As the United States grapples with harsh economic realities, states and localities continue to cut budgets, shed jobs, and trim institutions that are not cost-effective. Among the least cost-effective are prison and jail systems. Federal, state and local governments are spending a combined $68 billion dollars a year on a system that does not definitively improve public safety, but, instead, destabilizes communities, harms families, and derails the lives of individuals. Research has shown that over the last 10 years, states that have increased their prison populations have not seen concurrent decreases in violent crime. At the same time, the states that have reduced their incarceration rates have seen some of the largest drops in violent crime.

In Maryland the cost of incarcerating one person for one year is approximately $33,310. Comparatively, the cost of paroling one person for one year is $1,422. Appropriately increasing the use of parole and probation can safely reduce prison and jail populations and their associated costs.

At community meetings, budgetary hearings before county commissioners, and even family and social occasions, jail administrators are often asked how frequently inmates in their facilities cycle from release to return, and what, if anything, can be done to slow this revolving door. What seem like simple and logical questions actually prove difficult to answer as few jails track their recidivism rates or evaluate their programs with great precision. While most lack the research staff to undertake such analyses, the more fundamental reason is that they fail to see the relevance of calculating recidivism rates for highly mobile and complex jail populations. Running safe, secure, orderly, and humane institutions consumes the time of most jail administrators, and many would wonder the utility of measuring a statistic for which they exercise so little control over the outcome measure. This paper should provide both solace to jail administrators that this is indeed a difficult question to answer directly and forthrightly, but also a challenge that measuring recidivism rates for portions of jail populations is not only feasible but critical in helping a system manage scarce correctional resources and addressing overcrowding issues. Since 1998, the Hampden County Sheriff’s Department in Ludlow, Massachusetts has engaged in an on-going study in which recidivism rates are updated monthly on its sentenced population. It has used this information to identify population trends that affect jail overcrowding and has shared this information with other players in the criminal justice system to launch collaborative initiatives. In this paper, the methods of the study are described by using the recidivism data collected for sentenced inmates who left the Department’s correctional facilities and programs in 2004. It will also describe future plans to build on this study to conduct rigorous program evaluations and to extend some of this methodology to the Department’s pre-trial population.

On June 16, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) released the 2009 Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR) to Congress. According to the fifth annual report, levels of homelessness in the United States stayed essentially the same between 2008 and 2009. Data showed a 10 percent reduction among people experiencing chronic homelessness, but a rise in the number of families seeking shelter.

The Corporation for Supportive Housing (CSH) is pleased to make available the 2010 National Edition of Between the Lines: A Question and Answer Guide on Legal Issues in Supportive Housing. Much has changed since the publication of the 2001 edition of the CSH Between the Lines Guide, as more communities have embraced permanent supportive housing as the model for reducing homelessness among populations vulnerable to housing instability. The law has changed as well, often attempting to catch up with this trend. CSH engaged 2001 Between the Lines authors Goldfarb & Lipman, L.L.P., to draft an updated version of the Guide to address these changes in the law and to update readers on new interpretations of previously referenced laws. The Appendices to the Guide are extensive, and include a full glossary of legal terms, clarification of reasonable accommodation requirements, and legal definitions. As with the previous edition of the Guide, CSH hopes readers will use the Guide to further the CSH goal of creating stable housing for homeless individuals and families. You can find the Guide on the CSH Publications page.

The Maine Substance Abuse Services Commission is the bridge between the Office of Substance Abuse, the public and elected officials, regarding the issues of substance abuse prevention, research, identification and treatment.

The Commission understands the importance of learning from other states across the country when it comes to alcohol and other drug policies and best practices. In 2006, Join Together, a program of the Boston University School of Public Health, published its Blueprint for the States: Policies to Improve the Ways States Organize and Deliver Alcohol and Drug Prevention and Treatment.

Using the Blueprint as a tool, the Commission completed a comprehensive scan of the State of Maine using four categories followed by a series of benchmarks. This report card is the beginning of a baseline that will be released biennially. The report card provides background regarding the scores and offers recommendations for improvement.

This Guide is designed to meet the needs of both families whose children are involved in the juvenile justice system and other juvenile justice stakeholders, including advocates, family organizations, the court, school administrators, and facility administrators. The first section is the Juvenile Justice Facility Guide, which provides stakeholders with an introduction to the model family guide and related tools that will enable the facility school to promote family participation in students’ education. The second section is the Family Guide to Getting Involved With Correctional Education. It is intended to encourage families—including those who are reluctant, fearful, or unprepared—to become more involved with their child’s education. Juvenile justice stakeholders need only to personalize the guide (Section Two), then duplicate and distribute the materials to family members of youth enrolled in their correctional education program.