure facility, usually operated by local governments, to hold persons awaiting trial or offenders sentenced to a term of

one year or less (those charged with misdemeanors). In some instances, jails are used to house overflow prisoners from

state prison facilities.

MANDATORY S ENTENCING

Law requires the court to impose a sentence of incarceration (usually including length of incarceration) for specific crimes

or certain categories of offenders.

MISDEMEANOR

An offense less serious than a felony that is punishable by less than one year of incarceration in a county or citycorrections facility. Misdemeanors include drunk driving, minor drug offenses, simple assaults, drunkenness, vandalism,

and shoplifting.

NATIONAL CRIME VICTIMIZATION SURVEV

A U.S. Justice Department survey that attempts to gather data on all categories of crime committed against individuals,

including those unreported to the police. Does not include drug crimes, murder, or crimes committed against businesses.

NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH

Program established to utilize citizens working with police in crime detection and prevention within a neighborhood.

NOLLE P ROSEQUI

Literally defined “do not wish to prosecute,” this is the withdrawal or dropping of charges against a defendant by the

prosecutor.

NOLO CONTENDRE

Literally defined “no contend,” this is a plea in which the defendant does not contest the charges. While not strictly an

admission of guilt, it is the equivalent of such and subjects the accused to the same criminal sanctions.

PAROLE

A program whereby prisoners are released prior to normal expiration of their sentences but are placed under the supervision of the paroling authority. The offenders retain their freedom as long as they meet the conditions agreed on at the time

of release.

46
PAROLE GUIDELINES

A set of standards or criteria to assist parole boards and correctional agencies in determining a parole release date.

PART II OFFENSES

All felonies and misdemeanors not classified as Part I offenses (see Index Crimes) in the annual FBI Uniform Crime

Report. These include simple assaults, forgery and counterfeiting, fraud, embezzlement, stolen property, vandalism, possessing or carrying weapons, prostitution, sex offenses (except forcible rape), drug abuse violations, gambling, offenses

against family and children, driving under the influence, drunkenness, liquor laws, disorderly conduct, and vagrancy.

PLEA

A defendant’s formal answer in court to the charges brought in a complaint, information, or indictment.

PLEA BARGAINING

The practice involving negotiation between prosecutor and defendant and/or defense attorney over leniency in treatment

in exchange for a guilty plea or cooperation with the government in the prosecution of other offenders. Leniency may

mean a reduction or dismissal of charges or a promise that the prosecutor will recommend a lighter sentence than would

otherwise be imposed.

PRELIMINARY HEARING

A hearing before a judge to determine if there is sufficient probable cause to hold or bind over an accused person for trial.

It is generally limited to persons arrested on felony or high misdemeanor charges, and is conducted as an adversary proceeding. If the judge orders the release of the accused, it does not, in most places, prohibit the subsequent adjudication of

the accused on formal charges,

PRETRIALRELEASE

Includes the investigation of an offender’s background using risk assessment models; recommendations for release, bail,

or detention; and recommendations and initiation of Treatment Alternatives to Street Crime (MSC). These activities

usually take place in pretrial release centers.

PRISON

A secure facility operated by the state or federal government to house convicted offenders. Offenders are held under a

sentence of one year or more.

PROBABLE CAUSE HEARING

A hearing that generally occurs from 24 hours to 10 days after an arrest. Its main function is to determine whether there is

probable cause for the defendant to be charged and/or whether the defendant should be detained. Limited testimony to

show probable cause is presented. The complaining witness or victim, the police, the defense counsel, and the defendant

are all present.

PROBATION

A form of sentence whereby offenders may remain free of confinement so long as they obey certain conditions imposed by

the sentencing court and probation authority.

PROPER~ CRIME

Crimes that involve intent to take property, such as burglary and auto theft, and are typically committed when the victim is

not present. These also include white collar crimes and drug crimes that involve possession, use, sale, distribution, cultivation, and manufacture of controlled substances.

RECIDIVISM

Variously defined as the rearrest, reconviction, or reincarceration of a previously imprisoned offender for a new criminal

offense.

RELEASE ON RECOGNIZANCE

Release from custody of an arrested person without bail on a promise to appear for trial at a later date.

RESTITUTION PROGRAMS

Offenders repay their victim in money or, in some cases, by performing a service for losses resulting from the crime.

SENTENCING GUIDELINES

A set of standards used in determining sentences for convicted offenders. Typically, guidelines are based on the crime and

4 7
the offender’s criminal history and are developed by an independent commission or judicial body. In some states, guidelines are advisory only; in other states, the court must give a written reason for diverting from the guidelines. The court’s

reasons may be appealed.

UNIFORM C RIME R EPORTS

Produced by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, it provides data on eight major types of felony crimes reported to the

police (see Index Crimes).

VIOLENT C RIME

Crimes that can result in personal injury or death, such as murder, rape, robbery, and assault.

WORK RELEASE

A program that allows an inmate to leave prison daily in order to work in the community.

48
APPENDIX C

SOURCES OF INFORMATION

POLICING

US. Department of Justice. “National Survey of Law Enforcement Agencies, 1987.” National Archive of Criminal

Justice Data Bulletin. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Winter 1989.

- Bureau of Justice Statistics. Report to the Nation on Crime and Justice. Washington, DC, 1988.

A“Profile of State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies, 1987.” BJS Bulletin, March 1989.

-. Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics, 1990. Washington, DC, 1991.

- Federal Bureau of Investigation. Uniform Crime Reports, 1990. Washington, DC, 1991.

- Office of the Attorney General. The Attorney General’s Summit on Law Enforcement Responses to Violent Crime:

Public Safety in the Nineties. Washington, DC, March 3-5, 1991.

JAILS

Fabricius, Martha A., and Steven D. Gold. State Aid to Local Governmentsfor Corrections Programs. Denver: National

Conference of State Legislatures, 1989.

U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. Jails: Intergovernmental Dimensions of a Local Problem.

Washington, DC, 1984.

U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Census of Local Jails. Washington, DC, 1990.

“Jail Inmates, 1990.” BJS Bulletin, June 1991.

Profile of Jail Inmates, 1989. BJS Special Report. Washington, DC, 1991.

Report to the Nation on Crime and Justice. Washington, DC, 1988.

Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics, 1990. Washington, DC, 1991.

PROSECUTION

Holten, N. Gary, and Melvin E. Jones. The System of Criminal Justice. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1978.

Jacoby, Joan E. The American Prosecutor: A Search for Identity. Lexington, Massachusetts: D.C. Heath Company, 1980.

National District Attorneys Association. National Prosecution Standurds: Second Edition. Alexandria, Virginia, 1991.

U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Annual Report: Piscall988. Washington, DC, 1989.

Report to the Nation on Crime and Justice. BJS Report. Washington, DC, 1988.

INDIGENT DEFENSE

Holten, N. Gary, and Melvin E. Jones. The Sysfem of Criminal Justice. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1978.

Jacoby, Joan E. Costing Indigent Defense Services: Who Pays? How Much? Washington, DC: Jefferson Institute for Justice Studies, 1986.

U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Annual Report: Fiscal 1988. Washington, DC, 1989.

Justice menditure and Employment in the U.S., 1988. BJS Report. Washington, DC, 1991.

Report to the Nation on Crime and Justice. Washington, DC, 1988.

Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics, 1990. Washington, DC, 1991.

PRETRIAL RELEASE

Clark, Stevens H. “Pretrial Release: Concepts, Issues, and Strategies for Improvement.” Research in Corrections, October 1988.

Holten, N. Gary, and Melvin E. Jones. The System of Criminal Justice. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1978.

National Association of Pretrial Services Agencies. Pretrial Services and Practices in the 1990s; Findingsfrom the Enhanced Pretrial Services Project. Washington, DC, 1991.

National District Attorneys Association. National Prosecution Standards: Second Edition. Alexandria, Virginia, 1991.

U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance. PretriaI Services Progru?n. Washington, DC, 1990.

49
U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Annual Report: Fiscal 1988. Washington, DC, 1989.

Justice Expenditure and Employment in the U.S., 1988. BJS Report. Washington, DC, 1991.

“Pretrial Release of Felony Defendants, 1988.” BJS Bulletin, February 1991.

Report to the Nation on Crime and Justice. Washington, DC, 1988.

Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics, 1990. Washington, DC, 1991.

COURTS

Holten, N. Gary, and Melvin E. Jones. The System of Criminal Justice. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1978.

Jacoby, Joan E., Edward Ratledge, and Heike Gramckow. An Evaluation of the Expedited Drug Case Management Program. Washington, DC: Jefferson Institute for Justice Studies, 1992.

U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Annual Report: Fiscal Z988. Washington, DC, 1989.

Justice Eqenditure and Employment in the U.S., 1988. Washington, DC, 1991.

Report to the Nation on Crime and Justice. Washington, DC, 1988.

Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics, 1990. Washington, DC, 1991.

VICTIMS AND WITNESSES

“Criminal Victimization, 1990.” BJS Bulletin, October 1991.

Innes, Christopher, and Lawrence Greenfield. Violent State Prisoners and Their Victims. BJS Special Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1990.

“Prosecutors in State Courts, 1990.” BJS Bulletin, March 1992.

Roy, Sudipta. “Offender-oriented Restitution Bills: Bringing Total Justice for Victims.” Federal Probation 54 (1990):

30-36.

Umbreit, Mark S. “Mediation of Victim Offender Conflict.” Journal of Dispute Resolution (1988): 85-105.

U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Recidivism of Felons on Probation, 1986-89. BJS Special Report. Washington, DC, 1992.

PROBATION AND SANCTION OPTIONS

Cardigan, Timothy P. “Electronic Monitoring in Federal Pretrial Release.” Federal Probation 55 (March 1991): 26-30.

Comptroller General of the United States. State and County Probation: Systems in Crisis. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, 1976.

“Probation and Parole 1990.” BJS Bulletin, November 1991.

U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Felons Sentenced to Probation in State Courts, 1986. BJS Report. Washington, DC, 1990.

Report to the Nation on Crime and Justice. Washington, DC, 1988.

Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics, 1990. Washington, DC, 1991.

PRISONS

Camp, George, and Camille Camp. The Corrections Yearbook: Adz& Prisons and Jails. South Salem, New York: Criminal Justice Institute, 1990.

Langan, Patrick A. Race of Prisoners Admitted to State and Federal Institutions, 1926-86. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1991.

Mauer, Marc. Americans Behind Bars: A Comparison of international Rates of Incarceration. Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project, 1991.

The National Prison Project. Status Report: The Courts and the Prisons. Washington, DC, 1990, pp. l-7.

U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Drug Use and Crime: State Prison Inmate Survey, 1986. BJS Special Report. Washington, DC, 1988.

“Prisoners in 1990.” BJS Bulletin, May 1991.

Prisons and Prisoners in the United States. BJS Report. Washington, DC, 1992.

Profile of State Prison Inmates, 1986. BJS Special Report. Washington, DC, 1988.

50
Report to the Nation on Crime and Justice. Washington, DC, 1988.

Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics, 1990. Washington, DC, 1991.

U.S. General Accounting Office. Prison Crowding: Issues Facing the Nation’s Prison System. Washington, DC, 1989.

PRISON AND JAIL PROGRAMS

Camp, George, and Camille Camp. The Corrections Yearbook: Adult Prisons and Jails. South Salem, New York: Criminal Justice Institute, 1990.

Fabricius, Martha A., and Steven D. Gold. State Aid to Local Govemmentsfor Corrections Programs. Denver: National

Conference of State Legislatures, 1989.

Langan, Patrick A. Race OfPrisonersAdmitted to State andFederalZnstitutions, 192686. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1991.

Mauer, Marc. Americans Behind Bars: A Comparison of International Rates oflncarceration. Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project, 1991.

The National Prison Project. Status Report: The Courts and the Prisons. Washington, DC, 1990,

U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. Jails: Intergovernmental Dimensions of a Local Problem.

Washington, DC, 1984.

U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Census of Local Jails. Washington, DC, 1990.

Drug Use and Crime: State Prison Inmate Survey, 1986. BJS Special Report. Washington, DC, 1988.

“Jail Inmates, 1990.” BJS Bulletin, June 1991.

“Prisoners in 1990.” BJS Bulletin, May 1991.

Profile of Jail Inmates, 1989. BJS Special Report Washington, DC, 1991.

Profile of State Prison Inmates, 1986. BJS Special Report Washington, DC, 1988.

Report to the Nation on Crime and Justice. Washington, DC, 1988.

Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics, 1990. Washington, DC, 1991.

U.S. General Accounting Office. Prison Crowding: Issues Facing the Nation’s Prison System. Washington, DC, 1989.

U.S. Sentencing Commission. Intermediate Sanctions: A Discussion of Illustrative Programs. Washington, DC, 1990.

SENTENCING AND PAROLE

Champion, Dean J. (ed.). The US. Sentencing Guidelines: Implications for Criminal Justice. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1990.

Clear, Todd R., and Kenneth W. Gallagher. “Probation and Parole Supervision: A Review of Current Classification

Practices.” Crime & Definquency 31 (July 1985): 423-443.

Nidorf, Barry J. “Probation and Parole Officers: Police Officers or Social Workers?” Proceedings of the American Correctional Association Conferences. 1989, pp. 67-72.

U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

National Corrections Reporting Program, 1985. Washington, DC, 1990.

“Probation and Parole 1990.” BJS Bulletin, November 1991.

“Recidivism of Young Parolees.” BJS Bulletin, 1987.

Report to the Nation on Crime and Justice. Washington, DC, 1988.

Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics, 1990. Washington, DC, 1991.

PRISON AND JAIL CONSTRUCTION

Allen, Charlotte L. “The Success of Authority in Prison Management.” Insight 5 (February 1989): 9-19.

Camp, George, and Camille Camp, The Corrections Yearbook: Adult Prisons and Jails. South Salem, New York: Criminal Justice Institute, 1990.

Diroll, David, Candace Peters, and Steven Van Dine. Governor’s Committee on Prison and Jail Crowding: FinalReport.

Columbus, Ohio: Governor’s Office of Criminal Justice Services, 1990.

Hale, John H. “Stone Walls Do Not a Prison Make, As Alabama Tries Alternatives.” Governing (March 1991): 9.

Kemp, Bill. “Prison Overcrowding: A Crisis Inviting Disaster. ” Illinois Issues (August/September 1990): 26-28.

Mays, Larry G. “The Impact of Federal Sentencing Guidelines on Jail and Prison Overcrowding and Early Release.”

51
In Dean C. Champion (ed.). The US. Sentencing Guidelines: Implications for Criminal Justice. New York: Praeger

Publishers, 1990, pp. 181-200.

Molanphy, Helen. “The U.S. Court and Prison Reform-Ruiz v. Estelle.” Prison Journal 64 (1984): 68-75.

National Council on Crime and Delinquency, 85 Years of Justice Reform. San Francisco, 1991.

The National Prison Project. Status Report: The Courts and the Prisons. Washington, DC, 1990, pp. l-7.

“Prisoners in 1990.” BJS Bulletin, May 1991.

U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Profile of State Prison Inmates, 1986. BJS Special Report

Washington, DC, January 1988.

U.S. General Accounting Office. Federal Prisons: Revised Design Standards Could SaveEqansion Funds. Washington,

DC, March 1991.

THE J UVENILE SYSTEM

Hughes, Stella I?, and Anne L. Schneider. Wtim-Offender Mediation in the Juvenile Justice System. Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 1990.

Snyder, Howard N. Court Careers of Juvenile Osfenders. Pittsburgh: National Center for Juvenile Justice, 1988.

U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Annual Report: Fiscal 1988. Washington, DC, 1989.

BJS Data Report, 1989. Washington, DC, 1990.

Justice Eqenditure and Employment in the US., 1988. Washington, DC, 1991.

Report to the Nation on Crime and Justice. Washington, DC, 1988.

Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics, 1990. Washington, DC, 1991.

“Violent Crime in the United States,” BJS Bulletin, March 1991.

U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation. Uniform Crime Reports, 1991. Washington, DC, 1992.

CRIMINAL J USTICE F INANCING

U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Justice Eqenditure and Employment in the US., 1988. Washington, DC, 1991.

Justice Expenditure and Employment in the U.S., 1971-79. Washington, DC, 1984.

Recidivism of Felons on Probation, 1986-89. Washington, DC, 1992.

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. Recovering Correctional Costs through Offender Fees. Washington, DC, 1990.

52
Other ACIR Publications

State Solvency Regulation of Property-Casualty and Life Insurance Companies, A-123,1992 ......... $20.00

Intergovernmental Decisionmaking for Environment and Public Works, A-122, 1992 ................. $10.00

Federal Statutory Preemption of State and Local Authority: Histoa Inventoa and Issues, A-121, 1992 ... $10.00

Changing Public Attitudes on Governments and Taxes-1992, S-21, 1992 ........................... $10.00

Significant Features of Fiscal Federalism, 1993 Edition, Volume I, M-185,1993 ...................... $20.00

Toward a Federal Infrastructure Strategy: Issues and Options, A-120, 1992 ......................... $10.00

Medicaid: Intergovernmental Trends and Options, A-119.1992 .................................... $10.00

Local Boundary Commissions: Status and Roles in Forming, Adjusting and Dissolving

Local Government Boundaries, M-183, 1992 ................................................. $8.00

Characteristics of Federal Grant-in-Aid Programs to State and Local Governments:

Grants Funded FV 1991, M-182, 1992 ...................................................... $10.00

Metropolitan Organization: The Allegheny County Case, M-181, 1992 ................................ $10.00

State Taxation of Interstate Mail Order Sales, M-179, 1992. ...................................... $10.00

The Changing Public Sector: Shifts in Governmental Spending and Employment, M-178, 1991 ........ $15.00

Coordinating Water Resources in the Federal System: The GroundwaterSurface Water Connection,

A-118, 1991 ............................................................................. $lS.ocl

Interjurisdictional Tax and Policy Competition: Good or Bad for the Federal System’? M-177, 1991 .... $10.00

State-Local Relations Organizations: The ACIR Counterparts, A-117, 1991 ......................... $10.00

The Structure of State Aid to Elementary and Secondary Education, M-175,1990 ................... $10.00

Representative Expenditures: Addressing the Neglected Dimension of Fiscal Capacity, M-174, 1990. ...... $20.00

Mandates: Cases in State-Local Relations, M-173, 1990 .......................................... $10.00

State Constitutional Law: Cases and Materials, M-159S, 1990 ..................................... $30.00

Intergovernmental Regulation of Telecommunications, A-115, 1990 ................................ $10.00

1988 Fiscal Capacity and Effort, M-170, 1990 ................................................... $20.00

Local Revenue Diversification:

Rural Economies, SR-13, 1990 ............................................................. $8.00

LocalSalesTaxes,SR-12,1989. ............................................................ $8.00

Local Income Taxes, SR-10,1988. .......................................................... $5.00

User Charges, SR-6, 1987. ................................................................ $5.00

State Taxation of Banks: Issues and Options, M-168, 1989. ....................................... $10.00

State Regulation of Banks in an Era of Deregulation, A-110, 1988 .................................. $10.00

State Constitutions in the Federal System: Selected Issues and Opportunities for State Initiatives,

A-113, 1989 .............................................................................. $15.00

Residential Community Associations:

Private Governments in the Intergovernmental System? A-112, 1989 ........................... $10.00

Questions and Answers for Public Officials, M-166, 1989 ....................................... $5.00

Disability Rights Mandates: Federal and State Compliance with Employment Protections

and Architectural Barrier Removal, A-111, 1989 ............................................. $10.00

Assisting the Homeless: State and Local Responses in an Era of Limited Resources, M-161, 1988 ..... $10.00

Devolving Selected Federal-Aid Highway Programs and Revenue Bases: A Critical Appraisal,

A-108, 1987. ............................................................................. $10.00

The Organization of Local Public Economies, A-109, 1987. ....................................... $5.00