Action Center

(2016) "Nearly 40 percent of the U.S. prison population — 576,000 people — are behind bars with no compelling public safety reason, according to a new report from the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law. The first-of-its-kind analysis provides a blueprint for how the country can drastically cut its prison population while still keeping crime rates near historic lows." Sections cover: the current prison population; time served in prison today; ending prison for lower-level crimes; reducing time served for other crimes; and recommendations and cost savings.

(2017) Issues surrounding the use of social media in U.S. prisons are discussed, including security, rehabilitation, and whether the use of social media and the internet are protected by the First Amendment.

(2016) “What the authors of this report have done is exemplify the importance of community corrections. Probation has the power to keep individuals in their community, working toward positive change and better outcomes for themselves, their families, and their communities.” - Jim Cosby, Past Director, National Institute of Corrections "This paper will discuss the need for a new model for community corrections that can improve public safety while recognizing that people on probation and parole are members of the communities in which they live and are supervised" (p. 3). Six general principles which provide the foundation for this new model of community corrections are described.

(2016) This report "provides the only current, comprehensive data on the use of restricted housing, in which individuals are held in their cells for 22 hours or more each day, and for 15 continuous days or more at a time. The Report also documents efforts across the country to reduce the number of people in restricted housing and to reform the conditions in which isolated prisoners are held in order to improve safety for prisoners, staff, and communities at large" (p. 1).

(2016) “Do we really think it makes sense to lock so many people alone in tiny cells for 23 hours a day for months, sometime for years at a time? That is not going to make us safer. It’s not going to make us stronger. If those individuals are ultimately released, how are they ever going to adapt? It’s not smart.” – President Barack Obama, NAACP National Convention speech, July 14, 2015. The use of Restrictive Housing poses some of the most challenging questions facing corrections professionals: How should correctional agencies manage their most violent and disruptive inmates? How can they best protect their most vulnerable and victimized ones? And what is the safest and most humane way to do so? The Department of Justice (DOJ) and the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) define “restrictive housing” as a form of housing that involves three basic elements: removal from the general inmate population, whether voluntary or involuntary; placement in a locked room or cell, whether alone or with another inmate; and inability to leave the room or cell for the vast majority of the day, typically 22 hours or more. Restrictive housing takes many forms, and an inmate’s experience can vary considerably depending on certain external factors, such as length of stay, conditions of confinement, and degree of social isolation, as well as factors specific to each inmate, such as age and psychological resiliency. This training broadcast will: examine restrictive housing practices in your agency and compare and contrast those with the DOJ Guiding Principles; explore the Guiding Principles and implications for restrictive housing practice and conditions of confinement; use interactive activities and action planning to determine strategies for your agency to safely reduce the use of restrictive housing in your agency; and share promising practices and recommendations for the implementation of the Guiding Principles. This broadcast will answer the following questions: How should prisons and other correctional facilities manage their most violent and dangerous inmates? How can they best protect their most vulnerable and victimized inmates? What is the safest and most humane way to do so? Why did the Department of Justice create a set of Guiding Principles on the effective use of Restrictive Housing? How can we use the DOJ Guiding Principles to self-evaluate our current agency practice?

(2016) "Segregation has been and will continue to be a tool that is necessary to manage legitimate safety concerns. Reforms in the use of this practice will only be successful if the safety of inmates and staff is maintained or improved in the process. To impact the health and well-being of people under correctional control, reducing the use of segregation on its own by only “emptying beds” is of limited value. To make an impactful change, a systems approach to this complex issue is essential. This policy brief shares lessons from the systems approach to reform undertaken by the Washington Department of Corrections (WADOC) that began more than a decade ago and continues to the present day" (p. 3-4).

(2016) "Hawai'i’s Opportunity Probation with Enforcement (HOPE) Hawai'i’s Opportunity Probation with Enforcement probation relies on a regimen of regular, random drug testing tied to swift and certain, but modest, sanctions to motivate probationer compliance. In two 2007 studies in Hawai'i, a comparison-group quasi-experiment and a randomized controlled trial, HOPE was demonstrated to improve compliance with terms of probation at 12-month followup, with large reductions in drug use, recidivism, and overall incarceration for offenders assigned to the program … This study extends the original HOPE evaluations to an almost ten-year followup, addressing whether the improvements in criminal-justice outcomes observed during the active HOPE intervention persist after the term of probation. The study also documents changes in HOPE practices and ongoing implementation fidelity to the model … HOPE probationers performed better than those supervised under routine supervision. They were less likely to be revoked and returned to prison" (p. 2-3).

(2016) Sentencing alternatives for veterans? There are dozens of specialized courts across the country that employ therapeutic programs to help keep veterans out of jail. "Veterans Treatment Courts: A Second Chance for Vets Who Have Lost Their Way" is a new publication that tells the story of these veterans and the judges, veterans advocates, and treatment professionals who are fighting to ensure a second chance for vets who find themselves caught up in the criminal justice system. The publication was produced in partnership by the National Institute of Corrections (NIC), a division of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, and the Veterans Health Council of Vietnam Veterans of America (VVA). The report is based on a series of interviews and personal observations of the judges, veterans, and veterans advocates who have been intimately involved in the founding and operation of veterans treatment courts. In this book, they relay how veterans treatment courts are "the right thing to do" for justice-involved veterans who commit certain crimes associated with the lingering legacy of their wartime experiences. Court staff and graduates of veterans treatment court programs describe, in often exquisite detail, what their roles are and how they have come to embrace the concept that these courts, which use a carrot-and-stick approach to rehabilitate rather than overtly punish veteran defendants, represent what one veteran in Buffalo, New York, a key player in the creation of the first of these courts in the nation, has called "the most profound change in the attitude of our criminal justice system towards veterans in the history of this country." Objectives of this webinar are: Introduce NIC's new publication "Veterans Treatment Courts: A Second Chance for Vets Who Have Lost Their Way" by Bernard Edelman, Deputy Director for Policy and Government Affairs, VVA, and consultant Dr. Tom Berger, Executive Director of VVA's Veterans Health Council; Describe the inception of veteran's treatment courts and their focus; Highlight successes and challenges of veteran's treatment courts; and Hear a veteran's personal story of the impact of veteran's treatment court on their life.

(2016) Dementia, including Alzheimer's disease, is difficult to detect in a population often afflicted with other mental illnesses and maladaptive social behaviors. During this interactive webinar we will explore how symptoms and behaviors can be misconstrued and identify environmental risk factors that can contribute to costly accidents and injury for inmates with dementia. We will also take an in-depth look at the Gold Coat program based at the California Men's Colony State Prison in San Luis Obispo. This model consists of healthy inmates specially trained to care for those with dementia and other cognitive impairments, who are designated by the gold smocks they wear. The experiences of former Gold Coats will reveal a working rehabilitative program, a true model of reform that can provide skills for meaningful employment while caring for those who cannot help themselves. Every facility is different with unique needs. During the webinar, we will provide a foundation for developing a self-contained model to meet the needs of cognitively impaired inmates while healthy inmates gain valuable, marketable skills. Utilizing images, narratives and interactive exercises, panelists will explore the challenges of aging in prison with a focus on dementia care. Focus areas include: What Happens to the Brain When Dementia / Alzheimer's Strikes; 10 Warning Signs; Effective Communication Strategies; Activities of Daily Living (ADLs); Alternative Environmental Programming; and Building a Successful Dementia Program. At the conclusion of the webinar, participants will be able to: Paraphrase their own working knowledge of dementia, in particular Alzheimer's Disease; Describe how symptoms and behaviors can be misconstrued as maladaptive behavior; Identify environmental risk factors that can contribute to costly accidents and injury for inmates with dementia; and Give examples of tools to develop a method to reduce risk factors, promote effective programming and provide cost effective care.

(2016) The Community Corrections Collaborative Network (CCCN) hosted a live webinar event with our federal partners and national and local experts to highlight Hawaii’s Opportunity Probation with Enforcement (HOPE), a collaborative strategy among the court, probation, prosecutors, defense, law enforcement and community treatment providers to effect positive behavioral changes in probationers. HOPE was first conceived of by Judge Steven S. Alm of the O’ahu First Circuit and began as a pilot program in 2004. The HOPE strategy targets higher risk/higher needs offenders, utilizing swift, certain, consistent, and proportionate consequences for non-compliance with probation conditions while maintaining a working alliance with the offender by both the probation officer and the judge. Within the framework of the National Institute of Corrections’ eight evidence-based principles for recidivism reduction, HOPE assists offenders in the change process in a caring and supportive environment to help probationers succeed on probation and in life. While seemingly a simple theoretical model, HOPE is hard to do, and requires shared leadership within the criminal justice system. Research has shown that the HOPE strategy, when done with fidelity, can be highly successful and is inspiring like efforts in thirty-one states across the country. The CCCN believes that individual jurisdictions can adopt the swift and certain philosophy while modifying it to fit the needs and resources available in local communities. Our network is committed to identifying promising and innovative practices and promoting the use of evidence-based practices. Objectives for the Webinar: Showcase the innovative HOPE Program and how it can be replicated stateside; Discuss HOPE's innovative programmatic design, implementation and evaluation characteristics including HOPE's collaboration and systems approach (Court/Probation/Law Enforcement/Community Treatment Providers working together for a common goal), buy-in from staff/engagement/inclusion/supporting each other, matching probationers to the right services instead of one-size fits all, succession planning and sustainability build to success, and research, randomized control trials, and high level scientific design proving the effectiveness of the program; and engage the criminal justice system in a live discussion about the HOPE Program, resources for the field, how to access funding through federal resources, ideas for replication of similar approaches, and how to motivate our leaders to want to do more.