SMART 

on CRIME

Reforming The Criminal Justice System 

for the 21st Century 

August 2013 
“By targeting the most serious offenses, prosecuting the most dangerous criminals, directing assistance to crime ‘hot 

spots,’ and pursuing new ways to promote public safety, deterrence, efficiency, and fairness – we can become both 

smarter and tougher on crime.”

—Attorney General Eric Holder 

Remarks to American Bar Association’s Annual Convention in San Francisco, CA

August 12, 2013

INTRODUCTION 

At the direction of the Attorney General, in early 2013 the Justice Department launched a 

comprehensive review of the criminal justice system in order to identify reforms that would ensure 

federal laws are enforced more fairly and—in an era of reduced budgets—more efficiently. 

Specifically, this project identified five goals: 

 

 To ensure finite resources are devoted to the most important law enforcement priorities; 

 To promote fairer enforcement of the laws and alleviate disparate impacts of the criminal 

justice system; 

 To ensure just punishments for low-level, nonviolent convictions; 

 To bolster prevention and reentry efforts to deter crime and reduce recidivism; 

 To strengthen protections for vulnerable populations. 

As part of its review, the Department studied all phases of the criminal justice system—including 

charging, sentencing, incarceration and reentry—to examine which practices are most successful at 

deterring crime and protecting the public, and which aren’t. The review also considered 

demographic disparities that have provoked questions about the fundamental fairness of the 

criminal justice system. 

The preliminary results of this review suggest a need for a significant change in our approach to 

enforcing the nation’s laws. Today, a vicious cycle of poverty, criminality, and incarceration traps too 

many Americans and weakens too many communities. However, many aspects of our criminal 

justice system may actually exacerbate this problem, rather than alleviate it. 

The reality is, while the aggressive enforcement of federal criminal statutes remains necessary, we 

cannot prosecute our way to becoming a safer nation. To be effective, federal efforts must also 

focus on prevention and reentry. In addition, it is time to rethink the nation’s system of mass 

imprisonment. The United States today has the highest rate of incarceration of any nation in the 

world, and the nationwide cost to state and federal budgets was $80 billion in 2010 alone. This

pattern of incarceration is disruptive to families, expensive to the taxpayer, and may not serve the 

goal of reducing recidivism. We must marshal resources, and use evidence-based strategies, to curb 

the disturbing rates of recidivism by those reentering our communities.

 

These findings align with a growing movement at the state level to scrutinize the cost-effectiveness 

of our corrections system. In recent years, states such as Texas and Arkansas have reduced their 

prison populations by pioneering approaches that seek alternatives to incarceration for people 

convicted of low-level, nonviolent drug offenses. 
2

It is time to apply some of the lessons learned from these states at the federal level. By shifting away 

from our over-reliance on incarceration, we can focus resources on the most important law 

enforcement priorities, such as violence prevention and protection of vulnerable populations. 

The initial package of reforms described below—dubbed the Justice Department’s “Smart on 

Crime” initiative—is only the beginning of an ongoing effort to modernize the criminal justice 

system. In the months ahead, the Department will continue to hone an approach that is not only 

more efficient, and not only more effective at deterring crime and reducing recidivism, but also more 

consistent with our nation’s commitment to treating all Americans as equal under the law.

We of course must remain tough on crime. But we must also be smart on crime.

FIVE PRINCIPLES OF “SMART ON CRIME”

I. PRIORITIZE PROSECUTIONS TO FOCUS ON MOST SERIOUS CASES

Given scarce resources, federal law enforcement efforts should focus on the most 

serious cases that implicate clear, substantial federal interests. Currently, the 

Department’s interests are:

1. Protecting Americans from national security threats

2. Protecting Americans from violent crime

3. Protecting Americans from financial fraud

4. Protecting the most vulnerable members of society

Based on these federal priorities, the Attorney General is, for the first time, requiring the 

development of district-specific guidelines for determining when federal prosecutions 

should be brought. This necessarily will mean focusing resources on fewer but the most 

significant cases, as opposed to fixating on the sheer volume of cases. 

The Attorney General’s call for the creation of district-specific guidelines recognizes that 

each U.S. Attorney is in the best position to articulate the priorities that make sense for 

that area. A particular district’s priorities will often depend on local criminal threats and 

needs.

In the coming months, the U.S. Attorneys’ Manual will be updated to reflect the 

requirement that U.S. Attorneys develop district-specific guidelines for the prioritization 

of cases. 

II. REFORM SENTENCING TO ELIMINATE UNFAIR DISPARITIES AND REDUCE 

OVERBURDENED PRISONS.

Our prisons are over-capacity and the rising cost of maintaining them imposes a heavy 

burden on taxpayers and communities. At the state level, costs for running corrections 

facilities have roughly tripled in the last three decades, making it the second-fastest rising 
3

expense after Medicaid. At the federal level, the Bureau of Prisons comprises one-third 

of the Justice Department’s budget. 

This requires a top-to-bottom look at our system of incarceration. For many non-violent, 

low-level offenses, prison may not be the most sensible method of punishment. But 

even for those defendants who do require incarceration, it is important to ensure a 

sentence length commensurate with the crime committed. Our policies must also seek to 

eliminate unfair sentencing disparities. 

It is time for meaningful sentencing reform. As a start, the Attorney General is 

announcing a change in Department of Justice charging policies so that certain people 

who have committed low-level, nonviolent drug offenses, who have no ties to large-scale 

organizations, gangs, or cartels will no longer be charged with offenses that impose 

draconian mandatory minimum sentences. Under the revised policy, these people would

instead receive sentences better suited to their individual conduct rather than excessive 

prison terms more appropriate for violent criminals or drug kingpins. Reserving the 

most severe penalties for serious, high-level, or violent drug traffickers will better 

promote public safety, deterrence, and rehabilitation – while making our expenditures 

smarter and more productive. 

The Attorney General also plans to work with Congress to pass legislation that would 

reform mandatory minimum laws. A number of bipartisan proposals – including bills by 

Senators Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Mike Lee (R-UT), as well as Senators Patrick Leahy 

(D-VT) and Rand Paul (R-KY) – show the emerging consensus in favor of addressing 

this issue. 

Sentencing reform also entails considering reductions in sentence for inmates facing 

extraordinary and compelling circumstances – and who pose no threat to public safety. 

In late April, the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) expanded the medical criteria that will be 

considered for inmates seeking compassionate release. In a new step, the Attorney 

General is announcing revised criteria for other categories of inmates seeking reduced 

sentences. This includes elderly inmates and certain inmates who are the only possible 

caregiver for their dependents. In both cases, under the revised policy, BOP would 

generally consider inmates who did not commit violent crimes and have served 

significant portions of their sentences. The sentencing judge would ultimately decide 

whether to reduce the sentence.

III. PURSUE ALTERNATIVES TO INCARCERATION FOR LOW-LEVEL, NON-VIOLENT 

CRIMES.
4

Incarceration is not the answer in every criminal case. Across the nation, no fewer than 

17 states have shifted resources away from prison construction in favor of treatment and 

supervision as a better means of reducing recidivism. In Kentucky, new legislation has 

reserved prison beds for the most serious offenders and re-focused resources on 

community supervision and evidence-based programs. As a result, the state is projected 

to reduce its prison population by more than 3,000 over the next 10 years – saving more 

than $400 million.

Federal law enforcement should encourage this approach. In appropriate instances 

involving non-violent offenses, prosecutors ought to consider alternatives to 

incarceration, such as drug courts, specialty courts, or other diversion programs.

Accordingly, the Department will issue a “best practices” memorandum to U.S. Attorney 

Offices encouraging more widespread adoption of these diversion policies when 

appropriate.

In its memorandum, the Department will endorse certain existing diversion programs as 

models. In the Central District of California, the USAO, the court, the Federal Public 

Defender, and the Pretrial Services Agency (PSA) have together created a two-track 

specialty court/post-plea diversion program, known as the Conviction and Sentence 

Alternatives (CASA) program. Selection for the program is not made solely by the 

USAO, but by the program team, comprised of the USAO, the Public Defender, PSA, 

and the court. Track one is for candidates with minimal criminal histories whose 

criminal conduct appears to be an aberration that could appropriately be addressed by 

supervision, restitution and community service. Examples of potential defendants 

include those charged with felony, though relatively minor, credit card or benefit fraud, 

mail theft, and narcotics offenses. Track two is for those defendants with somewhat 

more serious criminal histories whose conduct appears motivated by substance abuse 

issues. Supervision in these cases includes intensive drug treatment. Examples of 

eligible defendants are those charged with non-violent bank robberies, or mail and credit 

card theft designed to support a drug habit. 

The Department will also recommend the use of specialty courts and programs to deal 

with unique populations. Examples include a treatment court for veterans charged with 

misdemeanors in the Western District of Virginia, and the Federal/Tribal Pretrial 

Diversion program in the District of South Dakota, which is designed specifically for 

juvenile offenders in Indian country.

IV. IMPROVE REENTRY TO CURB REPEAT OFFENSES AND RE-VICTIMIZATION.
5

After prison, recidivism rates are high. A reduction in the recidivism rate of even one or 

two percentage points could create long-lasting benefits for formerly incarcerated 

individuals and their communities. 

To lead these efforts on a local level, the Department is calling for U.S. Attorneys to 

designate a prevention and reentry coordinator within each of their offices to focus on 

prevention and reentry efforts. As part of this enhanced commitment, Assistant U.S. 

Attorneys will be newly encouraged to devote time to reentry issues in addition to

casework. The Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys will report periodically on the 

progress made in USAOs on the reentry front.

Other efforts to aid reentry are also being launched. It is well documented that the 

consequences of a criminal conviction can remain long after someone has served his or 

her sentence. Rules and regulations pertaining to formerly incarcerated people can limit 

employment and travel opportunities, making a proper transition back into society

difficult. Currently, the Justice Department is working with the American Bar 

Association to publish a catalogue of these collateral consequences imposed at the state 

and federal level. To address these barriers to reentry, the Attorney General will issue a 

new memorandum to Department of Justice components, requiring them to factor these 

collateral consequences into their rulemaking. If the rules imposing collateral 

consequences are found to be unduly burdensome and not serving a public safety 

purpose, they should be narrowly tailored or eliminated. 

The Attorney General’s Reentry Council has published helpful materials on reentry 

efforts related to employment, housing, and parental rights. In an update to these 

materials, the Department will publish new fact sheets on ways to reduce unnecessary 

barriers to reentry in two areas: (1) to connect the reentering population with legal 

services to address obstacles such as fines and criminal records expungement when 

appropriate; and (2) to highlight efforts to reduce or eliminate fines at the local level.

V. ‘SURGE’ RESOURCES TO VIOLENCE PREVENTION AND PROTECTING MOST 

VULNERABLE POPULATIONS.

Even as crime levels have fallen, many of our communities still suffer from alarming 

rates of homicides, shootings and aggravated assaults. Confronting this problem and its 

root causes with a holistic approach remains a priority for the Department of Justice.

By exploring cost-effective reforms to our prison system, it will allow law enforcement 

to redirect scarce federal resources towards the priority of violence prevention. 

Under a new memorandum issued by the Deputy Attorney General, U.S. Attorneys will 

put in place updated anti-violence strategies that are specific to their district. As an initial 

step, they will be urged to lead anti-violence forums to include Special Agents-in-Charge, 
6

Assistant Special Agents-in-Charge, U.S. Marshals and Chief Deputy Marshals, and State 

and Local Police Chiefs, Commanders, and Captains. With multiple federal, state, and 

local agencies involved in the fight against violent crime, strong relationships and robust 

information sharing are critical to achieve common goals and to avoid the unnecessary 

duplication of competing resources and efforts. 

To monitor the success of these district-based anti-violence strategies, the Department 

will, in the coming months, implement new information-sharing techniques to share data 

from high-crime communities across Justice Department components. 

The Department will also stress efforts to reduce and respond to violence, particularly 

violence against women and youth violence.

Within the Department, the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS), 

the Office of Victims of Crimes (OVC), and the Office of Violence Against Women 

(OVW) have partnered together to provide law enforcement agencies with the resources, 

technical assistance, and support they need to combat gender bias and sexual assault.

In April, the Department issued a revised Sexual Assault Forensic Examinations (SAFE) 

Protocol to standardize up-to-date approaches to victim-centered forensic medical 

examinations. In a new step, OVW will release a companion document that applies the 

protocol’s recommendations for use in correctional facilities. A similar document will be 

released in the coming weeks for tribal communities.

In the coming months, the Department will also work with the Federal Bureau of 

Investigation to support states’ implementation of the revised Uniform Crime Report 

definition of “rape.” 

In the effort to further protect children, the Department envisions several new steps:

 As part of the Attorney General’s Defending Childhood Initiative:

o This fall, the Department will launch a public awareness and community 

action campaign to stem youth violence.

o The Department will establish a Task Force on American Indian/Alaska 

Native Children Exposed to Violence.

o The Department will partner with select states to form “State 

Commissions” that will implement model public policy initiatives at the 

state and local level to reduce the impact of children’s exposure to 

violence, including the adaptation and implementation of 

recommendations of the Attorney General’s Task Force on Children 

Exposed to Violence.

 The Department will prioritize School Resource Officer requests in its COPS

Hiring grant awards this year.
7

 The Department and the Department of Education will jointly issue guidance to 

public elementary and secondary schools on their federal civil rights obligations 

to administer student discipline without discrimination on the basis of race, 

color, or national origin, and the Department will continue to vigorously enforce 

civil rights laws to ensure that school discipline is fair and equitable.

 In September, the Department will host the National Forum Youth Violence 

Prevention Summit, which, for the first time, will convene stakeholders from the 

Forum, Defending Childhood, Community-Based Grant Programs, and youth 

violence prevention initiatives at other federal agencies to collaborate on 

innovative strategies and comprehensive solutions to end youth violence, protect 

the children that are exposed to it, and create safer and healthier communities.

In addition to these violence prevention efforts, the Department also remains focused 

on serving victims of crime. In June, the Justice Department issued the Vision 21 report 

that offers an unprecedented snapshot of the current state of victim services and calls for 

sweeping, evidence-based changes to bring these services into the 21st century. It will 

empower survivors by closing research gaps and developing new ways to reach those 

who need our assistance the most.