Justice in Review:

New Trends in State Sentencing
and Corrections 2014-2015
.":


CENTER ON SENTENCING AND CORRECTIONS

3FCFDDB
4JMCFS
t
3BN
4VCSBNBOJBO
t
.BJB
4QPUUT

FROM THE DIRECTOR
This analysis of state-level changes in sentencing and corrections laws enacted
in 2014 and 2015 reaches readers in the thick of the 2016 presidential primary
season. In a year that marks the end of a two-term administration, it’s not surprising that the media spotlight has thus far focused on potential changes to
federal criminal justice policies.
Yet the evidence gathered by the Vera Institute of Justice’s Center on Sentencing and Corrections (CSC) for this report demonstrates that the states continue
to serve as laboratories of innovation in criminal justice reform. Forty-six states
made 201 changes to their sentencing and corrections laws during 2014 and 2015.
Necessity and the numbers propel these state-level changes. More than 86
percent of people incarcerated throughout the United States are held in state
prisons. State policymakers, still struggling with tightened resources stemming from the 2008 recession, are taking heed of a body of evidence amassed
through years of research showing that mass incarceration is not effective.
Neither public safety nor the long-term health of communities is served by
incarcerating so many people for so long.
The state policy changes in 2014 and 2015 continue a trend that began in
2009 and flow from a reexamination of how to balance the essential priorities of public safety, fairness, and justice. They focus on three areas: creating
or expanding opportunities to divert people from the criminal justice system;
reducing prison populations; and supporting in-custody and community-based
rehabilitation and reentry efforts designed to increase the odds of success
upon return to the community.
Not all people who have landed in the criminal justice system belong behind bars.
For many, earlier, targeted community-based responses to their behavior produce
much more effective long-term outcomes in steering them away from trouble.
Despite a national environment of stark ideological division on many issues,
there is significant bipartisan agreement emerging on crime and punishment. It’s
manifest in the states, where ideologically driven criminal justice policies rooted
in punitive views of justice system-involved people are giving way to an evidencebased approach rooted in what works to make society safer and stronger.

Fred Patrick
Director
Center on Sentencing and Corrections
Vera Institute of Justice

2

JUSTICE IN REVIEW: NEW TRENDS IN STATE SENTENCING AND CORRECTIONS 2014-2015

ABOUT THIS REPORT
In 2014 and 2015, 46 states enacted at least 201 bills, executive orders and ballot
initiatives to reform at least one aspect of their sentencing and corrections
systems. In conducting this review of state criminal justice reforms, the Vera
Institute of Justice’s Center on Sentencing and Corrections (CSC) found that
most of the policy changes focused on three areas: creating or expanding opportunities to divert people away from the criminal justice system; reducing
prison populations by enacting sentencing reform, expanding opportunities
for early release from prison, and reducing the number of people admitted to
prison for violating the terms of their community supervision; and supporting
reentry into the community from prison. By providing concise summaries of
representative reforms in each of these areas, this report serves as a practical
guide for other state and federal policymakers looking to affect similar changes

Contents
3

About this report

4

Introduction

10

Creating or expanding
opportunities to divert
people from the criminal
justice system

19

Reducing prison
populations

37

Supporting reentry into
the community

52

Conclusion

53

Appendix A

60

Appendix B

66

Endnotes

in criminal justice policy.

VERA INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE

3

Introduction
After a decades-long dependence on prison as the primary policy response to
crime in the United States, political attitudes about public safety and criminal
justice are rapidly shifting. Prompted by dissatisfaction with stubbornly high
rates of return among those released from prison, and encouraged by public
opinion polls that show a majority of the electorate believes that prison growth
has yielded insufficient public safety gains, there is an emerging consensus
across the political divide that America’s over-reliance on prison has been too
costly and ineffective. While state expenditures on corrections increased 427
percent between 1986 and 2012, with total state spending in 2012 at $52.4 billion, the high price tag has failed to yield greater public safety.1 As of 2013, nearly four in 10 people released from prison were reconvicted of a new crime or
violated the terms of their release and returned to prison within three years.2
Driven by the need to find less costly and more effective solutions, policymakers over the past several years have embraced decades of research and
analysis examining what works in corrections to reduce recidivism and improve public safety. In particular, policymakers are turning to a growing body
of research demonstrating that:
>

longer sentences have no more than a marginal effect in reducing
recidivism and shorter sentence lengths do not have a significant
negative impact on public safety;3

>

many people can be safely and effectively supervised in the community rather than in custody at lower cost;4 and

>

post-punishment penalties and restrictions (the collateral consequences of criminal conviction) hinder people upon release from
prison or discharge from community supervision in addressing known
risk factors for reoffending—such as mental illness, substance-abuse
problems, lack of vocational skills, education, and housing—with now
well-understood impacts on their families and communities.5

Since 2009, most states have enacted legislation to reduce prison populations, expand and improve community supervision, improve reentry outcomes,
and incorporate sustained data-driven analysis into policymaking.6 Although
the last major federal reform was the 2010 Fair Sentencing Act—landmark
legislation that reduced the weight ratio disparity between the amount of
powder cocaine compared to crack needed to trigger mandatory sentencing
from 100:1 to 18:1 and eliminated the five-year mandatory minimum sentence
for first-time possession of crack—further federal sentencing reform may now
be in store.7
And recently, in a surprising show of bipartisanship, Republican and Democratic leaders alike are rejecting mass incarceration as a cure-all for crime. In
a speech in support of criminal justice reform in July 2015, President Barack

4

JUSTICE IN REVIEW: NEW TRENDS IN STATE SENTENCING AND CORRECTIONS 2014-2015

USING DATA-DRIVEN RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS TO GUIDE REFORM
In 2014 and 2015, many states created special committees and task forces to oversee the review, adoption, and implementation of new evidence-based approaches to a wide range of criminal justice practices, many of which are reviewed in this report. To reach their goals, committees often begin with research
into the efficacy of past and current practices, their known impact on rehabilitation and reducing recidivism, and an investigation into different strategies that research has demonstrated are effective. For example, Nebraska
created and funded a number of working groups, including a research center at the University of Nebraska, to investigate a singular but comprehensive approach to reducing prison populations, improving reentry programming, and
reallocating cost savings. Other states created or extended oversight bodies tasked with ensuring that recently enacted
reforms achieve their goals. These groups are empowered to monitor implementation and make recommendations to
the legislature for improvement where necessary.
Task forces, commissions, study or oversight
committees, and advisory councils

Issue

Alabama SJR 20 (2014)

Sentencing practices and prison reform

Alabama Exec. Order 8 (2015)

Oversight

Alaska SB 64 (2014)

Sentencing and criminal justice practices

Arkansas SB 472 (2015)

Specialty courts

Colorado SB 14-021 (2014)

Mental health treatment (in-custody and upon reentry)

Idaho Exec. Order 1 (2014)

Oversight

Idaho SB 1393 (2014)

Oversight

Illinois HJR 53 (2015)

Behavioral health and criminal justice

Indiana HB 1006 (2014)

Oversight

Indiana HB 1070 (2014)

Oversight

Louisiana HR 203 (2015)

Reentry

Maryland SB 602 (2015)

Sentencing and prison reform

Mississippi HB 602 (2015)

Reentry

Missouri HB 1231 (2014)

Oversight

Nebraska LB 907 (2014)

Sentencing practices and prison reform

New Hampshire HB 1144 (2014)

Criminal records

North Dakota HB 1106 (2015)

Defendants who are veterans or currently serving in the military

Oregon HB 2838 (2015)

Incarcerated veterans

Oregon SB 969 (2015)

Reentry, Employment and Housing

South Carolina SB 900 (2014)

Expungement of criminal records

South Carolina S 237 (2015)

Expungement of criminal records

West Virginia HB 4614 (2014)

Sentencing

VERA INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE

5

Obama declared that the overuse of incarceration “makes our country worse
off,” and that the punishment meted out too often is “disproportionate to the
price that should be paid.”8 Using the example of the harsh treatment of lowlevel drug dealers and parole violators, the President endorsed wide-ranging
types of reform, including curbing the use of mandatory penalties; expanding
the adoption of alternatives to prison, such as drug courts and treatment and
probation programs; and improving programming and conditions in prison as
well as after release.9
Meanwhile, the Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan, a Republican, acknowledged
in March 2016 that he was a “late convert to criminal-justice reform” and noted
that tough-on-crime laws that imposed mandatory minimum sentences and
three-strikes penalties “ended up putting people [in] for long prison terms,
which ends up ruining their life and hurting their communities where we
could have had alternative means of incarceration, better means of actually
dealing with the problem than basically destroying a person’s life.”10
In July 2015, President Obama commuted the sentences of 46 federal inmates,
most of whom were serving lengthy terms for drug offenses, and emphasized
his focus on criminal justice reform with an unprecedented presidential visit
to a federal prison in Oklahoma.11 In October 2015, the Department of Justice
announced that following a change in federal sentencing law for drug offenses, about 6,000 prisoners would be released over the course of a few days
in late October and early November, the largest single release of federal prisoners.12 And following the recent grant of 58 new commutations in May 2016,
President Obama has granted more than 300 commutations, more than the
past six presidents combined, and including more than 100 life sentences.13
While these recent actions by national leaders may have captured the lion’s
share of headlines, states have been enacting a wide variety of sentencing and
corrections reform that reflects the growing desire to change and improve system responses to crime—from changing bail procedures to reduce the number
of people held in jail simply because they can’t afford to pay for their release, to
improving outcomes for people leaving prison. Policymakers’ notable willingness to reexamine and adjust the system at all stages of the criminal justice
process is reflected in four major state bills—Mississippi HB 585 (2014), Alabama SB 67 (2015), Nebraska LB 605 (2015), and Utah HB 348 (2015)—sweeping
pieces of legislation that reduced prison sentences for certain drug and property crimes, lessened the minimum amount of time people must serve in custody
before becoming parole-eligible, incorporated the use of graduated responses
in community supervision, increased opportunities to divert people away from
the traditional criminal justice process, and created new programs and procedures to better support people reentering the community from prison. Some of
the criminal justice reform laws enacted in 2014 and 2015 came about through
the ballot box, rather than the legislative process. California’s Proposition 47
(2014), for example, focused on reclassifying many drug and property crimes as
misdemeanors and allocated anticipated cost savings to investments such as
community-based treatment and education programs.

6

JUSTICE IN REVIEW: NEW TRENDS IN STATE SENTENCING AND CORRECTIONS 2014-2015

VERA INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE

7

South Carolina
Tennessee
Virginia
Washington
Wyoming

Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
North Carolina
New Hampshire
Virginia
West Virginia

New Hampshire
North Dakota
Oregon
South Carolina
West Virginia

Alaska
Arkansas
Georgia
Hawaii
Illinois
Maryland
Minnesota

Indiana
Louisiana
Maryland
Mississippi
Missouri
Nebraska

Medical
Amnesty

Alabama
Alaska
Arkansas
Colorado
Idaho
Illinois

Louisiana
Michigan
Montana
New Hampshire
North Carolina
Oklahoma

Ensures that DataDriven Research and
Analysis Guide Reform

New Jersey
Vermont
West Virginia

Bail
Reform

Arkansas
California
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana

Creates or Expands Opportunities
to Divert People Away from
the Criminal Justice System

Supports the
Reentry of
Individuals in
the Community

Indiana
New Jersey
New York
West Virginia

Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut

Expands Use of
Medication-Assisted
Substance Abuse
Treatment

Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa

Alaska
Arizona
California
Georgia
Kansas
Louisiana

Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Michigan
Missouri
Nebraska
New Hampshire

Maine
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
Utah

Veteran-Related
Reforms

New Jersey
New York
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Tennessee
Texas

Alaska
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana

Nebraska
Utah

Colorado
Delaware
Nebraska

New Jersey
South Dakota
Texas

Solitary
Confinement

Alabama
Mississippi

Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Wyoming

Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Rhode Island
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington

Comprehensive
Criminal Justice
Reform

Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Montana
Nebraska
New Hampshire
North Dakota

Reduce Prison
Populations

MAPPING SENTENCING AND CORRECTIONS TRENDS 2014–2015

A NOTE ABOUT THE
REFORMS DISCUSSED
IN THIS REPORT
The policy changes discussed in this report are
exemplars of the three
categories of sentencing and corrections reform that states have
been pursuing in recent years.
They do not provide an exhaustive listing or analysis of every
state criminal justice-related bill,
ballot initiative, or executive or-

In 2014 and 2015, states passed laws to:
>

create or expand opportunities to divert people away from the criminal
justice system: States increased the use of alternative case dispositions,
such as deferred adjudication programs, which allow people with firsttime or low-level charges to avoid entering a guilty plea or ending up
with a record of conviction if they serve a crime-free probationary period.
States also expanded or strengthened the use of problem-solving courts
that channel people with specific treatment needs, such as mental illness
or substance abuse issues, into alternative judicial settings that provide
intensive supervision in the community and treatment in lieu of prosecution or sentencing. Still other states passed laws that empower arresting
officers to divert certain defendants—especially those with an identified
mental health need—into treatment instead of detention;

>

reduce prison populations: States enacted laws to reduce or contain prison
populations by 1) making certain offenses eligible for community-based
sentences; 2) reducing the length and severity of custodial sentences by
redefining or reclassifying crimes or repealing mandatory penalties; 3)
shortening lengths of stay in prison by expanding opportunities to earn
sentence credits, which shave off time in custody and advance parole
eligibility; and 4) reducing the influx of people into prison for violations of
community supervision by implementing evidence-based practices such as
graduated responses to violations; and

>

support people’s successful reentry into the community: To reduce recidivism, states changed their reentry systems to provide better coordination
between prisons and community supervision agencies and to increase
programming and treatment. In addition, states are supporting family
relationships by facilitating family visitation, supporting relationships between incarcerated parents and their children, and ensuring that children
of incarcerated people receive care and support. States are also helping
people who are justice-involved obtain benefits, state identification, and
exercise their voting rights; improving employment prospects by limiting bars on professional licenses and providing certificates of rehabilitation and employability; waiving fines and fees that often create economic
obstacles to reintegration; and making it easier for people to expunge prior
convictions and more difficult for private entities to disseminate criminalrecords data.

der in 2014 and 2015. The highlighted summaries are arranged
by the type or area of reform. (See
Appendix A for a state-by-state
listing of all reforms covered in
this report.) Where a particular
piece of legislation makes distinct
changes in multiple areas (e.g.,
by reducing prison populations
and costs and also supporting
reentry into the community), summaries of the relevant provisions
may be included under the various respective reform categories.
Finally, Section III, related to collateral consequences, excludes
the 2014 legislation discussed in
detail in the Vera Institute of Justice’s 2014 report Relief in Sight?
States Rethink the Collateral Consequences of Criminal Conviction
2009-2014.14

8

JUSTICE IN REVIEW: NEW TRENDS IN STATE SENTENCING AND CORRECTIONS 2014-2015

BAIL REFORM
The presumption of innocence—a concept at the heart of the U.S. constitutional right to due process under the law—protects defendants during the time between charge and conviction, ensuring that most people are not held in custody prior
to trial and that those who are detained are held in custody only to ensure their return to court for trial.a Until relatively
recently, U.S. law conformed with this understanding, evidenced by the fact that bail—the conditions, often financial,
imposed upon an accused person to ensure appearance for trial—was presumed in all non-capital cases.b Although
statutory changes between the 1960s and 1980s also made public safety a central consideration in the pretrial release or
detention decision process, the presumption that people should be released pending trial remained paramount.c
However, recent pretrial release practices are at odds with this presumption. As of mid-year 2013, 63 percent of the jail population had not yet been convicted—nearly 460,000 people on any given day.d Moreover, many of these people remained in
jail simply because they could not post financial bail—the main condition for release.e
With research showing that people held in pretrial detention have higher rates of conviction, longer sentences, and
higher recidivism rates, three states—New Jersey, Vermont, and West Virginia—overhauled their bail systems to
reduce the overuse of pretrial detention.f
> New Jersey SB 946 (2015) implements New Jersey
Public Question 1 (2014)—a statewide ballot
measure approved by popular vote in November 2014
that eliminated the constitutional bail requirement for
pretrial release. Previously, while all persons charged
with a criminal offense were technically eligible for
pretrial release, judges in practice often set very
high bail, even for those charged with nonviolent
offenses, rendering pretrial release available only to
those who could afford it.g The ballot measure and
subsequent legislation grant judges the discretion
to determine eligibility for, and conditions of, pretrial
release. Under the new law, defendants who do not
pose a public safety or a flight risk may be released
under non-monetary bail alternatives or conditions for
release, including restrictions on travel, participating
in mandatory drug or alcohol testing or mental health
assessments, or securing and maintaining employment.
It also orders the establishment of a Statewide Pretrial
Services Program, including a Pretrial Services Program
Review Commission to make recommendations
regarding pretrial services, release, and detention.

> Vermont SB 295 (2014) requires that a risk and needs
assessment be offered to all defendants charged with
felonies or drug-related offenses, those unable to post
bail within 24 hours of entering custody, and those not
charged with, or arrested for, a criminal offense but
identified by law enforcement, family, friends, treatment providers or others as having a substantial substance abuse or mental health problem. The assessment is then shared with the defendant, prosecution,
and the judge in advance of filing criminal charges.
The assessment occurs before the defendant’s arraignment, and a judge may use it as the basis for determining appropriate pretrial release conditions. The
new law also sets standards for the pretrial monitoring
of defendants who are released.
> West Virginia SB 307 (2014) authorizes the establishment of local pretrial services programs, overseen
by the Supreme Court. These programs make recommendations on pretrial release decisions to judges
based on risk-assessment score and in some cases
monitor and supervise people on pretrial supervision.

a

For the constitutional right to due process, see Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501, 503 (1976). For the common law understanding of the presumption of
innocence, see William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 300 (1765).
b See Stack v. Boyle, 342 U.S. 1, 4 (1951) (“the right to release before trial is conditioned upon the accused’s giving adequate assurance that he will stand
trial and submit to sentence if found guilty”). Also see Judiciary Act of 1798, 1 Stat. 73 §33.
c See Bail Reform Act 1966, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3146-3151, and Bail Reform Act 1984, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3141-3156. Also see U.S. v. Salerno, 418 U.S. 739 (1987)
(government’s interest in public safety may outweigh an individual’s liberty interest).
d Todd D. Minton and Daniela Golinelli, Jail Inmates at Midyear 2013 - Statistical Tables, (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice
Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2014), 11.
e Subramanian et al., Incarceration’s Front Door, pp. 29 and 32.
f Christopher Lowenkamp, Marie Van Nostrand, and Alexander M. Holsinger, Investigating the Impact of Pretrial Detention on Sentencing Outcomes (New York:
The Laura and John Arnold Foundation, 2013).
g Judges could only deny bail to persons charged with a capital offense, rendered inapplicable once the death penalty was repealed in 2007. See New
Jersey S 171 (2007).

VERA INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE

9

Creating or expanding
opportunities to divert people
from the criminal justice system
A growing body of research shows that assigning low-risk people to intensive
supervision or programming, whether in custody or in the community, can
increase their risk of reoffending.15 Research also demonstrates that the wide
array of post-punishment civil penalties that flow from criminal conviction can
hinder people in areas such as employment, education, and housing, which are
critical to reducing the risk of future criminal activity.16
To shield an increasing number of people from the negative impacts of
criminal conviction, and to make the system more effective in responding to
the unique risks, needs, and circumstances of people who run afoul of the law,
states passed laws to reduce the overall flow of people into, and maintenance
in, the formal criminal justice system by expanding alternatives to traditional
case processing at every stage of the process, including bail at the outset (see
"Bail Reform," page 9). In particular, lawmakers enacted laws that introduce,
expand, or strengthen opportunities for diversion. Such programs and practices
can come into play at different phases in the criminal justice process and may
be used in lieu of formal arrest, prosecution, and sentencing. Often, they are
designed to deliver services and treatment to, rather than incarcerate, vulnerable people, such as those who suffer from substance abuse, mental illness,
and homelessness.17
A number of states, for example, funded Crisis Intervention Team (CIT)
programs to train law enforcement personnel to diffuse confrontations fueled
by mental illness or substance abuse through identification, assessment, and
referral to community programs in lieu of arrest.18 Other states expanded their
problem-solving or accountability courts—specialized court divisions for a
particular population of defendants, such as the mentally ill or veterans, which
offer judge-led supervision and treatment instead of charging or sentencing.
States also increased judicial discretion in using deferred judgment or conditional sentencing policies. These are approaches that give people an opportunity to avoid a formal custodial or community sentence in exchange for
adhering to judicially set conditions, such as continuing lawful behavior with
or without active supervision, sometimes with a requirement of participation
in treatment or completion of community service.19 Judges can dismiss charges
against those who successfully complete their assigned conditions.

PRE-ARREST DIVERSION
As a person’s first moment of contact with the criminal justice system, arrest
is a critical point when certain people can be identified for noncustodial op-

10

JUSTICE IN REVIEW: NEW TRENDS IN STATE SENTENCING AND CORRECTIONS 2014-2015

tions—such as citation and release, or other means of diverting them from
incarceration, including notice-to-appear tickets instead of custodial arrest to
secure people’s appearance at a later court date. States are also increasingly
using first contact as the moment to identify those with underlying needs that
have contributed to, or may increase the likelihood of, future criminal justice
involvement—such as homelessness, mental illness, or substance abuse issues—
and connect them with appropriate community-based treatment and services.
Many states have created new training curricula relating to mental health crises;
required interagency collaboration for the provision of mental health services;
established or strengthened community-based mental health resources; and
provided law enforcement more discretion in determining whether to make an
arrest or make a mental health services or other treatment referral.
>

Idaho SB 1352 (2014), also known as the “Behavioral Health Community
Crisis Centers Act,” establishes 24-hour crisis centers to address the needs
of people with behavioral health issues (including mental illness and
substance use) who commit minor offenses. It aims to alleviate the burden
placed on jails, hospitals, and law enforcement agencies, which are currently the default providers of behavioral health crisis intervention. The
crisis centers will also provide a more appropriate alternative forum for
persons experiencing behavioral health crises.

>

Michigan SB 558 (2014) requires counties to have interagency agreements
and develop protocols for the delivery of needed mental health treatment
to people already in the criminal justice system or those who are at risk
of entering it and who are not already receiving mental health services.
The legislation requires county law enforcement and community mental
health services, in collaboration with courts and others, to be parties to the
agreements, which must outline the program eligibility requirements. The
programs must be integrated with local courts.

>

Montana HB 33 (2015) expands mental health crisis intervention and jail
diversion services to areas of the state that lack services, and increases
funding opportunities for counties that want to continue or expand crisis
intervention and jail diversion services.

>

Tennessee HB 1904 (2014) creates a new training process for law enforcement to identify and respond appropriately to people with mental health
issues who come into custody.

>

Virginia HB 1222 (2014) outlines a training protocol for law enforcement,
emergency department and school personnel, and other interested parties, and includes training on recognizing symptoms of mental illness,
de-escalating crises, supporting people in crisis, and identifying who in the
community can provide appropriate community-based treatment services.

>

Washington SB 2627 (2014) establishes a pilot program that gives police
greater discretion in deciding whether to make an arrest or refer someone
to an appropriate treatment facility or emergency medical provider. In

VERA INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE

11

order to participate in treatment, a person cannot be charged with a felony
or with operating a vehicle under the influence. A person need not plead
guilty in order to participate, and the participation agreement is not admissible in relevant subsequent court proceedings. However, participation
does not grant immunity from later criminal prosecution.

PROBLEM-SOLVING COURTS
Problem-solving courts—also known as accountability courts or specialty
courts—are court dockets that focus on people with distinct needs, such as
substance abuse or mental illness, or on a particular population, such as veterans.20 These special dockets focus on providing eligible defendants with safe
and effective interventions, treatment, services, and supervision through an
interdisciplinary team of professionals, including a treatment provider, case
manager, probation officer, and law enforcement representative.21 Guided by
research that found that problem-solving courts can effectively treat underlying needs such as mental illness and substance abuse, reduce recidivism rates,
and create long-term fiscal savings, many states have recently added problemsolving courts, expanded eligibility, and systemized standards for them.22
Because some studies and cost analyses have challenged these claims, particularly when defendants are placed in longer-term or more secure treatment
settings than clinically necessary, experts counsel that courts should partner
with and follow the guidance of those who are trained in clinically appropriate
methods to avoid ordering inadequate or misapplied treatment.23
>

Arkansas SB 472 (2015) creates a Specialty Court Program Advisory Committee whose charge is to promote collaboration and provide recommendations
on issues involving adult and juvenile specialty courts; and to design and
complete a comprehensive evaluation of all adult and juvenile specialty court
programs.24 Evaluations must reflect nationally recognized and peer-reviewed
standards for each type of specialty court program and must ensure that
resources are uniformly directed to people deemed high risk and medium risk
and use effective and proven practices that reduce recidivism—for example,
programs targeting risk factors such as substance dependency. The new law
also provides a new funding stream for expanding specialty courts.

12

>

Illinois HB 1 (2015) narrows the circumstances when a prosecutor must
agree to a defendant’s participation in a drug court program. Previous law required prosecutors to consent under all circumstances. Now, defendants may
be admitted upon agreement by the defendant and the court, without the
prosecution’s consent. The law also requires mandatory education seminars
on substance abuse and addiction for drug court prosecutors and defenders.

>

Louisiana SB 398/HB 683 (2014) expands eligibility for participation in a
drug court probation program. Defendants who are charged with a violent
crime, domestic battery, or driving under the influence, have other pending

JUSTICE IN REVIEW: NEW TRENDS IN STATE SENTENCING AND CORRECTIONS 2014-2015

MEDICATION-ASSISTED SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT
Addiction to opiates is a growing public health problem in the United States. An estimated 1.9 million
people in 2014 had a substance use disorder involving prescription pain relievers and 586,000 people had
a substance use disorder involving heroin.a To combat this emerging epidemic, many national and international professional bodies consider medication-assisted treatment (MAT)—with methadone, buprenorphine,
or extended-release injectable naltrexone—an evidence-based best practice for treating opioid dependence. Yet, until recently, the criminal justice system has been slow to recognize and adopt MAT as an important part of effective
treatment.b In many jurisdictions, treatment-based sentencing alternatives, such as drug courts, often prohibit the use
of these medications outright.c
However, at least four states have recently incorporated MAT to bolster existing or new treatment approaches, both in custody and in the community, bringing treatment practices in line with medical standards.
> Indiana HB 1304 and SB 464 (2015) authorize
the corrections department to administer a drug to
inmates for medication-assisted treatment of opioid
or alcohol dependence. The new law also allows
addiction counseling, in-patient detoxification, case
management, daily living skills, and long acting nonaddictive medication to be required to treat opioid or
alcohol addiction as a condition of parole, probation,
community corrections, pretrial diversion, or a problem solving court. Ineligible defendants include those
charged with a violent or drug dealing offense.
> New Jersey S 2381 (2015) permits participants
of the “special probation” drug court program to
successfully complete the program notwithstanding the use of MAT for substance use disorders—for
example, substitution medications such as methadone and buprenorphine in the treatment of opioid
use disorder. “Special probation” is a program that
allows certain defendants subject to a presumption
of incarceration or a mandatory minimum period of
parole ineligibility to participate in drug treatment in

lieu of incarceration.d Previously, most of New Jersey’s
drug courts required participants to discontinue MAT
in order to complete the program or “graduate,”
despite recommendations by their treatment providers. This law brings the practices of New Jersey drug
courts in line with current clinical standards.
> New York AB 6255 (2015) amends the Criminal Procedure Law to allow people with an opioid addiction
using MAT, such as methadone treatment, to participate in a judicial diversion program.
> West Virginia HB 2880 (2015) creates the “Addiction Treatment Pilot Program,” aimed at people with
drug or alcohol abuse issues in custody, on parole or
work release, or currently in an adult drug court program. The pilot includes psycho-social therapy along
with the use of extended release opioid-blocking
drugs. The new law permits the Department of Health
and Human Resources to partner with the Supreme
Court of Appeals and the Division of Corrections in
implementing the pilot.

a See

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality, Behavioral health trends in the United States:
Results from the 2014 National Survey on Drug Use and Health, (Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2015.)
b See National Institute on Drug Abuse, Principles of drug abuse treatment for criminal justice populations: A research-based guide (Bethesda, MD: NIH, 2012) and
H. L. Kraus et al., “Statement of the American Society of Addiction Medicine Consensus Panel on the use of buprenorphine in office-based treatment of opioid
addiction,” Journal of Addiction Medicine, 5, no.4 (2011): 254–263.
c For example, a 2010 survey of 103 drug courts found that, whereas 98 percent reported that at least some of their drug court participants were opioid-dependent,
only 56 percent of the courts offered any form of MAT to participants. See Harlan Matusow et al., “Medication Assisted Treatment in U.S. Drug Courts: Results of
Nationwide Survey of Availability, Barriers and Attitudes,” Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 44, no.5 (2013): 473-480.
d The special probation statute requires that a defendant’s crime must have resulted from a need to procure drugs or alcohol or have been committed while under
the influence. Before sentencing a defendant to special probation, the court should be satisfied that a suitable drug facility will accept the defendant and that no
danger to the public will result from this disposition.

VERA INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE

13

violent criminal charges, or have a prior homicide conviction are ineligible.
Each drug court must issue an annual evaluation of effectiveness that details the program’s impact on recidivism.

14

>

New Hampshire HB 1442 (2014) creates, and establishes guidelines for,
mental health courts in which eligible people are offered mental health
services in the community in lieu of incarceration. After they successfully
complete the program, the judge may order charges to be dismissed or
withheld. Six months after completion, participants may apply for annulment of the relevant charges, arrest, conviction, and sentence.

>

Oklahoma HB 2859 (2014) grants all district and municipal courts the right
to establish a permanent rather than pilot mental health court program;
participation is conditioned on the approval of the district attorney. Under
the legislation, a system of graduated responses must be used to respond
to those who do not comply with court-ordered program conditions, and to
provide incentives to those who do. Continued noncompliance may lead to
dismissal from the program and imposition of the sentence provided in the
plea agreement.

>

South Carolina S 426 (2015) allows each district attorney (“circuit solicitor”)
to establish a mental health court program aimed at diverting defendants
with a diagnosed, or diagnosable, mental illness—including those with a
co-occurring substance abuse disorder—from the criminal justice system
and into appropriate treatment programs. A program may or may not
require conviction for defendants to participate, and districts that accept
state funding for implementation must ensure that all eligible persons are
permitted to apply for admission. Excluded from participation are those
charged with, or previously convicted of, a violent, harassment or stalking
offense. Also excluded are persons subject to a protection or a restraining
order. Reasonable attempts must be made to give victims, where applicable, notice of the decision to divert.

>

Washington SB 5107 (2015) authorizes and encourages every trial and
juvenile court to establish therapeutic courts. The aim is to provide eligible
defendants further opportunities to obtain treatment services for issues
that may have contributed to criminal justice involvement in exchange
for resolution of the case or charges. Therapeutic courts may include drug,
mental health, veterans, DUI, truancy, domestic violence, community, and
homeless courts. Although judges retain the discretion to establish the processes and determine eligibility criteria uniquely suited to their community and jurisdiction, judges are encouraged to use nationally recognized
evidenced-based or emerging best practices to enhance program effectiveness. Ineligible defendants include those charged or convicted of violent or
sex offenses, including vehicular homicide and firearms offenses.

JUSTICE IN REVIEW: NEW TRENDS IN STATE SENTENCING AND CORRECTIONS 2014-2015

DEFERRED ADJUDICATION
Deferred adjudication—also known as deferred judgment, conditional discharge,
or adjournment in contemplation of a dismissal—is an alternative mechanism
for disposing of cases that aims to shield people from a formal conviction and
sentence and usually results in the dismissal of criminal charges. Under deferred
adjudication, a defendant must comply with judicially set terms and conditions
in lieu of formal sentencing. If successful, he or she can avoid imposition of the
sentence and a criminal record of conviction. Conditions may be lawful behavior
or sobriety for a set period, but may also include participation in substance abuse
or mental health treatment or vocational training, attendance at regular court
hearings, or the completion of a certain amount or type of community service.
Failure to comply with the conditions of deferral may result in either a return to
traditional criminal proceedings or the automatic imposition of a deferred sentence. During the last two legislative sessions, five states enacted the following
laws to expand deferred adjudication policies.
>

California AB 2124 (2014) establishes the “Deferral of Sentencing Pilot
Program” in Los Angeles County. Under the program, judges have discretion to defer a sentence for up to one year, during which defendants must
comply with judicially set terms and conditions, including participation
in already-existing programming. If the defendant follows all conditions,
complies with any orders (such as a restitution or protective order), the
case will be dismissed. This program is only available to those charged
with misdemeanors who must plead guilty or no contest to the charge in
order to participate. People are ineligible if they have a prior conviction for
any misdemeanor within the past 10 years, a violent misdemeanor or a
felony, a previous deferred sentence, are subject to mandatory incarceration, required to register as a sex offender, or where the victim was a minor, elderly, or dependent, or the charge involved any of a range of factors
including violence against a peace officer, or a dangerous weapon.

>

California AB 2309 (2014) expands the list of controlled substances eligible for deferred judgment to include certain prescription medications
obtained without a valid prescription. In such cases, fraudulent possession
no longer mandates prosecution, and the defendant may be eligible for
diversion to a drug treatment program. Drug offenses already eligible for
deferred judgment include violations for personal possession of a controlled substance, possession of less than one ounce of marijuana, marijuana cultivation for personal use, and possession of drug paraphernalia.
Prior drug convictions, violent offenses, previous unsuccessful diversion
programming, or a felony conviction less than five years old make a defendant ineligible for participation.

>

Indiana HB 1006 (2014) makes people charged with Level 5 and Level 6
felonies (the two lowest felony levels in Indiana) eligible for diversion from

VERA INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE

15

VETERANS
Veterans are a population with a high risk of being involved with the criminal justice system, comprising 10 percent of the incarcerated population, according to the most recently available data.a
This risk may owe to the fact that returning veterans often struggle with known risk factors for criminal behavior at
higher rates than others, such as mental illness, substance abuse, unemployment, or homelessness. This may be a consequence of higher rates of diagnosed Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), as well as other forms of combat- and
non-combat-related trauma, including sexual trauma, or traumatic brain injury.b In addition, veterans frequently face
mounting medical costs and often struggle with limited access to benefits or community support that address their
specific needs.c
Recognizing the need to better tailor justice-system responses to returning veterans, some states funded, created, and expanded specific court dockets that address the distinct and often complex needs of veterans, including offering combatfocused mental health treatment, or providing services to help veterans navigate the military benefits system. In addition
to veteran-specific court divisions and diversion programming, other states added combat history to the list of mitigating
factors judges may consider at sentencing. Through such laws, judges may now use the detrimental impact of combat as
a rationale for imposing a non-custodial or a shorter prison sentence. To assist veterans with the reentry process, California has created volunteer veterans service advocates and added military experience as an assessment factor to help craft
reentry plans for veterans upon release from prison. Other states created study committees to research, study, and draft
recommendations on ways to improve system responses to veterans caught up in the criminal justice system.

Specialty courts
> Arizona HB 2457 (2014) expands its existing homeless
court structure to include veterans courts, with eligibility
for referral determined by the presiding county judge.
> Georgia SB 320 (2014) authorizes and provides guidance for the establishment of veterans court divisions.
These courts may be used either as diversionary programs or as conditions of a sentence for nonviolent offenses committed by a current or former member of the
U.S. military. Those who successfully complete the program may have their sentences dismissed or reduced.
> Louisiana SB 532 (2014) authorizes the statewide establishment of veterans courts and standardizes eligibility requirements. At the discretion of the prosecuting attorney
and the judge, veterans charged with nonviolent offenses
may be diverted from prison or traditional probation to
participate in the court program. The program provides
community-based or residential treatment for substance
abuse and mental illness. Although the defendant
must first plead guilty to the criminal charge, successful
completion may result in dismissal of the criminal case
and the conviction being set aside. Failure to complete
the program may result in assignment to a new treatment

16

program, or imposition of the original sentence.
> Maine HP 1221 (2014) provides funding for additional staff to expand current veterans treatment
courts statewide.
> South Carolina HB 3014 (2014) funds the creation of
veterans court programs to divert qualifying veterans
charged with nonviolent offenses into appropriate
treatment in lieu of incarceration.
> Tennessee SB 711/HB 854 (2015) establishes a funding mechanism to create and sustain veterans court
programs. The new law allows existing courts to retain
money collected from DUI fines and fees to support
veterans court operations. It also requires that all
veterans treatment court programs comply with the 10
key components as adopted by the National Clearinghouse for Veterans Treatment Courts and requires
the Department of Mental Health and Substance
Abuse Services to collect and report outcomes and
other court program data, support a veterans mentor
program, conduct veterans court trainings, develop
standards of operation, and award and administer
grants for veterans courts.

JUSTICE IN REVIEW: NEW TRENDS IN STATE SENTENCING AND CORRECTIONS 2014-2015

> Texas SB 1474 (2015) adds military sexual trauma to
the list of military service-related conditions that make
veterans eligible to participate in veterans treatment
courts. “Military sexual trauma” is defined as any
sexual assault or sexual harassment that occurs in the
course of the victim’s regular duties in the military.
The new law also eliminates the requirement that a
veteran must have served in a combat zone or similar
hazardous duty area to participate, but requires that
participation is likely to achieve the objective of
ensuring public safety through rehabilitation.
> Utah SB 214 (2015) authorizes the state judicial council
to create a veterans court program in any state judicial
district or geographic region that demonstrates a need

for such a program and has a collaborative strategy
between the court, prosecutors, defense counsel, corrections, substance abuse treatment services, and the
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Justice
Outreach Program to divert veteran offenders. The
collaborative strategy must include continuous judicial
supervision as well as monitoring and evaluation components to measure program effectiveness. In addition,
screening criteria for participation must include a plea
to, conviction of, or adjudication for a criminal offense;
frequent alcohol and other drug testing, if appropriate;
participation in veteran diversion outreach programs,
including substance abuse treatment programs; and appropriate sanctions for program noncompliance.

Diversion and sentencing
> Alaska SB 64 (2014) adds combat-related posttraumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injury
to the list of factors a judge may consider during
sentencing. If either is deemed to have been a
contributing factor in the commission of the offense,
it may be the basis for issuing a sentence below the
presumptive sentence range.

> Kansas HB 2655 (2014) grants judges the discretion to
offer mental health treatment to defendants who served
in a military combat zone and suffer from a mental illness
caused or exacerbated by their service. To be eligible,
the defendant must make a motion at conviction or
before sentencing, and the current offense and criminal
history must be eligible for a non-prison sentence.

> California SB 1227 (2014) allows judges to postpone
for up to two years the prosecution of current or former
members of the U.S. military who are charged with a
misdemeanor. In order to be eligible, veterans must have
suffered from sexual trauma, traumatic brain injury, PTSD,
substance abuse, or mental health problems as a result of
their service. As part of the program, a court may prescribe a certain amount of time in an appropriate treatment facility. If the defendant successfully completes the
program, the charges are dismissed. If the defendant fails,
the judge may resume criminal proceedings.

> Kansas HB 2154 (2015) provides three-pronged relief
to veterans caught up in the criminal justice system.
First, when deciding to divert eligible defendants away
from the prosecution, the new law permits prosecutors
to consider whether a defendant committed a crime as
a result of an injury connected to service in a combat
zone, and if so, whether the defendant will benefit from
military-provided treatment. Second, the new law allows
judges, with the consent of the defendant, to sentence
such veterans to undergo inpatient or outpatient treatment from any treatment facility or program operated
by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs or the Kansas
National Guard without requiring the defendant to have
received an honorable discharge, provided that the defendant’s presumptive sentence is non-custodial. Finally,
the new law expands the definition of “injury,” including
various psychiatric conditions, which, if connected to
military service in a combat zone, may be a mitigating
factor for judges considering a downward departure from
a presumptive custodial sentence.

> California AB 2098 (2014) allows judges to consider
past trauma and mental health issues as mitigating
factors in sentencing when the defendant is a military
veteran, and has been determined to suffer from sexual
trauma, PTSD, traumatic brain injury, mental health, or
substance abuse as a result of military service. A qualifying defendant may be ordered into a treatment program, provided that the defendant agrees to participate.

$POUJOVFE
PO
OFYU
QBHF

VERA INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE

17

$POUJOVFE
GSPN
QSFWJPVT
QBHF

Support in reentry
> California AB 2263 (2014) authorizes volunteer
veterans service advocates to help veterans in prison
secure benefits and facilitate their reentry into the
community. The volunteers are tasked with developing recidivism prevention plans for released veterans.

> California AB 2357 (2014) adds military service
history as an assessment factor in selecting
appropriate programs and services for veterans to aid
their community reentry and reduce the likelihood of
their reoffending.

a William

B. Brown, Another Emerging “Storm”: Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans with PTSD in the Criminal Justice System, JUST. POL. J. 5 (2008): 5-8; Margaret
E. Noonan and Christopher J. Mumola, Veterans in State and Federal Prisons, 2004 (Washington DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2007), 1.
b The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs studied soldiers returning from Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom and found that, on
average, 80 percent of soldiers were exposed to a traumatic event in combat, yet approximately 14 percent returned home with a formal diagnosis of PTSD.
Of those, at most 50 percent are believed to seek treatment. Brett T. Litz and William E. Schlenger, “PTSD in Service Members and New Veterans of the Iraq
and Afghanistan Wars,” PTSD Research Quarterly 20, no. 1 (Winter 2009): 1-8.
c A 2013 report conducted by the Institute of Medicine, at the behest of Congress, found that “44% of troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan reported
difficulties. Up to one in five suffers from PTSD, while a similar number have mild traumatic brain injury (TBI)…Some have overlapping health conditions, most
commonly PTSD, substance use disorder, depression and symptoms related to mild TBI…[T]he unemployment rate among veterans aged 18-24 was over
30%, compared to 16% for civilians.” Karen McVeigh, “US military veterans face inadequate care after returning from war – report,” The Guardian, March 26,
2013. The Southern California Veterans Association reported a 50-percent increase in mental health claims from returning veterans between 2007 and 2013.
The Soldiers Project, “VA Struggles to Meet Demands for Mental Health Services,”
http://www.scpr.org/news/2014/06/27/45005/va-struggles-to-meet-demand-for-mental-health-serv

formal trial and sentencing if the prosecution moves to allow it. Participants must agree to specific terms and conditions, which may include
getting and keeping a job, getting in substance abuse or mental health
treatment, making restitution to victims, and participating in required
follow-up questioning and updates with the prosecutor’s office.

18

>

Indiana HB 1304 (2015) expands eligibility for pre-conviction and postconviction diversion programs to persons with an intellectual disability,
developmental disability, or autism spectrum disorder. Previously, the law
only allowed persons with mental illness or an addictive disorder an opportunity to receive community treatment and other services instead of,
or in addition to, incarceration. Only those charged with certain nonviolent
or non-drug-dealing crimes are allowed admission into such programs. In
addition, in lieu of prosecution, those people charged with a felony (with
exceptions for forcible felonies and certain categories of burglary, or prior
convictions for such offenses) who need substance abuse treatment may
have the charges dismissed upon successful completion of such treatment.

>

North Carolina HB 369 (2014) allows for the conditional discharge of
people who plead guilty or are found guilty of a misdemeanor or low-level
felony, when they satisfy certain conditions, including that each known
victim has been notified; the defendant is not currently on probation; the
defendant is assessed as low risk for committing a new crime; the defendant has not been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude; and

JUSTICE IN REVIEW: NEW TRENDS IN STATE SENTENCING AND CORRECTIONS 2014-2015

the defendant has not previously been placed on probation. The person is
placed on probation and must conform with certain court-imposed conditions such as reporting to a probation officer, keeping a job, and undergoing electronic monitoring or supervision. Upon successful completion of
all terms of the conditional discharge, the plea or guilty finding will be
withdrawn and all relevant proceedings dismissed.
>

Montana SB 219 (2015) requires courts to strike felony convictions or dismiss charges following successful completion of deferred sentences.

>

Wyoming SB 38 (2015) expands eligibility for deferred prosecution for firsttime drug offenders to include offenses related to use, or being under the
influence of, a controlled substance. Previously, deferred prosecution was
only available for the offense of drug possession.

Reducing prison populations
Together with the goal of keeping more people outside of the formal criminal
justice system, states have been reassessing the use of costly incarceration.25
Driven by the goal of reversing prison population growth and encouraged by
research showing that long custodial sentences have only a marginal effect on
reducing crime and recidivism, states are moving away from the harsh, rigid, and
punitive sentencing schemes that have been in favor for the past 30 years.26
Recognizing that too many people are receiving prison sentences that are
disproportionate to the crimes committed and that prison should be reserved
for those convicted of the most serious offenses, state policymakers during the
past two years enacted laws to reduce the length of custodial sentences. They
accomplished this by enacting laws that affect the two factors that determine
prison population—the number of people who are admitted to prison and the
length of time they remain there. States have sought to reduce their admissions by making some offenses eligible for non-prison sentences or sanctions and by establishing graduated sanctions to ensure that prison is not the
default response to violations of community supervision conditions. To reduce
lengths of stay in prison, states passed laws to shorten sentences and expand
early release by increasing the opportunity for people to accrue credits that
shave off time from prison sentences.
Many of the reforms that shortened sentences or made community supervision more available apply to low-level and nonviolent property and drug offenses.
Often states accomplished their goal of reducing the prison population by modifying how they define or classify property and drug offenses, either by creating
more gradations of offense categories, or increasing felony thresholds—the point
at which an offense becomes a felony based on property value or drug weight. Of
note, five states—Alabama, California, Mississippi, Nebraska, and Utah—enacted
sweeping reform, focusing broadly on drug and property sentencing reform but
also on other areas covered in this report. (See boxes, pages 21 and 34).

VERA INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE

19

REDUCING PENALTIES FOR PROPERTY OFFENSES
Concerned that penalties attached to certain property crimes have been too
harsh, a number of state legislatures enacted laws to ensure that their sentencing schemes better match the punishment with the severity of the crime. To do
this, some states raised the value of stolen or damaged property that triggers a
felony charge (the “felony threshold”), many of which had not changed in years
or decades, resulting in incongruous and disproportionate sentences for property
offenses valued as “low” today.27 In doing so, those states sought to revise their
thresholds closer to the national average of $950.28 Other states sought to achieve
better proportionality in sentencing by establishing more gradation in punishment, either by creating more categories of felony and misdemeanor property
offenses, or by revising the sentence lengths and creating new advisory sentences
associated with each felony category.
>

Alaska SB 64 (2014) raises the threshold for a theft to be considered a felony
from $500 to $750. Low-level property offenses covered by the new law include
concealment of merchandise, removal of identification marks, unlawful possession, fraud, vehicle theft, and criminal mischief.

>

Colorado HB 14-1266 (2014) creates new classes of misdemeanor or felony
property crimes and changes the threshold for certain classes. The law raises the
felony threshold for check fraud from $500 to $750 and adds more felony classifications for criminal mischief, from two misdemeanor and two felony classifications to three misdemeanor and five felony classifications.

>

Connecticut HB 5586 (2014) raises the felony threshold for issuing a bad check
from $1,000 to $2,000.

>

Texas HB 1396 (2015) raises the felony threshold for various property crimes
(including criminal mischief) to $2,500.

REDUCING PENALTIES FOR DRUG OFFENSES
For decades, increasingly harsh penalties for drug-related crimes sent a disproportionate number of people—especially people of color—to prison for low-level,
nonviolent offenses.29 However, given growing public support for treatment and
rehabilitation for drug offenders and research finding that community-based
treatment approaches are more effective than incarceration in reducing recidivism,
states over the past several years have begun to enact new laws that shift how the
criminal justice system deals with drug offenses, and many states have reduced
penalties or now provide treatment or other non-custodial alternatives for lowlevel drug offenders.30
This trend continued in 2014 and 2015, with a big focus on marijuana. Many
states enacted laws that legalize, decriminalize, or lessen penalties for the possession or use of small amounts of marijuana. Alaska and Oregon, for example, joined
Colorado, Washington, and the District of Columbia at the vanguard of decriminalizing recreational use. Other states expanded access to medical marijuana or
increased the minimum amount of marijuana that triggers arrest.
20

JUSTICE IN REVIEW: NEW TRENDS IN STATE SENTENCING AND CORRECTIONS 2014-2015

SOLITARY CONFINEMENT
Solitary confinement is a common but increasingly criticized corrections practice designed to achieve
and maintain institutional safety.a Jails and prisons use solitary confinement—known also as segregation,
segregated housing, restrictive housing, administrative segregation, or isolation—when imprisoned people
break rules or engage in violent or disruptive behavior. It is also intended to protect vulnerable people—
such as those who are gay or transgender, mentally ill, or physically disabled—who may be at risk if placed
in a prison’s general population.b Whatever the circumstance, solitary confinement usually involves confinement in an
isolated cell for an average of 23 hours a day, with limited social interaction and little constructive activity, in an environment that both ensures maximum control and provides little or no stimulation.c
Although solitary confinement is used in nearly all U.S. jails and prisons, there is mounting evidence to suggest that
its overuse produces many harmful outcomes, not only for the health—particularly mental health—of those placed
there, but also for safety within a correctional institution and within the communities to which people subjected to
segregation eventually return.d As a result, states are reconsidering how and when to use it.e In 2014 and 2015, at least
13 states and the federal government implemented policy changes to reduce the number of adults, young adults,
or juveniles held in segregated housing, improve the conditions, provide better treatment to those in segregation,
or facilitate their return to the general prison population.f While many of these policy changes were administrative in
nature, five states changed segregation practices through legislation, and one state—Delaware—sought to study its
use to guide future reform.
> Colorado SB 14-064 (2014) removes an entire class of people—those with serious mental illnesses—from longterm segregation unless they pose a threat to themselves or others.
> Delaware HJR 5 (2015) is a joint house resolution authorizing the House Corrections Committee and the state
Department of Corrections to commission an independent study and make findings and recommendations concerning the use of restrictive housing and solitary confinement in Delaware’s correctional facilities. In particular, the study
will look at whether and to what extent people have access to programs, services, and mental health treatment
in restrictive housing; canvas research findings prepared by mental health and other professionals concerning the
negative effects of restrictive housing on mental health and reentry; and examine how other states and jurisdictions
use restrictive housing or employ alternatives. The study is important given the growing concern about the potentially deleterious effects of solitary confinement on mental health and reentry and because Delaware law is largely
silent on the appropriate use of solitary confinement.
> Nebraska LB 598 (2015) prohibits the use of solitary confinement, defined as “confinement of an inmate in an
individual cell having solid, soundproof doors and which deprives the inmate of all visual and auditory contact
with other persons.” In addition, the use of restrictive housing—defined as “confinement that provides limited
contact with other offenders, strictly controlled movement while out of cell, and out-of-cell time of less than 24
hours per week”—is forbidden unless it is done in the least restrictive manner consistent with maintaining order
in the facility. The new law also requires transition plans for transferring an individual back to the general population and requires that disciplinary restrictions on privileges be imposed only if authorized by promulgated rules.
It also requires that any rules or regulations for use of restrictive housing be made publicly available and tasks
the corrections director to regularly report on a long-term plan to reduce the overall use of restrictive housing. A
restrictive housing work group is also empanelled to advise on the proper care and treatment of people held in
restrictive housing.

VERA INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE

21

> New Jersey S 2003 (2015) eliminates the use of solitary confinement (“room restriction”) as a disciplinary
measure in juvenile facilities and detention centers. Solitary confinement may only be used if a juvenile poses an
immediate and substantial risk of harm to others or to the security of the facility, and if all other less-restrictive
options have been exhausted. If a juvenile is placed in solitary confinement, the new law places strict limits on its
use and mandates that juveniles placed there must continue to receive health, mental health, and educational
services. In addition, juvenile facilities must keep and make records of how they use solitary confinement publicly
available.
> South Dakota SB 77 (2014) repeals a provision that permitted punitive segregation (legislatively defined as solitary confinement with only bread and water) for county prisoners for refusing to obey work orders.
> Texas HB 1083 (2015) requires the Texas Department of Criminal Justice to conduct a mental health assessment
of people prior to sending them to administrative segregation. The department may not send assessed people to
segregation if the examining medical or mental health professional finds that such a placement is unsuitable.
a

Ted Conover, “From Gitmo to an American Supermax, the Horrors of Solitary Confinement,” Vanity Fair, January 16, 2015, http://www.vanityfair.com/
politics/2015/01/guantanamo-bay-solitary-confinement; Laura Dimon, “How Solitary Confinement Hurts the Teenage Brain,” The Atlantic, June 30, 2014,
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/06/how-solitary-confinement-hurts-the-teenage-brain/373002/; and Atul Gawande, “Hellhole,” The New
Yorker, March 30, 2009, http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/03/30/hellhole.
b Alison Shames, Jessa Wilcox, and Ram Subramanian, Solitary Confinement: Common Misconceptions and Emerging Safe Alternatives (New York: Vera
Institute of Justice, 2015), 4-6.
c Ibid., pp. 8-10. For New York, also see Leon Neyfakh, “The Hole: The Psychological Effects of Solitary Confinement, and the Evolving Fight to Eliminate
It,” Slate, January 14, 2015 at http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2015/01/solitary_confinement_new_york_is_limiting_its_use_at_rikers_
island_is_that.html; for the recent federal reforms, see Sarah Wheaton and Josh Gerstein, “Prison Reform: Obama Orders Changes in Solitary Confinement,”
Politico, January 25, 2016 at http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/obama-solitary-confinement-prison-218212; for California, see Matt Ford, “The Beginning
of the End of Solitary Confinement?” The Atlantic, September 2, 2015.
d Shames, Wilcox, and Subramanian, pp. 17-21.
e Articles exposing the deleterious effect and harsh conditions of segregated housing now appear regularly in the press. See, for example, Laura Dimon, “How
Solitary Confinement Hurts the Teenage Brain,” The Atlantic, June 30, 2014, http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/06/how-solitary-confinementhurts-the-teenage-brain/373002/; and Atul Gawande, “Hellhole,” The New Yorker, March 30, 2009, http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/03/30/hellhole.
The federal government also has become increasingly concerned about segregation’s overuse. A subcommittee of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee
held a series of hearings in 2012 and 2014 focused on reassessing the use of solitary confinement. See, for example, United States Senate Committee on the
Judiciary, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Consequences, Reassessing Solitary Confinement II: The Human Rights, Fiscal, and Public Safety
Consequences, February 25, 2014, http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/meetings/reassessing-solitary-confinement-ii-the-human-rights-fiscal-and-public-safetyconsequences.
f See Eli Hager and Gerald Rich, “Shifting Away from Solitary,” The Marshall Project, December 23, 2014, https://www.themarshallproject.org/2014/12/23/
shifting-away-from-solitary.

22

JUSTICE IN REVIEW: NEW TRENDS IN STATE SENTENCING AND CORRECTIONS 2014-2015

In addition, some states reclassified drug offenses more generally and reduced
the length of sentences, including mandatory minimum sentences that people are
required to serve. Still other states, as a public health measure, passed or expanded
legislation granting “medical amnesty,” or legal immunity, for those reporting a
medical overdose, either for themselves or a third party. (See box on Medical Amnesty on page 26.)
>

Alaska Ballot Measure 2 (2014) decriminalizes transportation, purchase, and
possession of up to one ounce of marijuana or six plants and legalizes the
manufacture and possession of marijuana paraphernalia for those over 21. The
growing and selling of marijuana by state-licensed business owners will be
controlled by a regulatory board and will be subject to limitations and excise
taxes on a county-by-county basis.

>

California SB 1010 (2014), also known as the “California Fair Sentencing Act,”
eliminates discrepancies in sentencing between offenses involving powder
cocaine and crack cocaine.31 Under the law, the two substances would be treated
similarly. For example, under the previous provision, drug offenses involving
14.25 grams of crack or 57 grams of cocaine could not result in probation. This law
also raises the threshold for probation ineligibility to persons convicted of possessing or selling more than 28.5 grams of either drug. However, judges have the
discretion in rare cases to grant probation if it furthers the interests of justice.

>

California AB 2492 (2014) eliminates the mandatory 90-day minimum custodial sentence for being under the influence of a controlled substance and allows for a term of probation up to five years. Judges may offer substance abuse
treatment in lieu of incarceration for those who do not have a criminal history
involving controlled substances.

>

Connecticut HB 7104 (2015) revises penalties for drug possession and possession within a school zone. Previously a first conviction for drug possession commanded a maximum seven-year sentence or $50,000 fine. Under the new law,
with the exception of possession of less than half an ounce of marijuana, drug
possession is a Class A misdemeanor. However, people with more than two
convictions for possession are eligible for sentencing as persistent offenders.
Possession within a school zone is a Class A misdemeanor with a mandatory
prison sentence plus probation with required community service.

>

Delaware HB 39 (2015) reclassifies possession of one ounce or less of any controlled substance (and associated paraphernalia) as a civil violation penalized
by a fine. Use of a personal amount of a controlled substance in a non-public
place is an unclassified misdemeanor with a penalty of a maximum fine of
$200 and five days in jail.

>

Indiana HB 1006 (2014) follows sweeping changes in 2013 to felony classification of certain drug-based crimes, including possession and intention to sell. In
revising the 2013 legislation, this law lowers the minimum amount of time to be
served for the lowest felony class (Level 6) from 75 to 50 percent. In addition, the
legislation reclassifies the possession or sale of certain drugs from a higher felony or misdemeanor class to a lower one and from a felony to a misdemeanor.32
VERA INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE

23

24

>

Kentucky SB 124 (2014) decriminalizes the possession or use of marijuana
when prescribed by a physician or used in an FDA-approved clinical trial.

>

Louisiana HB 461 (2014) repeals the crime of “drug traffic loitering,” defined as
remaining in a public place under circumstances that would appear to be for
the purpose of selling drugs.

>

Louisiana HB 149 (2015) reduces penalties for marijuana possession. The new
penalty for a first-time conviction for possession of 14 grams or less is a maximum $300 fine and/or two weeks in jail; while a first-time conviction for possession of more than 14 grams is a maximum $500 fine and/or six months in
jail. Following the completion of a sentence for either and if two years elapse
without any further marijuana violations, the conviction may not be used as
a reason to enhance a sentence on a future conviction. Meanwhile, secondtime convictions for marijuana possession are punished by a maximum fine of
$1,000 and/or six months in jail; third-time convictions, a maximum two-year
sentence and/or $2,500 fine; and fourth-time and subsequent convictions, a
maximum eight-year sentence and/or a $5,000 fine. More severe penalties are
imposed for possession of synthetic cannabinoids. Knowing and intentional
possession of more than 2.5 pounds but less than 60 pounds of marijuana
or synthetic cannabinoids requires a two- to 10-year prison sentence and a
$10,000-30,000 fine.

>

Maine SP 46 (2015) reduces the felony class of a variety of drug offenses, including possession of cocaine, cocaine base, heroin, and methamphetamines in
certain quantities and encourages courts to consider non-custodial sentences
such as substance abuse treatment for the lowest class of drug offenses.

>

Maryland SB 364 (2014) reclassifies possession of less than 10 grams of marijuana from a criminal offense to a civil offense, for which police are required to
issue citations. The civil offense is punishable by a maximum fine of $100.

>

North Dakota HB 1394 (2015) exempts possession of one ounce or less of marijuana from the state’s school-zone sentencing enhancement.

>

North Dakota SB 2030 (2015) reclassifies possession of controlled substances
other than marijuana from a Class C felony to a Class A misdemeanor. Possession
of marijuana drug paraphernalia was downgraded to a Class B misdemeanor.

>

North Dakota SB 2029 (2015) requires a probation sentence for first-time drug
possession convictions.

>

Oklahoma HB 1574 (2015) reduces the sentence range for a third or subsequent
conviction for felony drug sale, distribution, or manufacturing. Previously, such
a conviction garnered a sentence of life without parole. The sentence range is
now 20 years to life or life without parole. However, a sentence of life without
parole is still mandated for those who have two or more previous convictions
for drug trafficking.

>

Oregon Measure 91 (2014) decriminalizes recreational use, possession, and
cultivation of marijuana for adults over the age of 21. Under the new guidelines,

JUSTICE IN REVIEW: NEW TRENDS IN STATE SENTENCING AND CORRECTIONS 2014-2015

a person may possess no more than one ounce of marijuana in public or up to
eight ounces of marijuana, four marijuana plants, and 72 ounces of the drug in
liquid form in one’s home for personal use. The Oregon Liquor Control Commission is granted enforcement and regulation responsibilities, which include
licensing commercial marijuana producers and sellers.
>

Rhode Island HB 7610 (2014) revises the state’s medical marijuana law to include
a requirement of a cultivation certificate for an individual or patient care center
involved in the growing of marijuana for medical use. Individuals are limited to
three mature marijuana plants and up to five ounces of usable marijuana. Primary-care givers, who may assist up to five registered medical marijuana users, may
possess no more than six mature marijuana plants. Compassion centers that
distribute medical marijuana are no longer limited in the number of plants or
weight of marijuana on hand; instead, their inventory should reasonably reflect
the projected needs of patients.

>

Utah SB 205 (2014) amends a prior law outlining drug-related offenses and attendant sentences. The new law caps the felony grade for certain drug crimes
to a second-degree felony. Previously, the most severe drug offense could be
classified a first-degree felony.

>

Vermont SB 295 (2014) expands Vermont’s drug overdose medical amnesty
from those who seek medical assistance to include those who are the subject of
medical assistance.

>

Virginia HB 1112 (2014) reclassifies synthetic cannabis possession from a Class
5 felony to a Class 1 misdemeanor, eliminating the potential for a jury trial and
limiting a potential custodial sentence to 12 months.

>

Washington HB 2304 (2014) adds marijuana concentrates, defined as cannabisbased products with a THC level of at least 60 percent, to the list of legal substances for production, sale, possession, and use.

VERA INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE

25

MEDICAL AMNESTY
The epidemic of substance abuse in the United States has encouraged states to rethink
both how and whether drug use and possession is penalized and how to protect people
from overdose fatalities. In the past two years, 14 states have adopted or expanded medical amnesty laws that protect people from criminal prosecution for drug possession, or the
risk of violating probation or parole, when such offenses or violations are discovered as a result of seeking medical attention for a drug or alcohol overdose, whether for oneself or another. For states that include alcohol overdoses, the protection may extend to unlawfully purchasing alcohol for a minor. Some states do not provide amnesty—they simply make seeking medical attention a defense that, if proven, a criminal defendant may invoke
to disprove or mitigate the consequences of unlawful behavior (also referred to as an “affirmative defense”).
First enacted by New Mexico in 2007, more than 15 states now have varying forms of medical amnesty.a While these
laws have not undergone extensive evaluation for their effectiveness at preventing overdose deaths and depend
heavily on public education to ensure people know about the legal immunity afforded to them upon seeking emergency medical assistance, they send a strong signal that states value life-saving interventions over criminal penalties
in instances when the two are in conflict. Furthermore, a study done in Washington State following the passage of
the state’s medical amnesty laws found that 88 percent of opiate users surveyed would be more likely to call 911 once
advised of the law.b
Medical Amnesty Laws

Distinguishing feature(s) of new law

Alaska HB 369 (2014)

A reporting person seeking help for another must remain at the scene and cooperate with law enforcement
and medical personnel to be eligible for the immunity.

Arkansas SB 543 (2015)

includes immunity from community supervision violations, violations of pretrial release, and protective orders

Georgia HB 965 (2014)

includes protection from community supervision violations

Hawaii SB 982 (2015)

includes immunity from community supervision violations and protective orders

Illinois HB 1336 (2015)

applies to alcohol only

Maryland SB 654 (2015)

provides an affirmative defense and legal immunity
includes immunity from violations of community supervision and pretrial release

Minnesota SF 1900 (2014)

requires that the reporter remain at the scene and cooperate with law enforcement and medical personnel
makes seeking assistance a mitigating factor in a criminal prosecution where the evidence of the offense was
obtained independent of the call for medical assistance

Montana HB 412 (2015)

applies only to people under 21

Nebraska LB 439 (2015)

applies only to alcohol and people under 21

Nevada SB 459 (2015)

includes immunity from community supervision violations and protective orders
makes seeking medical assistance a mitigating factor for those who do not qualify for immunity

North Carolina SB 154 (2015)

expands the medical amnesty statute to cover community supervision revocations for new offenses

New Hampshire HB 270 (2015)

makes seeking medical intervention an affirmative defense and provides amnesty

Virginia HB 1500 (2015)

makes seeking medical assistance an affirmative defense, but does not grant immunity

West Virginia SB 523 (2015)

applies to drugs and alcohol

a Tessie

Castillo, “A Second Chance: A new kind of medical amnesty is saving the lives of drug users,” Slate, May 7, 2014, http://www.slate.com/articles/
news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2014/05/tanya_smith_medical_amnesty_laws_states_are_saving_the_lives_of_drug_users.html.
b University of Washington Alcohol and Drug Abuse Institute, “Info Brief: Washington’s 911 Good Samaritan Overdose Law: Initial Evaluation Results,”
November 2011, http://adai.uw.edu/pubs/infobriefs/ADAI-IB-2011-05.pdf.

26

JUSTICE IN REVIEW: NEW TRENDS IN STATE SENTENCING AND CORRECTIONS 2014-2015

CREATING “SAFETY VALVES” FROM MANDATORY
MINIMUM SENTENCES
With research casting doubt on the efficacy of mandatory penalties—particularly
for nonviolent drug offenders—and evidence that longer sentences have no more
than a marginal effect in reducing recidivism, states have also begun to move
away from the severe mandatory minimum sentences enacted during the past
30 years.33 Reconsideration of the utility and fairness of mandatory minimums,
however, has generally not extended to repealing them. Rather, states have created
“safety valves,” giving judges the option to ignore a mandatory sentence set by
statute if deemed appropriate or if certain factual criteria are satisfied. While some
states give judges wide latitude in using this discretion, others have set a high bar
for departure from mandatory sentences.34
> Maryland HB 121 (2015) makes it permissible for courts to depart from mandatory minimums for drug offenses where the mandatory minimum would
result in substantial injustice and is unnecessary for public safety.
> Nebraska LB 173 (2015) revises sentences for certain felony classes from mandatory minimum sentences to minimum sentences. It also exempts convictions for
Class III and IV felonies (the lowest-level felony classes, for offenses such as lowlevel property offenses and drug possession; Class IV felonies carry the presumption of a probation sentence) from the “habitual criminal” enhancement (which
carries a 10-year minimum sentence). The change from a mandatory minimum to
a minimum sentence means that such sentences would be eligible for good-time
credits and parole consideration.
> North Dakota HB 1030 (2015) allows courts to depart from mandatory minimum sentences where such sentences would cause “manifest injustice”—defined as unreasonably harsh or shocking to the conscience—except where the
mandatory minimum term is imposed as an enhancement for armed offenses.
> Oklahoma HB 1518 (2015) allows judges to depart from mandatory minimum
sentences for certain nonviolent offenses if the mandatory minimum sentence
is not necessary for public safety, is unjust in the particular circumstances of
the case, or if the defendant is eligible, absent prior convictions, for diversion or
alternative sentencing.

ENACTING GENERAL SENTENCING REFORM
States have also enacted general changes to their sentencing schemes, from reclassifying felony classes and penalties to enacting mechanisms to shorten sentences.
Without changing statutory sentencing ranges or penalties, these laws give judges
the power to resentence people. In some cases, resentencing is premised on good
conduct in prison or jail during the beginning of a sentence.
> California AB 1156 (2015) grants courts the discretion to recall a sentence of
imprisonment in a county jail previously ordered, and to resentence a defendant
provided that the new sentence is not greater than the initial sentence of impris-

VERA INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE

27

onment. Courts may do so upon the court’s own motion or the recommendation
of the Secretary of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation or the Board
of Parole Hearings. The law also requires that Judicial Council adopt rules providing criteria for the consideration of the trial judge at the time of sentencing, including the imposition of the lower, middle, or upper term for a person sentenced
to county jail for a felony.
> Indiana HB 1006 (2014) and SB 174 (2015) revise sentencing schemes for all
felonies and revise timing and eligibility for petitions for sentence modifications.
The 2014 bill establishes new minimum, maximum, and advisory sentencing
at each felony level. For example, under the previous guidelines, Level 3 felonies
carried a fixed term of three to 20 years, with six years being advisory. The new
law lowers those terms to three to 16 years, with nine years being advisory. The
2014 bill mandated that following the commencement of a sentence a court
must consider reduction or suspension of the sentence for a nonviolent offense
based on a behavioral report from the Department of Corrections. The 2015 bill
shortened the time that needed to elapse before someone became eligible for a
sentence modification. The laws also provide that people serving sentences for
violent and nonviolent offenses may submit petitions for sentence modifications. Someone convicted of a nonviolent offense may file a petition for sentence
modification once a year or twice per term of imprisonment without the prosecution’s consent. Someone convicted of a violent offense may file a petition for
sentence modification within a year of sentencing without the prosecution’s
consent; thereafter, the prosecution must consent to the filing of a sentence
modification petition by someone convicted of a violent offense.
> Oklahoma HB 1548 (2015) allows judges to modify sentences to the Drug Offender Work Camp and impose another sentence in the interest of justice, if
the defendant has not been convicted or incarcerated in the preceding 10 years.
Judges, however, may not impose a deferred sentence.

INCREASING OPPORTUNITIES FOR EARLY RELEASE
In conjunction with sentencing reform to increase community-based sentences
and decrease the length of custodial sentences, states also expanded opportunities
for people already in custody to be released. States used two methods to accomplish this: They increased ways in which those in state custody can accrue goodtime or earned-time credits—through participation in in-prison programming or
through compliance with disciplinary rules—to shave time off their sentences; and
made more people eligible for earlier parole release.35
> Arizona HB 2593 (2014) modifies the parole eligibility standards for persons who
committed crimes before the age of 18. Under the new law, those imprisoned for
life without parole are eligible for parole after serving a minimum term. Anyone
released under this condition will remain on life-long parole.36
> Georgia HB 328 (2015) makes people sentenced to at least 12 years in prison for
drug offenses or under a repeat-offender law eligible for parole release if they

28

JUSTICE IN REVIEW: NEW TRENDS IN STATE SENTENCING AND CORRECTIONS 2014-2015

have not been convicted of a violent felony or sex offense, have served at least 12
years of their sentence, are determined to be low risk by a validated risk assessment tool, have completed required criminogenic and educational programming,
have no serious disciplinary infractions in prison during the preceding year, and
are classified as medium security or lower by the Department of Corrections.
> Illinois HB 3884 (2015) increases the amount of sentence credits, from 60 to 90
days, earned for completion of a GED in custody (either in pretrial detention or
during a sentence).
> Indiana HB 1006 (2014) shifts classification for good credit time to a system
under which the rate of credit accrual is determined by class assignment to
those in prison. Those in prison who are assigned to Class A (lowest risk) accrue
one day of early release for every day served; Class B receives one for every
three days served; and Class C receives one for every six days served. Those in
Class D and other unclassified people, because of the nature of their offense,
are restricted from earning any credits. The law also provides guidelines for
class assignment, based on severity of crime and in-custody behavioral history,
as well as reclassification based on compliance or violation. Furthermore, those
in Class A and Class B can earn additional credits through rehabilitative efforts
and educational achievements.
> Kansas HB 2051 (2015) allows good time credit accruals for people imprisoned for
more severe drug offenses. Previously only lower drug-severity-level convictions
were eligible. Now, severity Level 3 convictions may accrue credits equivalent to 20
percent of the attendant sentence. The law also increases time credits for completion of rehabilitative, treatment, educational, or vocational programming from 60
to 90 days and makes drug severity Level 3 convictions eligible for such time credit
where they were previously excluded.
> Louisiana HB 196 (2014) extends eligibility for a work-release program to habitual offenders serving the final 12 months of their prison terms.
> Louisiana SB 399 (2014) limits automatic denial of parole eligibility for those
who have committed a major disciplinary offense in the year prior to the parole hearing. Previously, the commission of any infraction resulted in automatic denial. A major offense includes escape, fighting, intoxication, theft, destruction of property, threats, and sex offenses. Additionally, parole eligibility may
not be denied to those who have not completed their required substance abuse
or mental health treatment when such programming was unavailable.
> Louisiana HB 670 (2014) expands opportunities for intensive parole supervision—early release under the strictest level of supervision—to nonviolent
habitual offenders. To be eligible, a person must be assessed as low-risk for
reoffending and fulfill certain criteria, including completion of pre-release
programming and educational goals.
> Montana HB 135 (2015) gives the Board of Pardons and Parole rulemaking authority on criteria for medical parole, subject to the criteria for parole generally.

VERA INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE

29

> New Hampshire HB 649 (2014) grants good time credits for completion of educational, vocational, mental health, and family programming in prison. Those
classified at the lowest security level are eligible to receive anywhere from two
to 13 months of credits, depending on their level of achievement.
> New Hampshire HB 472 (2015) allows the parole board to reduce parole terms
by one-third based on the person’s conduct while on parole, the seriousness of
the offense, the amount of restitution owed, and any other information provided by the victim.
> Ohio SB 143 (2014) allows counties to establish community alternative sentencing centers to serve as work-release detention centers for people sentenced to
90 days for a misdemeanor. Previously, only those sentenced to 30- or 60-day
sentences were eligible, and counties were only authorized to plan for the creation of the centers.
> Texas HB 1546 (2015) revises the awarding of time credits for participation in
educational, vocational, or treatment programming for people incarcerated on
state jail felonies. Under the new law, a court may make a finding at sentencing that a person sentenced for a state jail felony is presumptively entitled to
earned time credit and the Department of Criminal Justice (DCJ) may then award
the credit once earned. If the judgment does not find presumptive eligibility for
earned credit, the DCJ may report information regarding a person’s participation
in eligible programming for the court’s consideration, and the court may decide
whether to award earned time credit.

30

JUSTICE IN REVIEW: NEW TRENDS IN STATE SENTENCING AND CORRECTIONS 2014-2015

PROPOSITION 47
For years, California’s prison system suffered from a severe overcrowding problem, in part
because of the stringent drug penalties and mandatory sentencing schemes enacted in
the 1980s and 1990s.a Operating at nearly 200 percent capacity by 2006, the state’s prisons
were plagued by high rates of mental illness, rampant disease, non- or malfunctioning water and electrical systems, insufficient programming, and gang activity.b
In 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed a lower court ruling that such conditions violated
the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. It ordered
the state to reduce its prison population by 63.5 percent and improve the system’s health
services.c In response, California implemented a prison population reduction policy known
as “Realignment”—enacted through legislation in 2011—which reduced penalties downward, raised felony thresholds for nonviolent crimes, and transferred certain low-level offenders to out-of-state prisons and into county-level community supervision or to local jails.
In November 2014 voters overwhelmingly approved Proposition 47 (“Prop 47”), a voter initiative aimed at reducing the prison population. Prop 47 reclassifies a number of nonviolent
felony offenses to misdemeanors, and raises felony thresholds for property crimes. Previously,
prosecutors had discretion to charge offenses with an aggregate value up to $950 as either a
misdemeanor or a felony. Now, these offenses may only be charged as misdemeanors, with
exceptions for individuals who have been previously convicted of at least three prior serious
offenses. Drug offenses too were revised, with possession for recreational use of any illegal
drug—previously eligible for either a felony or misdemeanor charge—reclassified as a misdemeanor. Possession of 28.5 grams or less of marijuana was reduced from a misdemeanor to a
civil violation, resulting in a $100 fine rather than jail time. However, possession of marijuana by
minors on school grounds remains a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine and/or up to 10 days in
juvenile custody after a second offense.
Notably, the measure allows those currently incarcerated for offenses covered by the new
law to apply for reduced sentences consistent with the new sentencing scheme. Successful
applicants will be able to have their convictions downgraded from felonies to misdemeanors, and to receive credit for time already served.
a Erin

Fuchs, “How California Prisons Got To Be So Insanely Overcrowded,” Business Insider, Aug. 3, 2013; Juan R. Ramirez
and William D. Cano, “Deterrence and incapacitation: An interrupted time series analysis of California’s three-strikes law,”
Journal of Applied Social Psychology 33, no. 1 (2003): 110-144.
b California’s prison system has a capacity of approximately 83,000 people. At the end of fiscal year 2006, there were
163,000 men and women housed in state prisons, nearly double the capacity. In October 2006, the Office of the Governor
proclaimed a state of emergency, with all 33 California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) facilities
operating at or above capacity. The governor’s office determined that the “severe overcrowding” in 29 of the CDCR
facilities led to increased violence, greater transmission of infectious illnesses, higher contamination of the drinking water,
costly property damage, inmate unrest and misconduct, reduction in programming and mental health support, higher
suicide rates, and increased recidivism. Office of the Governor, “Prison Overcrowding State of Emergency Proclamation,”
(Sacramento: Office of the Governor, October 4, 2006).
c The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the finding of a three-person appeals court panel on two prior class-action cases against
the state of California. The first case, Coleman v. Brown, concerned incarcerated people with serious mental disorders. The
second case, Plata v. Brown, concerned incarcerated people with serious medical conditions. Both cases stemmed from
inhumane conditions and insufficient treatment programs associated with California prison overcrowding. Brown v. Plata, 563
U. S. 493 (2011).

VERA INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE

31

REDUCING PROBATION AND PAROLE REVOCATIONS AND
SHORTENING COMMUNITY SENTENCES
In recent years, many states aiming to reduce their prison population and attendant
costs have enacted laws that direct a growing number of people into community
supervision instead of incarceration.37 They have also created opportunities for those
in prison to move more quickly to post-release supervision.38
Yet, many people on community supervision—whether on probation or parole—
end up having their community sentence revoked. Revocations from probation
and parole comprise half of jail admissions and one-third of prison admissions.39
A number of these revocations are for technical violations—non-compliance with
the terms of supervision such as failing a drug test, missing a meeting with the
probation or parole officer, violating curfew, or using alcohol. But as the trend
toward community-based solutions grows, lawmakers are seeking to ensure that
noncustodial interventions and supervision practices better reflect what research
has shown are effective methods for increasing a person’s success within the community and reducing the risk of reoffending.40
In particular, states have sought to reduce the number of people admitted to
prison for technical violations by instituting better training for probation or parole
officers, implementing evidence-based practices and policies, and using less costly
and more effective ways to respond to violations when they do occur.41 For example, many states in 2014 and 2015 adopted systems of graduated responses—a
continuum of sanctions for noncompliance and rewards for compliance—which
has been shown to increase compliance and improve outcomes, while decreasing a
reliance on incarceration.42 The sanctions may include reprimands, curfews, travel
restrictions, increased reporting requirements, drug testing, program interventions,
or short jail stays that provide supervising agencies with a wide set of responses
short of revocation to prison. The array of responses can be tailored to the violation
while swiftly addressing the reasons behind it. Rewards, meanwhile, may include
reduced reporting requirements, earned discharge credits against supervision
terms, and other privileges.
Furthermore, because the longer people remain on community supervision the
greater the risk of violations and potential revocation, some states are also expanding opportunities for people who comply with the terms of their supervision and/
or who participate in treatment, vocational, or educational programs to earn credits
that reduce their time on supervision. By providing a way for those on supervision to
shorten their supervision terms, eligible people are given an incentive to comply with
conditions and are less likely to violate, thereby reducing their exposure to the risk of
reincarceration. This approach also allows states to redirect resources to the people at
highest risk of violating supervision or reoffending.43 Another approach, adopted by
North Dakota, is to shorten probation and parole sentences on the front end.
> Colorado SB 124 (2015) requires parole officers to impose intermediate sanctions
for technical violations of parole. Only once the use of such remedies is exhausted can parole officers file a revocation petition in response to a violation.

32

JUSTICE IN REVIEW: NEW TRENDS IN STATE SENTENCING AND CORRECTIONS 2014-2015

> Idaho SB 1357 (2014) requires the Board of Correction to supervise people on
parole and probation based on their risk levels. To do so, the board must use
a validated risk and needs assessment tool, and develop and use a system
of graduated sanctions for violations and incentives for compliance.44
> Illinois SB 3267 (2014) allows courts to grant earned compliance credits to
nonviolent offenders on probation who achieve certain educational goals:
a GED grants 90 days credit, an associate’s degree or education certificate
grants 120 days’ credit, and a bachelor’s degree grants 180 days’ credit.
> Indiana HB 1140 (2014) requires the establishment of graduated incentives
and sanctions for people on parole and sets new guidelines for responding to new felony offenses by those on parole supervision. If someone on
parole supervision commits a new Level 1 or Level 2 felony (the most serious felonies under the state criminal code), the Parole Board is required to
revoke parole. In response to any other felony offense, the board can decide
whether to revoke parole.
> Louisiana HB 1257 (2014) outlines new procedures for modifying conditions of, or discharging offenders early from, probation. According to the
new law, probation may be terminated after one year for felonies, or at any
time for misdemeanors, if the state does not oppose termination. A court
may impose additional conditions of probation at any time, without the
approval of the state.
> Nebraska LB 907 (2014) empowers a parole officer to impose administrative sanctions in response to substance abuse or technical parole violations,
including increased supervision, increased substance abuse testing, travel
restrictions, and counseling.
> North Dakota HB 1367 (2015) sets a cap on probation terms. Terms now
range from three to five years for felonies and one to two years for a Class
A or B misdemeanor. Longer probation terms may be imposed after a violation occurs: up to 10 years for the most serious felonies and up to three
years for misdemeanors. The law also allows for short-term jail sanctions
to respond to community supervision violations (in lieu of a revocation).

$POUJOVFE
PO
OFYU
QBHF

VERA INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE

33

COMPREHENSIVE CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM LEGISLATION IN 2014 AND 2015
Four states passed sweeping criminal justice reform legislation in 2014 and 2015 as part of the Justice Reinvestment
Initiative (JRI)—a national initiative, funded by the U.S. Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Assistance, that
provides technical assistance to states that pursue data-driven, multi-branch and bipartisan efforts to reduce prison
populations or growth and improve safety outcomes. Four states—Alabama, Mississippi, Nebraska, and Utah—joined
the nearly 25 other states that have enacted criminal justice reform under this initiative. In 2014 and 2015, these states
made changes in three general areas: sentencing reform and parole release; community supervision, treatment, and
evidence-based practices; and reentry.

Sentencing reform and early release
Alabama SB 67 (2015)
> adds a new lowest-level felony class, Class D, with a
sentence range of one to five years, convictions for which
may not be included as prior felony convictions for the

district attorney and the victim or victim’s representatives.
Previously, the commissioner had to give the district attorney the opportunity to object to DOC consideration of

purposes of a sentencing enhancement;

medical furlough;

> downgrades the felony class for the lowest tier of property crimes from a Class C to a Class D felony;

>

creates a 90-day period between receipt of an application
for medical furlough and release from custody;

> reduces drug possession to a Class D felony;

>

mandates the Board of Parole to adopt structured
decision-making and use a validated risk-needs assessment tool. In addition, parole consideration for people
convicted of nonviolent offenses with sentences of 20
years or less must occur every two years; and

>

requires release on intensive supervision for all offenders from three months (for the shortest sentences) to 12
months for all those not otherwise released on parole or
probation, except those convicted of certain sex offenses.

> speeds up parole eligibility by limiting the application of
a minimum amount of time served before some become
parole eligible (the lesser of one-third of the imposed
sentence or 10 years) only to those people convicted of
violent offenses; such a minimum used to be applicable
to sentences for all offenses;
> allows the corrections commissioner (DOC) to release
people on medical furlough with 30 days’ notice to the

Mississippi HB 585 (2014)
> raises the felony property crime threshold from $500
to $1,000;

prison time for the lowest weight tiers, where previously those tiers had minimums of two to four years;

> institutes presumptive probation for non-felony property crimes;

> creates a tiered weight structure for sentences for
drug sale; and

> reduces penalties for possession of Schedule I and II
drugs from a weight-based range of one to 30 years
to a range of zero to 20 years, with a minimum of no

> sets minimum percentages of time served until someone is parole-eligible: 25 percent of a sentence for a
nonviolent offense and 50 percent for a violent offense.

Nebraska LB 605 (2015)
> revises the state’s felony class structure and associated penalties by adding additional felony classes with
reduced penalty ranges;
> increases the felony threshold for property crimes to

34

$1,500 (for a variety of offenses, including arson, public
benefits fraud, forgery, criminal mischief, and others);
> requires that sentences to incarceration of less than a
year be served in county jails;

JUSTICE IN REVIEW: NEW TRENDS IN STATE SENTENCING AND CORRECTIONS 2014-2015

> institutes presumptive probation for Class IV felonies
(the lowest grade), except where the person sentenced
is classified as a “habitual criminal” or cannot be safely
or effectively supervised in the community;
> creates greater transparency in sentencing for indeterminate sentences by requiring that judges (1) advise people
of their minimum sentence before parole eligibility and
their maximum, assuming time credits are not forfeited,

and (2) make a record when sentencing someone for
multiple convictions about whether the sentences are to
run concurrently or consecutively; and
> allows judges contemplating a prison sentence, but
wanting more information about the person, to request
that the Department of Correction hold someone for up
to 180 days for an evaluation.

Utah HB 348 (2015)
> reclassifies possession of a Schedule I or II drug from a
third-degree felony to a Class A misdemeanor, with a
possible sentence of up to one year in jail (not prison);
> reclassifies possession of marijuana or a non-Schedule
I or II drug to a Class B misdemeanor, with third convictions classified as Class A misdemeanors and fourth
and subsequent convictions classified as third-degree
felonies, thus revising maximum penalties from five years
in prison to one year in jail;

> reduces the size of a school zone from 1,000 feet to
100 feet for the purposes of enhancing sentences and
classifications for drug offenses and creates a period
(6 a.m. to 10 p.m.) during which the enhancement is in
effect; and
> downgrades the use of false license numbers or otherwise impersonating someone with authority to write
a prescription in order to obtain prescription drugs
from a felony to a misdemeanor.

Changes to community supervision and treatment
Alabama SB 67 (2015)
> requires the implementation of statewide uniform
evidence-based practices for community corrections,
probation and parole supervision, including training,
risk-based supervision (with resources targeted to highrisk people on supervision), the use of a validated risk
and needs assessment tool and a graduated response
matrix (including intermediate sanctions, such as referrals to behavioral health or substance abuse treatment
or GPS monitoring). Treatment programs, both in the
community and in prison, must be evidence-based;
> establishes a performance-based reimbursement funding plan for local community corrections programs,
which prioritizes funding for programs that include
behavioral health and substance abuse treatment;
> authorizes probation and parole officers to use shortterm jail sanctions of two to three days at a time for
up to six days per month and 18 days total to punish
supervision violations;

> limits revocations for Class D felonies to the lesser of
two years or one-third of a sentence. A 20-day time
limit is imposed for people held in custody pending a
parole violation hearing, absent new pending charges;
> limits prison sentences for technical violations for people on probation or parole (except those with violent
Class A felony convictions) to 45 days of confinement,
after which supervision is continued. Three periods of
45-day confinement are required before a revocation;
> limits probation and parole officer caseloads to no
more than 20 high-risk cases at a time and creates
administrative supervision for those who qualify for
limited supervision; and
> requires courts to reconsider eligibility for discharge from
probation every two years for those who are compliant
with all terms (including financial ones) of probation.

$POUJOVFE
PO
OFYU
QBHF

VERA INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE

35

$POUJOVFE
GSPN
QSFWJPVT
QBHF

Mississippi HB 585 (2014)
> empowers circuit court judges to establish Veterans
Treatment Court programs with eligibility determined
by prior military service, substance abuse or mental
health needs, criminal history (including the current
offense and past violent and/or sex crime convictions),
and any recommendations made by the prosecutor;
> requires the Department of Parole to develop and
use a system of graduated responses for violations,
such as verbal warnings, increased drug testing or
mandatory substance-abuse treatment, loss of previously awarded earned-compliance credits, and short
periods of detention in jail or prison. Incentives for
successful adherence to supervision conditions may

include reduced reporting requirements or awarded
earned compliance credits to use toward early discharge from supervision; and
> requires the Department of Corrections to create Technical Violations Centers (TVCs)—secure facilities that specifically house those who violate probation and parole
terms. Confinement periods in TVCs are capped at 90
days for the first violation and 120 days for the second.
For third violations, the penalty is confinement in a TVC
for up to 180 days or revocation to prison to complete
the sentence. TVCs provide substance abuse treatment,
behavioral health support, education, and job training.

Nebraska LB 605 (2015)
> requires the use of graduated responses (both rewards
and sanctions) for compliance and violations of community supervision, such as short-term jail sanctions;

> requires the evaluation of programming and treatment by the Department of Corrections to ensure that
both are evidence-based; and

> requires training for probation and parole officers in
evidence-based practices such as the use of a riskneeds assessment, risk-based supervision, and a
graduated response matrix;

> caps jail sanctions for violations of parole at two 30day periods of confinement, after which violations
must be met with revocation or a non-jail sanction.

Utah HB 348 (2015)
> requires Division of Substance Abuse and Mental Health
programming to address criminal risk factors, conduct
an evidence-based assessment, have a treatment continuum and provide community-based mental health
and substance abuse services for people involved in the
criminal justice system, and devise minimum evidencebased standards for substance abuse and mental health
treatment for those required to participate in treatment
in prison or while on community supervision. The development of minimum standards for treatment in county

36

jails is also required;
> requires the Department of Corrections to establish
individual case plans for people on community supervision and to use a graduated response matrix to incentivize compliance and to penalize violations. Such
incentives include earned time credits for compliance
that may reduce probation and parole terms; and
> revises eligibility standards for drug courts to be
based on the results of a validated risk-needs assessment, rather than the pending offense.

JUSTICE IN REVIEW: NEW TRENDS IN STATE SENTENCING AND CORRECTIONS 2014-2015

Reentry
Alabama SB 67 (2015)
> limits driver’s license suspensions to convictions for
drug trafficking, rather than all drug offenses;
> restores food stamp and welfare benefits eligibility
to people following completion of their sentences or
while on probation;

> provides for a limited hardship driver’s license for
people following release from prison and those on
work release or in community corrections programming; and
> creates a program to train and fund people to establish small businesses for those leaving prison.

Mississippi HB 585 (2014)
> requires parole officers to use a reentry case plan—a
coordinated and comprehensive strategy for addressing reentry needs. Reentry planning must begin 90

> creates transitional reentry centers (of up to 100 beds)
as a housing option for recently released people unable to secure safe, affordable housing on release.

days before the earliest potential discharge date; and
Nebraska LB 605 (2015)
> requires the parole board to reduce the number of
people whose prison sentences are expired in prison
(people who “max out”) so that people are released

on supervision and that such post-release supervision
terms are lengthy enough for effective reentry planning
and transition.

Utah HB 348 (2015)
> places limits on driver’s license suspensions. The
suspension of driver’s licenses for convictions for nonmotor vehicle offenses and drug offenses is not

allowed if the person convicted of an eligible offense
is participating or has successfully completed substance abuse treatment or community supervision.

Supporting reentry into the
community
The path to social reintegration after incarceration is fraught with significant
obstacles. Adjusting to life outside of prison can be a profound challenge,
particularly after a long sentence. Those released from prison often have no
home and may, as a result, end up homeless or need to reconnect with longestranged family members.45 Many formerly incarcerated people also lack the
practical social tools and skills to find employment or housing—including official identification, education, and financial resources. 46
People released from prison or discharged from community supervision find
that they must also comply with a vast array of rules and regulations that flow
from having a criminal record. Many of these strictures limit their integration
into mainstream society, excluding them from gaining access to adequate

VERA INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE

37

housing, education, employment, voting, and public benefits.47 In so doing,
these collateral consequences of criminal conviction set up many justicesystem-involved people for failure. Because they lack access to public benefits
or supports—such as food stamps, veterans benefits, or public housing—and
are often unable to get secure employment, they are vulnerable to such proven
risk factors for reoffending as homelessness, unemployment, or unaddressed
mental illness or substance abuse issues.48
To counteract the negative effects such regulations and strictures on formerly incarcerated people have for public safety, states have shown increasing interest in improving the long-term outcomes for people with criminal
convictions. In 2014 and 2015, state policymakers built on reforms enacted
in previous years, strengthening and expanding in-custody reentry support
programs. They include programs that provide education, vocational training,
behavioral-health support, drug treatment, family-reunification assistance, or
aid in getting identification documents and social benefits in preparation for
release from prison. Other reforms focused on supporting people after release
to expand access to public benefits, education, employment, and business
licensing. Some states also sought to limit public access to formerly imprisoned
people’s criminal histories by expanding opportunities to expunge and seal
certain criminal records, as well as limiting the availability and distribution of
criminal history information by private companies.

CREATING OR SUPPORTING REENTRY PROGRAMMING
AND SERVICES
For many people reentering the community from prison, disproportionate
levels of poverty, mental illness, substance abuse, and insufficient education compound the difficulties they face.49 The first several months following
release from prison are often the most critical, because the risk of reoffending
is at its highest.50 Knowing this, many states have expanded pre-release planning in prison and have moved toward better coordinating programming and
services between prison and the community. States have also sought to act
upon evidence that effective reentry programming must address both transitional needs, such as housing and employment, and long-term needs, such as
substance-abuse issues or mental illness.51
In 2014 and 2015, a number of states moved to ease the transition from prison
to the community, including mandating in-custody and community-based programming, and establishing an infrastructure for post-release support aimed
at recidivism reduction through education, employment, health, and community support. Other states changed their post-discharge supervision practices
to be better coordinated and more responsive to the needs and vulnerabilities
of those released from prison.
> Alaska SB 64 (2014) institutes a recidivism reduction program to aid in
successful re-entry through case management, support for sober living,
employment training, education, and residential placement.

38

JUSTICE IN REVIEW: NEW TRENDS IN STATE SENTENCING AND CORRECTIONS 2014-2015

> Arkansas SB 472 (2015) requires a pre-release assessment and reentry plan be
completed and an identification card or driver’s license be issued to eligible
inmates within 120 days from release. The new law also requires that all people leaving custody or released from community supervision are screened for
Medicaid eligibility. It also allows those who are eligible and leaving custody
to apply 45 days before release. For those who are already enrolled but are in
the custody of the Department of Correction, the Department of Community
Correction, or detained in a county or city jail or a Division of Youth Services
facility, Medicaid benefits are suspended, instead of terminated, for the period of incarceration up to 12 months.
> California AB 2060 (2014) creates a Supervised Population Workforce Training Grant Program to provide grants to counties implementing workforce
development programs for residents on parole or probation. The programs
may include vocational training and post-secondary education.
> Colorado HB 14-1355 (2014) provides funding for in-prison and post-release
transition programs whose primary goal is to reduce recidivism. Pre-release
specialists must offer individualized case-management and targeted in-custody programming aimed at preparing people for release; community-based
mental health consultants should be engaged to help ease the transition of
people with mental illness from incarceration to community; and grant money
should also be used to shore up and support community-based organizations
serving those recently released from incarceration.
> Georgia SB 365 (2014) directs the Board of Corrections and the Department
of Corrections to develop and implement reentry programs for incarcerated
adults. Programs may provide educational, vocational, social, and behavioral
programming, substance abuse counseling, financial planning or housing
assistance, or aid in securing public benefits.
> Hawaii HB 2363 (2014) establishes a two-year pilot reentry program for
low-risk people convicted of drug offenses who have been diverted from
the Oahu Community Correctional Center and who are eligible for early
release. The Department of Public Safety will oversee the pilot program and
conduct bi-annual reviews of recidivism, employment, substance abuse,
and housing outcomes.
> Illinois SB 3522 (2014) appropriates funds for psychiatric treatment and education programs in the community to aid in reentry.52
> Indiana HB 1268 (2014) provides reentry support through both in-custody
and post-release programming. For currently incarcerated people, the law
establishes wrap-around support services—individual programs targeted to
address vocational, housing, transportation, mental health, and substance
abuse needs—that are funded through public and private revenue streams.
The law also extends access to certain social-welfare benefits, such as food
stamps, upon reentry.
> Indiana SB 173 (2015) allows the Department of Correction to establish a spe-

VERA INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE

39

cialized vocational program aimed at training qualified minimumsecurity inmates in trades—such as construction, truck driving, manufacturing, plumbing, heating, diesel technology, and ventilation and air conditioning—that are likely to provide a sustainable wage. Eligible individuals
may include those with less than 24 months before their expected release
date, or those who have completed specified programs, such as drug and
alcohol treatment, parenting, or employment skills programs. Ineligible
individuals are those who have been disciplined for misconduct within the
previous year or those who are currently deemed to present a security risk.
> Louisiana HB 781 (2014) expands an already-existing reentry program—
the “Offender Reentry Support Pilot Program”—in the Pointe Coupee
Detention Center. The law authorizes the Pointe Coupee Sheriff to find
funding, create an advisory board, and implement the program, which
must include individually tailored programs providing behavioral health
treatment, education, and job-skills training. The program will connect
people leaving prison with community stakeholders and assist them in
obtaining housing, necessary documentation, health insurance, and child
care upon release.
> Michigan SB 581 (2014) grants day parole to people serving sentences in
county jails. Day parole can be granted for the purpose of seeking employment, working, going to school, caring for family or property, or seeking
medical treatment, substance abuse treatment, or mental health counseling. People convicted of certain violent and sex offenses are ineligible for
day parole except to seek medical or mental-health treatment.
> Nebraska LB 907 (2014) creates the Vocational and Life Skills Program to
provide both in-prison and post-release job and life-skills training and
provides for a reentry program administrator to oversee its implementation. The law also requires parole officers to provide transitional support
in obtaining housing, job training, employment, education, healthcare
coverage, and medical assistance to those currently incarcerated and recently released people who specifically request such assistance. Finally, the
legislation also includes a “ban the box” provision with exceptions for law
enforcement and government agencies.
> New York A858 (2015) requires the Corrections Department to provide
assistance to an inmate in contacting a transitional services provider or
program prior to release. The department must maintain an up-to-date list
of services, including housing programs for people with specific needs.
> Texas SB 578 (2015) requires the State Department of Criminal Justice
to create a county-specific resource guide detailing organizations that
provide reentry and reintegration assistance. The resource guide will be
publicly available to all inmates and the public.

40

JUSTICE IN REVIEW: NEW TRENDS IN STATE SENTENCING AND CORRECTIONS 2014-2015

SUPPORTING FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS
Strengthening ties between incarcerated people and their families is an
important aspect of rehabilitation. Research demonstrates that maintaining
contact—whether through phone calls, letters, or in-person visits—can not
only improve institutional safety by reducing the likelihood of behavioral
infractions while incarcerated, but also reduce the risk of recidivism.53 Prison
visitation policies that facilitate family contact can help establish a continuum
of important social support from prison to the community, given that most
people who leave prison rely on family members for housing, financial, and
other assistance as they reenter the community.54 Maintaining strong relationships also has a positive impact on family members of incarcerated people,
particularly children, who are more vulnerable to poverty and future criminal
justice involvement than children without a parent in prison or jail.55
To help maintain and strengthen family relationships, three states in 2014
enacted laws that facilitate family visitation, support relationships between
incarcerated parents and their children, and ensure that children of incarcerated people receive care and support.
> Hawaii SB 2308 (2014) appropriates $250,000 for programs and services
for children of incarcerated parents, specifically programs that facilitate
family reunification.
> Louisiana SB 248 (2014) establishes guidelines for judges when authorizing
child visitation with an incarcerated parent. Judges can consider the child’s
preference, the quality and length of the relationship between the child
and parent prior to the parent’s incarceration, the willingness and ability
of the current caretaker to bear the cost of transportation, the mental and
physical health of both child and parent, and any damaging effects visitation to a jail or prison may cause the child.
> Vermont HB 325 (2014) tasks the Commissioner of Corrections and the
Commissioner for Children and Families with overseeing, analyzing, and
restructuring services available to support children with incarcerated parents, both for the health and welfare of the child and for the benefit of the
parent-child relationship.

FACILITATING ACCESS TO IDENTIFICATION, PUBLIC
BENEFITS, HOUSING, AND VOTING
Historically, corrections departments commonly released people from custody
with nothing more than a bus ticket and a small amount of cash. But this
laissez-faire practice is rapidly changing. Policymakers now know that housing, employment, education, and family reunification often pose formidable
challenges for people leaving prison.56 In response, many states have expanded
their case management and pre-release planning practices, including providing help to previously incarcerated people seeking the documentation necessary to receive public benefits or get a job. Other states enacted legislation

VERA INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE

41

that expands the categories of formerly incarcerated people who are entitled
to certain benefits programs. California, for example, now helps to expedite
the application process to receive such benefits as health insurance for people
reentering the community. Four states—California, Maryland, New York, and
Wyoming—passed new laws to encourage civic participation by making voting rights information, or voting itself, more accessible to those in the criminal
justice system. Finally, Texas sought to help people with criminal records gain
access to housing by passing a law to shield landlords from liability claims
based solely on a tenant’s criminal record.
> California AB 2243 (2014) mandates Department of Corrections and County
Probation offices to disseminate information about the state’s voting rights
guide and make it available to currently and formerly incarcerated people.
This information must be posted on the agencies’ websites, and the web
address must be displayed in offices.
> California AB 2308 (2014) requires the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) and the Department of Motor Vehicles
(DMV) to ensure that eligible people receive a state-issued identification
card upon release from prison. In order to qualify, a person previously must
have held a California identification card, have a photo on file with the
DMV that is no more than 10 years old, have no outstanding DMV fees, and
provide accurate and complete identification information.
> California AB 2570 (2014) requires the California Rehabilitation Oversight
Board—a body that regulates mental health, educational, and employment
programs for those under the jurisdiction of the CDCR—to support CDCR’s
efforts to assist people in prison and on parole in obtaining health insurance upon release.
> Florida HB 53 (2014) waives all fees for people applying for replacement
birth certificates, identification cards, and driver’s licenses before release
from prison.
> Maryland HB 980 (2015) restores the right to vote to people serving
community-based sentences on probation or parole.
> Missouri SB 680 (2014) extends food stamp eligibility to certain persons
with a drug possession conviction. They must participate in substance
abuse treatment, or have completed it; if necessary, submit to regular drug
testing, and comply with any conditions imposed by the court, the departments of parole and probation, or the division of drug and alcohol abuse.
> New Jersey AB 2295 (2014) allows drug treatment programs located in
correctional facilities that meet eligibility requirements to be licensed
as certified residential drug treatment programs. The certification would
allow those who complete the programs in prison to be eligible for public
assistance upon release.
> New York SB 3553 (2014) expands access to absentee ballots to people
who are held in pre-trial jail or prison detention, or those in custody for a

42

JUSTICE IN REVIEW: NEW TRENDS IN STATE SENTENCING AND CORRECTIONS 2014-2015

non-felony conviction. The individuals must be eligible to vote and already
registered.
> Texas HB 1510 (2015) shields landlords from a civil action solely for leasing a
dwelling to a tenant convicted of, or arrested or placed on deferred adjudication for, a criminal offense. However, the law does not preclude a cause
of action for negligence if the tenant was convicted for certain serious
offenses, such as murder, indecency with a child, aggravated kidnapping,
aggravated sexual assault, or aggravated robbery.
> Texas SB 200 (2015) opts out of the federal rule that makes people convicted of any felony that involves the possession, use, or distribution of a
controlled substance ineligible for the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and makes certain people with drug convictions
eligible. However, eligible persons released on parole or placed on community supervision who violate any condition of their supervision may be
disqualified for up to two years. A lifetime ban is reinstated if an individual
is convicted of a new felony drug offense.
> Wyoming HB 15 (2015) restores voting rights to people who were disenfranchised as a result of a felony conviction. The new law requires the Department of Corrections to automatically issue certificates of restoration of
voting rights to those with nonviolent felony convictions upon completion
of their entire sentence, including any period spent on probation or parole.
Denial of a certificate is subject to judicial review.

FACILITATING ACCESS TO EMPLOYMENT
While employment is a significant factor in reducing the risk of recidivism
for previously incarcerated people, getting a job can be particularly difficult
for those with a criminal history.57 The challenges for people leaving prison or
jail range from lack of work skills or experience to the prerequisites for getting
a job including acceptable IDs, a home address, the means to survive while
job-hunting, or access to transportation. Vocational training can be elusive, because federal educational loans are limited for those convicted of drug-related
offenses—a substantial portion of the incarcerated population.58
But even with the right skills and training, people with a criminal history
face persistent problems gaining employment and economic mobility.59 One
in three U.S. adults has a criminal record that will show up on a background
check, meaning that nearly 70 million people—disproportionately people of
color—could be summarily excluded from the workforce, regardless of their
educational background or relevant skill set.60
In response to these barriers, a number of states have enacted “ban the box”
policies through legislation or executive order. These policies prohibit potential employers from inquiring about criminal history at the earliest stages of
hiring; and bar denial of employment solely on the basis of a criminal record
when the crime is not directly relevant to the job in question. (In fields such as

VERA INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE

43

law enforcement, childcare, and certain government jobs, government agencies are still required to run a criminal background check as part of the initial
hiring phase.)
In addition to ban-the-box laws, some states limited legal barriers to professional licenses, provided employers with protection from lawsuits alleging
negligent hiring of a person with a criminal history, created certificates of
rehabilitation (state-issued certificates to demonstrate employment readiness
or rehabilitation in prison), and rolled back revocations of driver’s licenses for
drug offenses.61
> California AB 1650 (2014), known as the “Fair Chance Employment Act,”
bans contractors on state construction projects from asking about an applicant’s criminal history at the initial application stage. The law does not
apply when state or federal law requires a criminal background check.
> California AB 2396 (2014) prohibits denying a business license to a person
whose felony conviction has been dismissed. In addition, the state may not
deny a business license to an applicant who has received a certificate of
rehabilitation solely on the basis of a criminal conviction.
> California AB 1156 (2015) extends issuance of certifications of rehabilitation to
people being released from county or regional jails, in addition to state prisons.
> Connecticut SB 153 (2014) grants the Board of Pardons and Paroles the
authority to issue certificates of rehabilitation to ensure access to employment and licensing after incarceration. A certificate may be provisionally
approved during a parole or probation term, and becomes permanent upon
completion of the term. The law also bans denial or termination of employment solely on the basis of an arrest, criminal charges, or conviction for
which the applicant or employee has received the certificate.
> Delaware HB 167 (2014) prohibits state agencies from inquiring into a
person’s criminal history during the initial phases of applying for a job,
including the first interview. The criminal history of a qualified candidate
may only preclude eligibility in cases where the crime is related to the
job requirements.
> Delaware SB 217 (2014) restores driver’s licenses to people who have had
them revoked after conviction for drug offenses.
> Delaware HB 264 (2014) allows short-term employment with the state
Department of Corrections (DOC) for those who have recently completed
advanced DOC vocational training, and who would otherwise be ineligible
on the basis of their criminal history.
> Georgia SB 365 (2014) gives judges authority to restore or revoke a defendant’s driver’s license, or issue a limited driving permit, based on the defendant’s level of success in a drug or alcohol program. The law also creates
the Program and Treatment Completion Certificate, which is to be used as
a record of program completion for employers who hire formerly incarcerated people. The certificate also protects employers from third-party legal

44

JUSTICE IN REVIEW: NEW TRENDS IN STATE SENTENCING AND CORRECTIONS 2014-2015

claims of negligence in hiring someone with a criminal history by making
it harder to prove such claims.
> Georgia Executive Order 02.23.15 (3) (2015) implements ban-the-box hiring
policies in relation to state employment. Now, a criminal record cannot be
used as an automatic bar to employment, and criminal history questions
are removed from the initial stages of state job applications. Qualified
applicants with a criminal record must be given a chance to discuss their
criminal record, point out any inaccuracies, contest the content or relevance of a criminal record and provide evidence of rehabilitation. Exceptions to this order are for certain state jobs for which initial disclosure of a
criminal record is required by law.
> Georgia HB 328 (2015) requires professional licensing boards to grant a probationary license to an applicant who has completed a drug court program.
However, professional licensing boards may consider any criminal history
information subsequent to completion of the drug court program in deciding whether such a license is appropriate.
> Illinois HB 5701 (2014) prohibits inquiry into a job applicant’s criminal
history until the applicant has been deemed otherwise qualified and has
either been contacted for an interview or given an initial offer of employment. This prohibition is waived when state or federal law requires such an
inquiry, or when a license or insurance required for employment would be
denied based on the applicant’s criminal history.
> Illinois HB 3475 (2015) expands eligibility for Certificates of Good Conduct
for people who have completed their sentences to include those who have
committed more serious felonies. Previously, all forcible felonies—such
as first- and second-degree murder or aggravated sexual assault—and all
Class X felonies—including home invasion or possession of a controlled
substance with intent to deliver—were ineligible. The new law narrows
the pool of those who are ineligible to those convicted of arson, aggravated
arson, kidnapping, aggravated kidnapping, aggravated driving under the
influence of alcohol or drugs, or aggravated domestic battery. Also ineligible are persons subject to registration under the Sex Offender Registration,
the Arsonist Registration, or the Murderer and Violent Offender Against
Youth Registration Acts.
> Louisiana HB 505 (2014) protects employers from liability for employee
negligence based solely on a prior criminal conviction, except where the
negligence is substantially related to the conviction, or the conviction was
for a violent crime or a sex offense.
> Louisiana HB 1273 (2014) creates provisional professional licenses for
people with criminal convictions, with exceptions for certain occupations
and offenses.
> New Hampshire HB 1368 (2014) prevents denial of a business license, permit, or certificate based solely on an applicant’s criminal history. However,

VERA INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE

45

the license, permit, or certificate may be denied or revoked if the prior
conviction is substantially related to the business or trade, or after consideration of the applicant’s rehabilitation and the time passed since the
conviction or release.
> Ohio HB 56 (2015) prohibits public employers from including questions
about criminal history on state job applications.
> Oklahoma SB 1914 (2014) adds a provision to the criminal code mandating
that juvenile criminal records (including arrests) shall not be considered
an arrest or detention for the purpose of securing employment, civil rights,
business licenses, or any other public or private purpose.
> Oklahoma HB 2168 (2015) narrows the circumstances in which a professional license can be denied, revoked, or suspended as the result of a felony
conviction. A felony conviction must now have occurred within the previous five years and be substantially related to the profession at issue, or
pose a reasonable threat to public safety. Professional licenses covered by
the new law include architecture; landscape architecture or interior design;
cosmetology; engineering or land surveying; athletic training; real estate
appraisal; physical and occupational therapy; psychology; speech-language
pathology or audiology; behavioral health counseling; and pawn-brokering.
In the case of professions in behavioral health—such as marriage counseling—a license may be denied, revoked, or suspended if a person’s conviction involved “moral turpitude,” conduct that shocks the public conscience
or conduct that involves significant dishonesty, such as fraud or bribery.
> Oklahoma HB 2179 (2015) extends driver’s license reinstatement procedures to commercial driver’s licenses. Now, those whose commercial
license was suspended or revoked because of a criminal conviction are
eligible for a provisional license after payment of all reinstatement fines
and fees.
> Oregon HB 3025 (2015) makes it unlawful for an employer to exclude a
job applicant from an initial interview solely because of a past criminal
conviction. Although employers may still consider a criminal conviction
when making a final hiring decision, they are specifically prohibited from
requiring job applicants to disclose a criminal conviction on a job application prior to an initial interview or prior to a conditional offer of employment. The rule does not apply when a federal, state, or local law explicitly
requires consideration of criminal history, such as for government jobs in
law enforcement or the criminal justice system.
> Tennessee SB 276 (2014) creates certificates of rehabilitation for employment and licensing for two purposes. First, possession of a certificate of rehabilitation protects applicants from denial of a professional license based
solely on their criminal histories. Second, the certificate protects employers
from lawsuits alleging negligence in hiring by making it harder to prove
such claims.

46

JUSTICE IN REVIEW: NEW TRENDS IN STATE SENTENCING AND CORRECTIONS 2014-2015

> Utah HB 145 (2014) excludes past criminal charges that did not result in a
conviction from employment background checks.
> Vermont HB 413 (2014) allows a person to seek a certificate of rehabilitation
to mitigate certain collateral consequences either five years after conviction or five years after completion of sentence, whichever is later. Eligibility
for such a certificate requires current employment, no additional criminal
convictions, and no indication of potential risk to the community.
> Vermont Executive Order 03-15 (2015) implements a ban-the-box hiring
policy in relation to state employment applications. Under this order, job
applicants will no longer be immediately screened out of state jobs because of a criminal conviction and background checks will only occur after
an applicant has otherwise been found qualified for the position. State jobs
in law enforcement, corrections, or other sensitive positions are exempt
from this policy.
> Virginia Executive Order 49 (2015) implements ban-the-box hiring policies
in relation to state employment applications. State employment applications
will no longer have questions relating to criminal convictions, and decisions
will not be based on the criminal history unless demonstrably job-related
or if state or federal law specifically prohibits the hiring of individuals with
certain criminal convictions for a particular position. Criminal background
checks may only occur after an applicant has been found otherwise eligible
for employment and is being considered for the position. The order also encourages similar hiring practices among private employers.

EASING THE HARMFUL IMPACT OF FEES AND FINES
Criminal sentences often include a financial penalty. The costs may include
court-ordered fines or restitution, as well as supervision or treatment fees or
other types of charges to pay for confinement, electronic monitoring, drug testing, sex-offender registry, police transport, or case filing.62 Such penalties can
be an enormous financial burden on those currently incarcerated or recently
released, who often have limited resources. Worse, failure to pay fees and fines
may be considered a violation of the terms of supervision or release, the consequence of which may be additional jail or prison time and increased fees.63
To help break this vicious cycle for formerly incarcerated people, some states
enacted legislation waiving certain fees, allowing payment plans for restitution, and limiting the use of jail and prison as penalties for non-payment:
>

Arizona SB 1116 (2015) makes it permissible for courts to order the performance
of community service in lieu of payment of fines, fees, or incarceration costs
if a defendant is unable to pay. Community service must be equivalent to the
amount of the criminal justice debt. Services performed will be credited at a
rate of $10 per hour.

>

Colorado HB 14-1061 (2014) prohibits imprisonment or probation for failure to
pay a court-ordered fee or fine for those with financial hardship. Those ordered

VERA INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE

47

to make payment as part of their sentence must alert the court if they are unable to pay. Imprisonment or revocation is allowed only for willful nonpayment
or failure to appear for the hearing, not for nonpayment. Before revoking or
imprisoning the defendant, the court is required to make findings on the record
regarding the defendant’s ability to pay.

48

>

Georgia HB 328 (2015) prohibits a local jurisdiction from contracting with a collection agency for collection of money in the case where someone is sentenced
to probation solely for the offender’s inability to pay court-imposed fines or
statutory surcharges.

>

Illinois SB 2650 (2014) releases defendants from liability for court fees or costs
when a conviction is reversed by a finding of factual innocence and establishes
a right to a refund of fees already paid.

>

Louisiana HB 546 (2014) allows indigent defendants to pay restitution according to a payment plan, as determined by their financial ability.

>

Maine HP 1266 (2014) grants judges the discretion to set a rate at which people
in custody for nonpayment of fines may reduce money owed through participation in public works or charity organizations. Previously, the amount was
set at a $5 credit per hour of participation. This law allows for jail days to be
credited against outstanding fees at the rate of $25-$100 per day.

>

Oregon HB 3168 (2015) authorizes courts to waive the unpaid portion of a previously imposed criminal fine if the debtor demonstrates financial hardship that
prevents completion of a fee-based alcohol or drug treatment program. In addition, upon a showing that such payment would interfere with completion of
such a program, courts may enter a supplemental judgment that remits all or
part of the amount due, or modifies the method of payment.

JUSTICE IN REVIEW: NEW TRENDS IN STATE SENTENCING AND CORRECTIONS 2014-2015

LIMITING PUBLIC ACCESS TO CRIMINAL HISTORY
INFORMATION
The social stigma of a criminal conviction—or even involvement in the criminal justice system short of a conviction—contributes to the many challenges
justice system-involved people face, particularly when trying to lead a lawabiding life.64 As more and more states make criminal history records—from
booking photographs to rap sheets—available to the public electronically, this
information and all the negative consequences that may flow from it may only
be a click away.65 Online records may include arrests in which charges were
never filed, or instances where the accused person was acquitted or the case
was later dismissed.66 Although some states prohibit questions about criminal
history in the initial employment application process, such ban-the-box legislation does not protect people from exposure of their criminal records through
Internet searches and commercial databases for other purposes (and may not
prohibit criminal history inquiries in later stages of the hiring process).
Over the past two legislative sessions, several states enacted legislation
aimed at limiting public access to, dissemination of, and use of criminal history information. Policymakers accomplished this in two ways: expanding
eligibility for remedies that shield criminal records from public view such as
expungement or sealing mechanisms, and mandating the removal of print and
electronic publication of booking photographs and arrest records.

Extending eligibility for expungement or sealing
Expungement and sealing of criminal records are similar mechanisms—sometimes used interchangeably—that shield criminal records from public view.
While expungement typically results in the destruction of an entire criminal
record, sealing generally limits access to the record to certain government
agencies, and usually only through a court order. To broaden the impact of
these remedies, state lawmakers extended eligibility to additional classes of
offenses or to arrests or charges that did not end in conviction and made access
to remedies easier by streamlining the process.
> Alabama SB 108 (2014) provides expungement of certain low-level felony
or misdemeanor convictions, and arrest records when the charges did not
result in a conviction or were dismissed after completion of a court-ordered
diversion program. The petitioner must appeal to the court for expungement and pay a $300 fee. Expunged records remain available to government offices, licensing agencies, and financial institutions, although they
will be deemed destroyed for all other circumstances.
>

Colorado SB 14-206 (2014) allows sealing of arrest records for a person who
successfully completes a diversion program, or for someone who was not
convicted. Charges that have been sealed do not have to be disclosed on
employment applications or to educational institutions. Arrests that do not
result in charges because a defendant pleaded guilty in a separate case, ar-

VERA INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE

49

>

>

50

rests that result in a dismissal as part of a plea in a separate case, and cases
where the defendant stills owes fines, fees, or restitution are ineligible.
Delaware HB 134 (2014) expands the expungement category of cases
resolved “in favor of the accused” (such as acquittal or a decision not to
prosecute) to cases of dismissal or where a person successfully completed
and is thereby discharged from probation.
Illinois HB 5815 (2014) adds sanctions and convictions for municipal code
violations to the list of criminal records eligible for sealing.

>

Illinois HB 3149 (2015) makes people who earned a high school diploma,
GED, associate’s degree, career certificate, vocational technical certification,
or bachelor’s degree during their sentence (in custody or in the community)
eligible to have their criminal records sealed after sentence completion.
Earned qualifications cannot duplicate those earned prior to a person’s conviction. Those eligible must petition the court and if the petition is denied,
subsequent petitions may be entered at prescribed intervals after termination of their last sentence, depending on their criminal history.

>

Iowa SF 383 (2014) requires the removal of any computer record relating to
an adult arrest that is at least four years old and has no disposition, unless
there is an outstanding arrest warrant or a law enforcement-required hold
on the person.

>

Louisiana HB 55 (2014) provides guidelines for circumstances under which
a prior misdemeanor or felony conviction may be expunged. Under the
new law, any charge that was dismissed by non-prosecution or acquittal
is eligible for expungement, unless it was a violent crime or a sex crime.
Misdemeanors and felonies that resulted in conviction are eligible after a
period of five or 10 years, respectively, unless there are new pending felony
charges. Expungement does not bar access to records by law enforcement
agencies, state licensing departments, and the news media.

>

Missouri HB 1665 and 1335 (2014) allow expungement of arrest records in
certain instances, such as when charges are not pursued, were based on
false information, or lacked probable cause.

>

Oregon SB 364 (2015) expands eligibility for setting aside convictions for
marijuana-related offenses for convictions that occurred prior to the effective date of the reclassification of such marijuana offenses.

>

Tennessee HB 1742 (2014) permits multiple nonviolent, misdemeanor, or
low-level felony convictions based on the same conduct or criminal event
to be treated as a single conviction for purposes of the expungement process, streamlining the process and making it easier for people to fulfill
the requirements.

>

Texas SB 1902 (2015) expands eligibility for an order of nondisclosure of a
criminal record upon successful completion of community supervision by
including those with first-time, low-level convictions that are not violent,
sexual, or domestic violence-related. The new law also allows the court to is-

JUSTICE IN REVIEW: NEW TRENDS IN STATE SENTENCING AND CORRECTIONS 2014-2015

sue an order of nondisclosure for those whose misdemeanor charges are dismissed after successfully completing deferred adjudication. Except in limited
circumstances, an order of nondisclosure prohibits criminal justice agencies
from disclosing to the public a person’s criminal record information. It also
allows those protected by the order to affirmatively deny the specifics of
their criminal case when asked by a potential employer or licensing agency.

Limiting access to arrest information
In many states, booking photographs taken upon arrest are posted on
law-enforcement websites, where commercial websites routinely access and
republish them.67 Despite the presumption of innocence, the social stigma
from an arrest record may result in de facto discrimination or disqualification,
including in employment and housing.68 In order to avoid this negative impact,
a number of states passed legislation that limits the public’s access to such information, or expands the rights of individuals, often for those whose cases are
resolved in their favor, to have their arrest information removed from commercial websites at no cost. Two states—California and Missouri—also provided
for criminal or civil remedies for those injured by unlawful dissemination of, or
refusal to remove, such information.
> California SB 1027 (2014) prohibits businesses that publish or disseminate
arrest photographs in print or electronic form from charging fees for their
removal, modification, or correction, and provides a civil remedy for those
injured by violations of laws concerning their use.69
> Colorado HB 14-1047 (2014) requires anyone requesting a booking photograph to affirm that it will not be unlawfully published, and that a fee will
not be required if its removal is requested.
> Georgia HB 845 (2014) adds arrest booking photographs connected to charges
that do not result in conviction to the list of records that are not public.
> Missouri HB 1665 and 1335 (2014) prohibit businesses that disseminate
booking photographs from charging a fee for removal and provide criminal
and civil penalties for violations.
> Wyoming SF 53 (2014) requires websites that publish arrest photographs to
remove the photograph and other personal information upon written request
where the arrest does not result in conviction or the record was expunged.

VERA INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE

51

Conclusion
This bi-annual review of state-level criminal justice reform confirms an accelerated level of activity that is likely to continue in the near future. Many
recently created task forces and commissions—such as the one established by
Maryland’s SB 602—are mandated to use data-driven research and analysis in
considering future sentencing law changes. Some states that have been extensively reexamining and revising their criminal codes and criminal penalties
over the past several years, such as Indiana since 2013, have formed oversight
committees that monitor the implementation of statutory changes and recommend revisions to further retool and perfect enacted reforms. Through the
work of such bodies, policymakers and the public can glimpse the contours of
proposed criminal justice reforms that may emerge in 2016.
While there is significant legislative action on criminal justice reform all
over the country, ballot initiatives authorizing criminal justice reform increasingly are vehicles of change. Since 2012, Colorado, Washington, Alaska, Oregon,
and Washington, DC have legalized recreational marijuana use through ballot
initiatives, with Massachusetts voters poised to decide the issue in 2016.70 In
2014, Proposition 47 in California reclassified many property and drug offenses
to misdemeanors by raising the felony thresholds for property value and drug
weight. (See [Prop 47 callout box].) And in an unusual move, Oklahoma has just
enacted criminal justice reform legislation and is also considering taking up a
ballot initiative that would go further on those reforms, reclassifying and revising penalties for drug and property crimes.71 This comes after years of false
starts on sentencing and corrections reform in the state.72 The growth of ballot
initiatives as mechanisms to effect criminal justice reform suggests that voters are eager for change in how states punish and manage drug and property
crimes—and, perhaps, that policymakers are lagging behind popular will on
these issues.
At this writing, it is unclear whether federal action on sentencing reform will
take place in 2016, because a small but vocal minority in Congress remains opposed to any sentencing reductions, and supporters are divided on whether or
not to include additional statutory reforms. If these obstacles block action this
year, federal sentencing reform may gain traction in 2017, regardless of which
party controls the White House or Congress.

52

JUSTICE IN REVIEW: NEW TRENDS IN STATE SENTENCING AND CORRECTIONS 2014-2015

Appendix A
Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

SENTENCING AND CORRECTIONS TRENDS 2014 AND 2015: LEGISLATION BY STATE

2014

SB 108

limits public access to criminal history information

2014

SJR 20

ensures that data-driven research and analysis guide reform

2015

Exec. Order 8

ensures that data-driven research and analysis guide reform

2015

SB 67

2014

Measure 2

2014

HB 369

2014

SB 64

2014

HB 2457

veteran-related reforms

2014

HB 2593

increases opportunities for early release

2015

SB 1116

waives fines and fees

2015

SB 472

Problem-solving courts; creates or supports reentry programming and services; ensures that
data-driven research and analysis guide reform

2015

SB 543

expands medical amnesty

2014

AB 1650

facilitates access to employment

2014

AB 2060

creates or supports reentry programming and services

2014

AB 2098

veteran-related reforms

2014

AB 2124

deferred adjudication

2014

AB 2243

facilitates access to identification, public benefits, housing, and voting

2014

AB 2263

veteran-related reforms

2014

AB 2308

facilitates access to identification, public benefits, housing, and voting

2014

AB 2309

deferred adjudication

2014

AB 2357

veteran-related reforms

2014

AB 2396

facilitates access to employment

2014

AB 2492

reduces penalties for drug offenses

2014

AB 2570

facilitates access to identification, public benefits, housing, and voting

2014

Prop 47

reduces penalties for property offenses; reduces penalties for drug offenses

2014

SB 1010

reduces penalties for drug offenses

2014

SB 1027

limits public access to criminal history information

2014

SB 1227

veteran-related reforms

2015

AB 1156

enacts general sentencing reform; facilitates access to employment

comprehensive criminal justice reform

reduces penalties for drug offenses
expands medical amnesty
veteran-related reforms; reduces penalties for property offenses; creates or supports reentry
programming and services; ensures that data-driven research and analysis guide reform

VERA INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE

53

Appendix A
Colorado

2014

HB 14-1047

limits public access to criminal history information

2014

HB 14-1061

waives fines and fees

2014

HB 14-1266

reduces penalties for property offenses

2014

HB 14-1355

creates or supports reentry programming and services

2014

SB 14-021

ensures that data-driven research and analysis guide reform

2014

SB 14-064

reforms use of segregation (solitary confinement)

2014

SB 14-206

limits public access to criminal history information

2015

SB 124

2014

HB 5586

2014

SB 153

2015

HB 7104

reduces penalties for drug offenses

2014

HB 134

limits public access to criminal history information

2014

HB 167

facilitates access to employment

2014

HB 264

facilitates access to employment

2014

SB 217

facilitates access to employment

2015

HB 39

reduces penalties for drug offenses

2015

HJR 5

reforms use of segregation (solitary confinement)

Florida

2014

HB 53

facilitates access to identification, public benefits, housing, and voting

Georgia

2014

HB 845

limits public access to criminal history information

2014

HB 965

expands medical amnesty

2014

SB 320

veteran-related reforms

2014

SB 365

creates or supports reentry programming and services; facilitates access to employment

2015

Exec. Order
02.23.15 (3)

2015

HB 328

increases opportunities for early release; facilitates access to employment; waives fines and fees

2014

HB 2363

creates or supports reentry programming and services

2014

SB 2308

supports family relationships

2015

SB 982

expands medical amnesty

Connecticut

Delaware

Hawaii

54

SENTENCING AND CORRECTIONS TRENDS 2014 AND 2015: LEGISLATION BY STATE

reduces probation/parole revocations and shortens community sentences

reduces penalties for property offenses
facilitates access to employment

facilitates access to employment

JUSTICE IN REVIEW: NEW TRENDS IN STATE SENTENCING AND CORRECTIONS 2014-2015

Idaho

2014

Exec. Order 1

2014

SB 1352

pre-arrest diversion

2014

SB 1357

reduces parole/probation revocations and shortens community sentences

2014

SB 1393

ensures that data-driven research and analysis guide reform

2014

HB 5701

facilitates access to employment

2014

HB 5815

limits public access to criminal history information

2014

SB 2650

waives fines and fees

2014

SB 3267

reduces probation/parole revocations and shortens community sentences

2014

SB 3522

creates or supports reentry programming and services

2015

HB 1

2015

HB 1336

expands medical amnesty

2015

HB 3149

limits public access to criminal history information

2015

HB 3475

facilitates access to employment

2015

HB 3884

increases opportunities for early release

2015

HJR 53

ensures that data-driven research and analysis guide reform

2014

HB 1006

deferred adjudication; reduces penalties for drug offenses; enacts general sentencing reform; increases opportunities for early release; ensures that data-driven research and analysis guide reform

2014

HB 1070

ensures that data-driven research and analysis guide reform

2014

HB 1140

reduces probation/parole revocations and shortens community sentences

2014

HB 1268

creates or supports reentry programming and services

2015

HB 1304

deferred adjudication; expands use of medication-assisted substance abuse treatment

2015

SB 173

creates or supports reentry programming and services

2015

SB 174

enacts general sentencing reform

2015

SB 464

expands use of medication-assisted substance abuse treatment

Iowa

2014

SF 383

limits public access to criminal history information

Kansas

2014

HB 2655

veteran-related reforms

2015

HB 2051

increases opportunities for early release

2015

HB 2154

veteran-related reforms

2014

SB 124

Illinois

Indiana

Kentucky

ensures that data-driven research and analysis guide reform

problem-solving courts

reduces penalties for drug offenses

VERA INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE

55

Appendix A
Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

56

SENTENCING AND CORRECTIONS TRENDS 2014 AND 2015: LEGISLATION BY STATE

2014

HB 55

limits public access to criminal history information

2014

HB 196

increases opportunities for early release

2014

HB 461

reduces penalties for drug offenses

2014

HB 505

facilitates access to employment

2014

HB 546

waives fines and fees

2014

HB 670

increases opportunities for early release

2014

HB 781

creates or supports reentry programming and services

2014

HB 1257

reduces probation/parole revocations and shortens community sentences

2014

HB 1273

facilitates access to employment

2014

SB 248

2014

SB 398/HB683

2014

SB 399

increases opportunities for early release

2014

SB 532

veteran-related reforms

2015

HB 149

reduces penalties for drug offenses

2015

HR 203

ensures that data-driven research and analysis guide reform

2014

HP 1221

veteran-related reforms

2014

HP 1266

waives fines and fees

2015

SP 46

Reduces penalties for drug offenses

2014

SB 364

Reduces penalties for drug offenses

2015

HB 121

Creates safety valves from mandatory minimum sentences

2015

HB 980

facilitates access to identification, public benefits, housing, and voting

2015

SB 602

ensures that data-driven research and analysis guide reform

2015

SB 654

expands medical amnesty

2014

SB 558

pre-arrest diversion

2014

SB 581

creates or supports reentry programming and services

2014

SF 1900

expands medical amnesty

2014

HB 585

comprehensive criminal justice reform

2014

HB 585

comprehensive criminal justice reform

2015

HB 602

ensures that data-driven research and analysis guide reform

supports family relationships
problem-solving courts

JUSTICE IN REVIEW: NEW TRENDS IN STATE SENTENCING AND CORRECTIONS 2014-2015

Missouri

2014

HB 1231

2014

HB 1665 & 1335

2014

SB 680

facilitates access to identification, public benefits, housing, and voting

2015

HB 33

pre-arrest diversion

2015

HB 135

increases opportunities for early release

2015

HB 412

expands medical amnesty

2015

SB 219

deferred adjudication

2014

LB 907

reduces probation/parole revocations and shortens community sentences; creates or supports
reentry programming and services; ensures that data-driven research and analysis guide reform

2015

LB 173

creates safety valves from mandatory minimum sentences

2015

LB 439

expands medical amnesty

2015

LB 598

reforms use of segregation (solitary confinement)

2015

LB 605

comprehensive criminal justice reform

Nevada

2015

SB 459

expands medical amnesty

New Hampshire

2014

HB 649

increases opportunities for early release

2014

HB 1144

ensures that data-driven research and analysis guide reform

2014

HB 1368

facilities access to employment

2014

HB 1442

problem-solving courts

2015

HB 270

expands medical amnesty

2015

HB 472

increases opportunities for early release

2014

Pub. Q. 1

bail reform

2014

AB 2295

facilitates access to identification, public benefits, housing, and voting

2015

S 946

bail reform

2015

S 2003

Reforms use of segregation (solitary confinement)

2015

S 2381

expands use of medication-assisted substance abuse treatment

2014

SB 3553

2015

A858

2015

AB 6255

expands use of medication-assisted substance abuse treatment

2014

HB 369

deferred adjudication

2015

SB 154

expands medical amnesty

Montana

Nebraska

New Jersey

New York

North Carolina

ensures that data-driven research and analysis guide reform
limits public access to criminal history information

facilitates access to identification, public benefits, housing, and voting
Creates or supports reentry programming and services

VERA INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE

57

Appendix A
North Dakota

2015

HB 1030

creates safety valves from mandatory minimum sentences

2015

HB 1106

ensures that data-driven research and analysis guide reform

2015

HB 1367

reduces probation/parole revocations and shortens community sentences

2015

HB 1394

reduces penalties for drug offenses

2015

SB 2029

reduces penalties for drug offenses

2015

SB 2030

reduces penalties for drug offenses

2014

SB 143

Increases opportunities for early release

2015

HB 56

facilitates access to employment

2014

HB 2859

problem-solving courts

2014

SB 1914

facilitates access to employment

2015

HB 1518

creates safety valves from mandatory minimum sentences

2015

HB 1548

enacts general sentencing reform

2015

HB 1574

reduces penalties for drug offenses

2015

HB 2168

facilitates access to employment

2015

HB 2179

facilitates access to employment

2014

Measure 91

2015

HB 2838

ensures that data-driven research and analysis guide reform

2015

HB 3025

facilitates access to employment

2015

HB 3168

waives fines/fees

2015

SB 364

limits public access to criminal history information

2015

SB 969

ensures data-driven research and analysis guides reform

Rhode Island

2014

HB 7610

reduces penalties for drug offenses

South Carolina

2014

HB 3014

veteran-related reforms

2015

S 237

ensures that data-driven research and analysis guide reform

2015

S 426

problem-solving courts

South Dakota

2014

SB 77

Reforms use of segregation (solitary confinement)

Tennessee

2014

HB 1742

limits public access to criminal history information

2014

HB 1904

Pre-arrest division

2014

SB 276

2015

SB 711/HB 854

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

58

SENTENCING AND CORRECTIONS TRENDS 2014 AND 2015: LEGISLATION BY STATE

reduces penalties for drug offenses

facilitates access to employment
veteran-related reforms

JUSTICE IN REVIEW: NEW TRENDS IN STATE SENTENCING AND CORRECTIONS 2014-2015

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wyoming

2015

HB 1083

reforms use of segregation (solitary confinement)

2015

HB 1396

reduces penalties for property offenses

2015

HB 1510

facilitates access to identification, public benefits, housing, and voting

2015

HB 1546

increases opportunities for early release

2015

SB 578

creates or supports reentry programming and services

2015

SB 1474

veteran-related reforms

2015

SB 1902

limits public access to criminal history information

2014

HB 145

facilities access to employment

2014

SB 205

reduces penalties for drug offenses

2015

HB 348

comprehensive criminal justice reform

2015

SB 214

veteran-related reforms

2014

HB 325

supports family relationships

2014

HB 413

facilitates access to employment

2014

SB 295

bail reform; reduces penalties for drug offenses

2015

Exec. Order 3

2014

HB 1112

reduces penalties for drug offenses

2014

HB 1222

pre-arrest diversion

2015

Exec. Order 49

2015

HB 1500

expands medical amnesty

2014

HB 2304

reduces penalties for drug offenses

2014

SB 2627

pre-arrest diversion

2015

SB 5107

problem-solving courts

2014

HB 4614

ensures that data-driven research and analysis guide reform

2014

SB 307

2015

HB 2880

2015

SB 523

expands medical amnesty

2014

SF 53

limits public access to criminal history information

2015

SB 38

deferred adjudication

2015

HB 15

facilitates access to identification, public benefits, housing, and voting

facilitates access to employment

facilitates access to employment

bail reform
expands use of medication-assisted substance abuse treatment

+645*$&
*/
3&7*&8
/&8
53&/%4
*/
45"5&
4&/5&/$*/(
"/%
$033&$5*0/4


VERA INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE

59

Appendix B

STATE REFORMS TO SENTENCING AND CORRECTIONS BY TYPE, 2014 AND 2015

CREATES OR EXPANDS OPPORTUNITIES
TO DIVERT PEOPLE AWAY FROM
THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
BAIL
REFORM

STATE

PRE-ARREST
DIVERSION

PROBLEMSOLVING
COURTS

DEFERRED
ADJUDICATION

REDUCE PRISON POPULATIONS
MEDICATIONASSISTED
SUBSTANCE
ABUSE
TREATMENT

VETERANRELATED
REFORMS

REDUCES
PENALTIES
FOR
PROPERTY
OFFENSES

REDUCES
PENALTIES
FOR DRUG
OFFENSES

EXPANDS
MEDICAL
AMNESTY

SB 64 (2014)

Measure 2
(2014)

HB 369 (2014)

CREATES
SAFETY
VALVES FROM
MANDATORY
MINIMUM
SENTENCES

ENACTS
GENERAL
SENTENCING
REFORM

Alabama

Alaska

SB 64 (2014)

Arizona

HB 2457 (2014)

Arkansas

SB 472 (2015)

HB 543 (2015)

SB 1227 (2014)
SB 1010 (2014)
AB 2098 (2014)
Prop. 47 (2014) AB 2492 (2014)
AB 2263 (2014)
Prop. 47 (2014)
AB 2357 (2014)

AB 2124 (2014)
AB 2309 (2014)

California

AB 1156 (2015)

HB 14-1266
(2014)

Colorado

Connecticut

HB 5586 (2014) HB 7104 (2015)

Delaware

HB 39 (2015)

Florida

Georgia

SB 320 (2014)

HB 965 (2014)

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

SB 982 (2015)

SB 1352 (2014)

HB 1 (2015)

HB 1336 (2015)

HB 1006 (2014)
HB 1304 (2015)

HB 1304 (2015)
SB 464 (2015)

HB 1006 (2014)

Iowa

Kansas

60

HB 2655 (2014)
HB 2154 (2015)

JUSTICE IN REVIEW: NEW TRENDS IN STATE SENTENCING AND CORRECTIONS 2014-2015

HB 1006 (2014)
SB 174 (2015)

SUPPORTS REENTRY INTO THE COMMUNITY

REDUCES
PROBATION/
INCREASES
PAROLE
OPPORTUNITIES
REVOCATIONS
FOR EARLY
AND SHORTENS
RELEASE
COMMUNITY
SENTENCES

COMPREHENSIVE
SOLITARY
CRIMINAL
CONFINEMENT
JUSTICE REFORM

FACILITATES
CREATES OR
ACCESS TO
LIMITS PUBLIC
SUPPORTS
SUPPORTS
IDENTIFICATION
FACILITATES
EASES THE
ACCESS TO
REENTRY
FAMILY
PUBLIC
ACCESS TO
IMPACT OF
CRIMINAL
PROGRAMMING RELATIONSHIPS
BENEFITS
EMPLOYMENT FINES AND FEES
HISTORY
AND SERVICES
HOUSING
INFORMATION
AND VOTING

SB 67 (2015)

SB 108 (2014)

SB 64 (2014)

ENSURES THAT
DATA-DRIVEN
RESEARCH AND
ANALYSIS TO
GUIDE REFORM

SJR 20 (2014)
Exec. Order 8

SB 64 (2014)

HB 2593 (2014)

SB 1116 (2015)

SB 472 (2015)

SB 472 (2015)

AB 2243 (2014)
AB 2308 (2014),
AB 2570 (2014)

AB 2060 (2014)

SB 124 (2015)

SB 14-064 (2014)

AB 1650 (2014)
AB 2396 (2014)
AB 1156 (2015)

HB 14-1355
(2014)

SB 1027 (2014)

HB 14-1061
(2014)

HB 14-206 (2014)
HB 14-1047
(2014)

SB 14-021 (2014)

SB 153 (2014)

HB 167 (2014)
HB 264 (2014)
SB 217 (2014)

HJR 5 (2015)

HB 134 (2014)

HB 53 (2014)

HB 328 (2015)

SB 365 (2014)
HB 328 (2015)
Exec. Order
02.23.15 (3)
(2015)

SB 365 (2014)

HB 2363 (2014)

HB 328 (2015)

HB 845 (2014)

SB 2308 (2014)

SB 1393 (2014)
Exec.Order
2014-01

SB 1357 (2014)

HB 3884 (2015)

SB 3267 (2014)

SB 3522 (2014)

HB 1006 (2014)

HB 1140 (2014)

HB 1268 (2014)
SB 173 (2015)

HB 5701 ( 2014)
HB 3475 (2015)

SB 2650 (2014)

HB 5815 (2014)
HB 3149 (2015)

HJR 53 (2015)

HB 1006 (2014)
HB 1070 (2014)

SF 383 (2014)

HB 2051 (2015)

VERA INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE

61

Appendix B

STATE REFORMS TO SENTENCING AND CORRECTIONS BY TYPE, 2014 AND 2015

CREATES OR EXPANDS OPPORTUNITIES
TO DIVERT PEOPLE AWAY FROM
THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
BAIL
REFORM

STATE

PRE-ARREST
DIVERSION

PROBLEMSOLVING
COURTS

DEFERRED
ADJUDICATION

REDUCE PRISON POPULATIONS
MEDICATIONASSISTED
SUBSTANCE
ABUSE
TREATMENT

VETERANRELATED
REFORMS

REDUCES
PENALTIES
FOR
PROPERTY
OFFENSES

REDUCES
PENALTIES
FOR DRUG
OFFENSES

EXPANDS
MEDICAL
AMNESTY

CREATES
SAFETY
VALVES FROM
MANDATORY
MINIMUM
SENTENCES

SB 654 (2015)

HB 121 (2015)

SB 124 (2014)

Kentucky

SB 398/HB 683
(2014)

Louisiana

Maine

SB 532 (2014)

HB 461 (2014)
HB 149 (2015)

HP 1221 (2014)

SP 46 (2015)

Maryland

SB 364 (2014)

Michigan

SB 558 (2014)

Minnesota

SF 1900 (2014)

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

HB 33 (2015)

SB 219 (2015)

HB 412 (2015)

Nebraska

LB 439 (2015)

Nevada

SB 459 (2015)

New Hampshire

New Jersey

HB 1442 (2014)

HB 270 (2015)

Public Q 1
(2014)
SB 946 (2015)

S 2381 (2015)

New York

North Carolina

AB 6255 (2015)

HB 369 (2014)

North Dakota

62

LB 173 (2015)

JUSTICE IN REVIEW: NEW TRENDS IN STATE SENTENCING AND CORRECTIONS 2014-2015

SB 154 (2015)

HB 1394 (2015)
SB 2030 (2015)
SB 2029 (2015)

HB 1030 (2015)

ENACTS
GENERAL
SENTENCING
REFORM

SUPPORTS REENTRY INTO THE COMMUNITY

REDUCES
PROBATION/
INCREASES
PAROLE
OPPORTUNITIES
REVOCATIONS
FOR EARLY
AND SHORTENS
RELEASE
COMMUNITY
SENTENCES

HB 196 (2014)
SB 399 (2014)
HB 670 (2014)

COMPREHENSIVE
SOLITARY
CRIMINAL
CONFINEMENT
JUSTICE REFORM

HB 1257 (2014)

FACILITATES
CREATES OR
ACCESS TO
LIMITS PUBLIC
SUPPORTS
SUPPORTS
IDENTIFICATION
FACILITATES
EASES THE
ACCESS TO
REENTRY
FAMILY
PUBLIC
ACCESS TO
IMPACT OF
CRIMINAL
PROGRAMMING RELATIONSHIPS
BENEFITS
EMPLOYMENT FINES AND FEES
HISTORY
AND SERVICES
HOUSING
INFORMATION
AND VOTING

HB 781 (2014)

HB 505 (2014)
HB 1273 (2014)

SB 248 (2014)

HB 546 (2014)

HB 55 (2014)

ENSURES THAT
DATA-DRIVEN
RESEARCH AND
ANALYSIS TO
GUIDE REFORM

HR 203 (2015)

HP 1266 (2014)

HB 980 (2015)

SB 602 (2015)

SB 581 (2014)

HB 585 (2014)

HB 602 (2015)

HB 1665 (2014)
HB 1335 (2014)

SB 680 (2014)

HB 1231 (2014)

HB 135 (2015)

LB 907 (2014)

LB 605 (2015)

LB 598 (2015)

LB 907 (2014)

LB 907 (2014)

HB 649 (2014)
HB 472 (2015)

HB 1368 (2014)

S 2003 (2015)

AB 2295 (2014)

A858 (2015)

HB 1367 (2015)

HB 1144 (2014)

SB 3553 (2014)

HB 1106 (2015)

VERA INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE

63

Appendix B

STATE REFORMS TO SENTENCING AND CORRECTIONS BY TYPE, 2014 AND 2015

CREATES OR EXPANDS OPPORTUNITIES
TO DIVERT PEOPLE AWAY FROM
THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
BAIL
REFORM

STATE

PRE-ARREST
DIVERSION

PROBLEMSOLVING
COURTS

DEFERRED
ADJUDICATION

REDUCE PRISON POPULATIONS
MEDICATIONASSISTED
SUBSTANCE
ABUSE
TREATMENT

VETERANRELATED
REFORMS

REDUCES
PENALTIES
FOR
PROPERTY
OFFENSES

REDUCES
PENALTIES
FOR DRUG
OFFENSES

EXPANDS
MEDICAL
AMNESTY

CREATES
SAFETY
VALVES FROM
MANDATORY
MINIMUM
SENTENCES

ENACTS
GENERAL
SENTENCING
REFORM

Ohio

HB 1574
(2015)

HB 2859 (2014)

Oklahoma

Oregon

Measure 91
(2014)

Rhode Island

HB 7610 (2014)

South Carolina

S 426 (2015)

HB 1518 (2015) HB 1548 (2015)

HB 3014 (2014)

South Dakota

Tennessee

SB 711/HB 854
(2015)

HB 1904 (2014)

Texas

SB 1474 (2015)

Utah

SB 214 (2015)

Vermont

SB 295 (2014)

HB 1222 (2014)

Washington

SB 2627 (2014)

West Virginia

Wyoming

SB 205 (2014)

SB 295 (2014)

Virginia

64

HB 1396 (2015)

HB 1112 (2014) HB 1500 (2015)

SB 5107 (2015)

HB 2304 (2014)

SB 307 (2014)

HB 2880 (2015)

SB 38 (2015)

JUSTICE IN REVIEW: NEW TRENDS IN STATE SENTENCING AND CORRECTIONS 2014-2015

SB 523 (2015)

SUPPORTS REENTRY INTO THE COMMUNITY

REDUCES
PROBATION/
INCREASES
PAROLE
OPPORTUNITIES
REVOCATIONS
FOR EARLY
AND SHORTENS
RELEASE
COMMUNITY
SENTENCES

COMPREHENSIVE
SOLITARY
CRIMINAL
CONFINEMENT
JUSTICE REFORM

FACILITATES
CREATES OR
ACCESS TO
LIMITS PUBLIC
SUPPORTS
SUPPORTS
IDENTIFICATION
FACILITATES
EASES THE
ACCESS TO
REENTRY
FAMILY
PUBLIC
ACCESS TO
IMPACT OF
CRIMINAL
PROGRAMMING RELATIONSHIPS
BENEFITS
EMPLOYMENT FINES AND FEES
HISTORY
AND SERVICES
HOUSING
INFORMATION
AND VOTING

SB 143 (2014)

ENSURES THAT
DATA-DRIVEN
RESEARCH AND
ANALYSIS TO
GUIDE REFORM

HB 56 (2015)

SB 1914 (2014)
HB 2168 (2015)
HB 2179 (2015)

HB 3025 (2015)

HB 3168 (2015)

SB 364 (2015)

HB 2838 (2015)
SB 969 (2015)

S 237 (2015)
SB 900 (2014)

SB 77 (2014)

SB 276 (2014)

HB 1546 (2015)

HB 1083 (2015)

SB 200 (2015)
HB 1510 (2015)

SB 578 (2015)

HB 348 (2015)

HB 1742 (2014)

SB 1902 (2015)

HB 145 (2014)

HB 413 (2014)
Exec. Order 3

HB 325 (2014)

Exec. Order 49
(2015)

HB 4614 (2014)

HB 15 (2015)

SF 53 (2014)

VERA INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE

65

&/%/05&4

1

For budget trends, see National Association of State Budget Officers, “State
Spending for Corrections: Long-Term Trends and Recent Criminal Justice
Policy Reforms” (Washington, DC: National Association of State Budget Officers, 2013), 4; for statewide recidivism figures, see Pew Center on the States,
State of Recidivism: The Revolving Door of America’s Prisons (Washington,
DC: Pew Center on the States, 2011).

2

Ibid.

3

For research indicating that shorter sentences do not have an adverse impact
on public safety, see for example United States Sentencing Commission,
Recidivism among Offenders with Sentence Modifications Made Pursuant
to Retroactive Application of 2007 Crack Cocaine Amendment (Washington,
DC: United States Sentencing Commission, 2011).

4

For research about effective correctional strategies in the community, see
Peggy McGarry et al., The Potential of Community Corrections to Improve
Safety and Reduce Incarceration (New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2013).
Also see National Institute of Corrections and Crime and Justice Institute,
Implementing Evidence-Based Practice in Community Corrections: The
Principles of Effective Intervention (Washington, DC: Department of Justice,
National Institute of Corrections, 2004), and Christopher T. Lowenkamp and
Edward J. Latessa, “Understanding the Risk Principle: How and Why Correctional Interventions Harm Low-Risk Offenders” in Topics in Community
Corrections (Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections, 2004).

5

For information regarding prisoner reentry needs and challenges, see for
example Jeremy Travis, Amy Solomon, and Michelle Waul, From Prison to
Home: The Dimensions and Consequences of Prisoner Reentry (Washington
DC: The Urban Institute, 2001); for information regarding jail reentry needs
and challenges, see Jim Parsons, “Addressing the Unique Challenges of
Jail Reentry,” in Offender Reentry: Rethinking Criminology and Criminal
Justice, edited by Matthew Crow and John Smykla (Burlington, MA: Jones
& Bartlett Learning, 2014), and Talia Sandwick, Karen Tamis, Jim Parsons,
and Cesar Arauz-Cuadra, Making the Transition: Rethinking Jail Reentry in
Los Angeles County (New York: Vera Institute of Justice, February 2013). For
research that discusses specific risk factors for reoffending, see for example
Matthew Makarios, Benjamin Steiner, and Lawrence F. Travis III, “Examining
the Predictors of Recidivism Among Men and Women Released From Prison
In Ohio,” Criminal Justice and Behavior 37, no.12 (2010): 1377-1391. Devah
Pager, Marked: Race, Crime and Finding Work in an Era of Mass Incarceration (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2007), 59; and Talia Sandwick
et al., 2013. Regarding mass incarceration’s impact on communities, see
Todd R. Clear, Imprisoning Communities: How Mass Incarceration Makes
Disadvantaged Neighborhoods Worse (Buckingham, England: Open University Press, 2009). Regarding incarceration’s impact on families, see Donald
Braman, Doing Time on the Outside: Incarceration and Family Life in Urban
America (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2004) and Philip M. Genty,
“Damage to Family Relationships as a Collateral Consequence of Parental
Incarceration,” Fordham Urban Law Journal 30 (2002): 1671-1684. For mass
incarceration’s impact on African American families in particular, see Dorothy
E. Roberts, “The Social and Moral Cost of Mass Incarceration in African
American Communities,” Stanford Law Review 56 (2004): 1271-1305.

6

7

66

See for example Ram Subramanian, Rebecka Moreno, and Sharyn Broomhead, Recalibrating Justice: A Review of 2013 State Sentencing and Corrections Trends (New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2014). See also LaurenBrooke Eisen and Juliene James, Reallocating Justice Resources: A Review of
2011 State Sentencing Trends (New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2012); National Association of State Budget Officers, State Spending for Corrections:
Long-Term Trends and Recent Criminal Justice Policy Reforms (Washington,
DC: NASBO, 2013); and Alison Lawrence and Donna Lyons, Principles of
Effective State Sentencing and Corrections Policy (Washington, DC: National
Conference of State Legislatures, 2011).
Under the previous sentencing structure, for example, defendants with five
grams of crack cocaine were subject to the same penalty as those with 500
grams of powder cocaine. See Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, Pub. L. 111-220,
124 Stat. 2372.

8

President Barack Obama, Remarks by the President at the NAACP Conference, Philadelphia, PA, July 14, 2015. (available at https://perma.cc/DL8TQ2AE)

9

Ibid.

10 Jonathan Capehart, “Paul Ryan Got it right in his ‘state of American politics’
speech by admitting a mistake, Washington Post, Mar. 25, 2016 (https://
perma.cc/A4V2-J26W).
11 Peter Baker, “Obama, in Oklahoma, Takes Reform Message to the Prison
Block,” The New York Times, July 16, 2015, p. A1.
12 “What You Need to Know About the New Federal Prisoner Release,” The
Marshall Project, Oct. 6, 2015 (available at https://perma.cc/CE3S-YPJY).
This was a result of a decision by the United States Sentencing Commission
in 2014 to reduce the sentencing guidelines range for many federal drug
offenses and make the sentencing reduction retroactive—meaning that the
change would shorten prison stays for thousands of inmates who are already
serving time in federal facilities. Because Congress did not block the Commission’s decision, the change went into effect on November 1, 2014. Of the
nearly 6,000 people who were set to be released, only approximately 1,000
of these people went home directly. Many of them—about 3,500—left prison
for halfway houses or home confinement. Approximately 1,700 people were
transferred to the Department of Immigration and Customs Enforcement to
face possible deportation hearings.
13 Michael D. Shear, "Obama Commutes Sentences of 58 Nonviolent Offenders," The New York Times, May 6, 2016, p. A13; Sari Horowitz, "President
Obama Just Commuted the Sentences of 58 people. Here are their names,"
Washington Post, May 5, 2016 (https://perma.cc/GA56-ZVJ4).
14 Ram Subramanian, Rebecka Moreno, and Sophie Gebreselassie, Relief in
Sight? (New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2014).
15 See for example Christopher T. Lowenkamp and Edward J. Latessa, 2004.
16 Devah Pager, 2007; Talia Sandwick et al., 2013. Regarding mass incarceration’s
impact on communities, see Todd R. Clear, 2009. Regarding its impact on families, see Donald Braman, 2004, and Philip M. Genty, 2002. For mass incarceration’s impact on African American families in particular, see Dorothy E. Roberts,
2004.
17 The percentage of the jail population reporting a mental illness—15 percent
for men and 31 percent for women—is estimated at up to six times that
of the general population—3 percent for men and 5 percent for women.
Subramanian et al., Incarceration’s Front Door : The Misuse of Jails in
America (New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2015); A 2014 report issued by
the Treatment Advocacy Center found that the population of individuals
with diagnosed mental illness in the criminal justice system was 10 times the
population of those housed in mental health treatment facilities throughout
the country. E. Fuller Torrey, et al., The Treatment of Persons with Mental
Illness in Prisons and Jails: A State Survey (Arlington, VA: Treatment Advocacy
Center, 2014), 6. Police officers properly trained to do on-site risk and needs
assessment of people with mental illness are able to divert certain offenders
to proper care facilities. For people with mental illness who have committed
an offense requiring arrest and booking, proper risk and needs assessment
in the early stages of prosecution can reduce the time spent in custody,
and shift the focus toward diversion and community treatment. H. Richard
Lamb, Linda E. Weinberger, and Walter J. Decuir, Jr., “The Police and Mental
Health,” Psychiatric Services 53, no. 10 (October 2002): 1266-1271.
18 Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) training is based on a system originally
developed in Memphis that “provides a forum for effective problem solving
regarding the interaction between the criminal justice and mental health
care system and creates the context for sustainable change.” Randolph
Dupont, Major Sam Cochran, and Sarah Pillsbury, Crisis Intervention Team
Core Elements (Memphis, TN: The University of Memphis School of Urban
Affairs and Public Policy, 2007), 3. Through officer training and cooperation
with local mental health professionals and agencies, CITs provide on-scene
intervention and problem-solving to divert those with mental illness away
from the criminal justice system and into appropriate community facilities.
Ibid.

JUSTICE IN REVIEW: NEW TRENDS IN STATE SENTENCING AND CORRECTIONS 2014-2015

19 The use of deferred adjudication has been proven to reduce both the cost
of incarceration and the rate of recidivism. Council of State Governments
Justice Center, Lessons from the States: Reducing Recidivism and Curbing
Corrections Costs Through Justice Reinvestment (New York, NY: Council of
State Governments Justice Center, 2013), 4.
20 “Problem-solving courts each seek to address a different set of problems,
from systemic concerns such as exponential increases in criminal caseloads,
growing jail and prison populations, and decreasing public confidence in
justice, to individual-level problems like drug addiction, domestic violence
and community disorganization.” Rachel Porter, Michael Rempel, and Adam
Mansky, What Makes a Court Problem-Solving? (New York: Center for Court
Innovation, 2010), 1.
21 West Huddleston and Douglas B. Marlowe, Painting the Current Picture: A
National Report on Drug Courts and Other Problem-Solving Court Programs
in the United States (Alexandria, VA: National Drug Court Institute, 2011), 7.
22 For information on the efficacy of problem-solving courts, see C. West Huddleston III, Douglas B. Marlow, and Rachel Casebolt, Painting the Current
Picture: A National Report Card on Drug Courts and Other Problem Solving
Court Programs in the United States, Vol. 2, No. 1 (Alexandria, VA: National
Drug Court Institute, 2008), 6-8. See also Shelli B. Rossman et al., Multi-Site
Adult Drug Court Evaluation (MADCE), 2003-2009 (Ann Arbor, MI: Interuniversity Consortium for Political and Social Research, 2012).
23 On studies challenging claims about the recidivism-reduction and costreduction impact of problem-solving courts, see “Drug Courts: Overview
of Growth, Characteristics, and Results” (Washington, DC: U.S. General Accounting Office, 1997); on requiring mandatory longer-term and more restrictive treatment than is clinically necessary, see Jim Parsons et al., The End of
an Era? The Impact of Drug Reform in New York City (New York: Vera Institute
of Justice, 2015); on reorienting drug courts around clinically appropriate
treatment methods, see “Drug Courts Are Not the Answer: Toward a HealthCentered Approach to Drug Use” (New York: Drug Policy Alliance, 2011).
24 Specialty court programs includes: (1) A pre-adjudication program (2) An
approved drug court program; (3) A Swift and Certain Accountability on
Probation Pilot Program; and (4) Any other specialty court program that has
been approved by the Supreme Court, including DWI courts, mental health
courts, veterans courts, drug courts, “HOPE” courts, “smarter sentencing”
courts, and mental health crisis intervention centers.
25 Vera Institute of Justice, The Continuing Fiscal Crisis in Corrections: Setting a
New Course (New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2010), 4-6.
26 On the limited impact long sentences have on crime rates, see Oliver Roeder,
Lauren-Brooke Eisen, and Julia Bowling, What Caused the Crime Decline?
(New York: Brennan Center for Justice, 2015), 7-8. On the failure of long
sentences in reducing recidivism, see The Pew Center on the States, State of
Recidivism: The Revolving Door of America’s Prisons (Washington, DC: The
Pew Center on the States, 2011). For research indicating that shorter sentences
do not have an adverse impact on public safety, see for example United
States Sentencing Commission, Recidivism among Offenders with Sentence
Modifications Made Pursuant to Retroactive Application of 2007 Crack Cocaine
Amendment (Washington, DC: United States Sentencing Commission, 2011).
27 See generally Alison Lawrence, Making Sense of Sentencing: State Systems
and Policies (Denver, CO: National Conference of State Legislatures, 2015), 2.
28 Based on internal 50-state-survey research done by the Vera Institute of
Justice, January 2015.
29 See E. Ann Carson, Prisoners in 2013 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Justice, 2014), Table 14.
30 Ram Subramanian, Rebecka Moreno, Drug War Détente? A Review of Statelevel Drug Law Reform, 2009-2013 (New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2014).

31 This law is modeled on the federal precedent, which similarly eliminated
such disparities. The Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, Public Law 111-220, 124
STAT. 2372, amended the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 841) to
make federal sentencing guidelines more equitable by shifting the threshold amount of crack cocaine required that triggers prosecution and mandatory minimums. Previously, the penalties were widely disparate, resulting in
a discriminatory racial impact.
32 For example, possession of marijuana becomes a Class B misdemeanor instead of Class A; dealing in marijuana becomes a Class A misdemeanor, unless the person has a prior drug conviction and the amount of drug involved
is over a certain weight, which makes it a Level 5 or 6 felony offense.
33 For a review of evaluations on the crime-deterrent effect of mandatory
penalties, see Michael Tonry, “The Mostly Unintended Effects of Mandatory
Penalties: Two Centuries of Consistent Findings,” 38 Crime & Justice (2009)
94-96. Also see Marc A. Levin and Vikrant P. Reddy, The Verdict on Federal
Prison Reform: State Successes Offer Keys to Reducing Crime & Costs (Austin: Texas Public Policy Foundation, July 2013); Alison Lawrence and Donna
Lyons, 2011; Cheryl Davidson, Outcomes of Mandatory Minimum Sentences
for Drug Traffickers (Des Moines: Iowa State Advisory Board, Division of
Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning, Iowa Department of Human Rights,
2011); Marc Mauer, “The Impact of Mandatory Minimum Penalties in Federal
Sentencing.” (Nashville: Judicature, 2010, Volume 94, Number 1); Nicole
D. Porter, The State of Sentencing 2012 (Washington, DC: The Sentencing
Project, 2012). For the impact of long sentences on recidivism, see The Pew
Center on the States, State of Recidivism: The Revolving Door of America’s
Prisons (Washington, DC: The Pew Center on the States, 2011).
34 To read more about the history and current trends in mandatory minimum sentencing, see Ram Subramanian and Ruth Delaney, Playbook for
Change? States Reconsider Mandatory Sentences (New York: Vera Institute
of Justice, 2014).
35 States have also allowed early discharge from community supervision
through earned credits. See for example, Illinois SB 3267 and Louisiana HB
1257.
36 Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. ___ (2012). Building upon prior cases that barred
capital punishment for juveniles, and life without the possibility of parole
for juveniles in non-homicide cases, the Supreme Court did not summarily
ban sentencing juveniles to life without the possibility of parole, but instead
acknowledged that such a mandatory sentencing scheme was inappropriate
and that “a judge or jury must have the opportunity to consider mitigating
circumstances before imposing the harshest possible penalty for juveniles.”
Miller slip op. at 27.
37 See, for example, Ram Subramanian et al., Recalibrating Justice, 2014: 16-24.
38 Ibid., p.15.
39 See Cecelia Klingele, “Rethinking the Use of Community Supervision,”
Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 103, no. 4 (2013): 1019 & n.14 (citing
reports from 2005 and 2007).
40 Amy L. Solomon, et al., Putting Public Safety First: 13 Parole Supervision
Strategies to Enhance Reentry Outcomes (Washington, DC: Urban Institute,
Justice Policy Center, 2008)
41 Nancy LaVigne, et al., Justice Reinvestment Initiative State Assessment
Report (Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 2014), 19-20.
42 See for example, Oregon Department of Corrections, The Effectiveness of
Community-Based Sanctions in Reducing Recidivism (Salem, OR: Oregon
Department of Corrections, 2002).
43 Ibid., p. 4.

VERA INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE

67

44 A validated risk and needs assessment tool uses an algorithm based on
criminal history data and personal characteristics (age, education, etc.) to assess someone’s risk of reoffending and to identify the kind of treatment that
could mitigate the risk of reoffending.
45 See generally A Shared Sentence: the devastating toll of parental incarceration on kids, families and communities (Baltimore, MD: The Annie E. Casey
Foundation, 2016).
46 For information regarding prisoner reentry needs and challenges, see for example, Jeremy Travis et al., 2001. Devah Pager, 2007, 59; and Talia Sandwick
et al., 2013.
47 Ram Subramanian and Rebecka Moreno, Relief in Sight? 2014: 4-9. Also see,
Lois M. Davis, et. al., Evaluating the Effectiveness of Correctional Education
(Washington DC: RAND Corporation, 2013), 2-4.
48 For research that discusses specific risk factors for reoffending, see for example, M. Makarios et. al., 2010: 1377-1391.
49 See generally Jeremy Travis et al., 2001. “[M]ost [returning inmates] have not
completed high school, have limited employment skills, and have histories
of substance abuse and health problems….Returning prisoners have served
longer prison sentences than in the past, meaning they may be less attached
to jobs, their families, and the communities to which they return.” Ibid., p. 9.
50 Solomon et al., 2008: 14-15.
51 Nancy La Vigne, et al., Release Planning for Successful Reentry: A Guide for
Corrections, Service Providers and Community Groups (Washington, DC: The
Urban Institute, 2008).
52 The legislation also expands eligibility for certain treatment options as a condition of probation for people who have committed nonviolent methamphetamine offenses.
53 For more on the connection between family contact and reduced behavioral
infractions see John D. Wooldredge, “Inmate Experiences and Psychological
Well-Being,” Criminal Justice and Behavior 26, no. 2 (1999): 235-250; see also
Shanhe Jiang and L. Thomas Winfree, “Social Support, Gender, and Inmate
Adjustment to Prison Life: Insights from a National Sample,” The Prison
Journal 86, no. 1 (2006): 34, 50-51. For more on the connection between
family contact and recidivism, see Grant Duwe and Valerie Clark, “Blessed
Be the Social Tie that Binds: The Effects of Prison Visitation on Offender
Recidivism,” Criminal Justice Policy Review 24, no. 3 (2013): 271-296; see also
Williams D. Bales and Daniel P. Mears, “Inmate Social Ties and the Transition
to Society: Does Visitation Reduce Recidivism?” The Journal of Research in
Crime and Delinquency 45, no. 3 (2008): 287-321.
54 Vera Institute of Justice, Why Ask About Family? (New York: Vera Institute of
Justice, 2011).
55 A recent meta-analysis of extant research found that children of incarcerated
parents were more than three times as likely as other children to become
justice-involved. See James M. Conway and Edward T. Jones, Seven Out of
Ten? Not Even Close: A Review of Research on the Likelihood of Children
with Incarcerated Parents Becoming Justice-Involved (New Britain, CT: Central Connecticut State University, 2015), 5.
56 Nancy La Vigne, et al., 2008.
57 For research that addresses the effects of employment, housing, and educational opportunities on recidivism, see Matthew Makarios, et al., 2010: 13771391. See also Alfred Blumstein and Kiminori Nakamura, “Redemption in the
Presence of Widespread Criminal Background Checks,” Criminology 47, no.
2 (2009): 331.
58 For information on the limited availability of future federal loan assistance for
people who were convicted of drug offenses while receiving federal financial
aid, see Office of National Drug Control Policy and U.S. Department of Education, FAFSA Facts, available at https://perma.cc/VH87-JFWN.
59 Incarceration reduces hourly wages for men by 11 percent, annual employment by nine weeks, and annual earnings by 40 percent. The Economic
Mobility Project and The Public Safety Performance Project, Collateral Costs:

68

Incarceration’s Effect on Economic Mobility (Washington, DC: The Pew Charitable Trusts, 2010), 4.
60 Michelle N. Rodriguez and Maurice Emsellem, 65 Million “Need Not Apply”:
The Case For Reforming Criminal Background Checks for Employment (New
York, NY: The National Employment Law Project, 2011). In 2010, black men
between the ages of 20 and 24 were more likely to be incarcerated than
employed and black men were six times as likely to be incarcerated as their
white counterparts. See George Gao, Pew Research Center, “Chart of the
Week: The Black-White Gap in Incarceration Rates,” July 18, 2014. https://
perma.cc/8TTC-Y5NF
61 According to the Society for Human Resource Management, the two most
common reasons for not hiring ex-offenders are the risk of a crime being
committed at work and the fear of a negligent hiring lawsuit. See Society
for Human Resource Management, “Background Checking—The Use of
Criminal Background Checks in Hiring Decisions,” Jul. 19, 2012. Some states
that provide certificates of rehabilitation protect employers from some claims
of tort liability in the event an employee with a criminal history and certificate
of rehabilitation commits a crime or causes harm to another person (for
example, a customer, client, or another employee) while carrying out his or
her work duties.
62 Subramanian, et al. Incarceration’s Front Door, 2015: 15-16. In addition, since
2010, at least 24 states have allowed a “pay-to-stay” policy for prisons and
jails, under which people who are incarcerated pay fees for their care and
lodging. This number is likely a low estimate of actual practices, because
many states implement fees through departmental policy and other nonlegislative routes. See Lauren-Brooke Eisen, “Paying for Your Time: How
Charging Inmates Fees Behind Bars May Violate the Excessive Fines Clause,”
Loyola Journal of Public Interest Law, 15 (Spring 2014): 322-323. Indeed,
across the country, people in jails and prisons pay anywhere from $1 a day to
$155 a day for room and board, with additional fees for medical costs, toiletries, and transportation. Lauren-Brooke Eisen, Brennan Center for Justice
blog, “Tennessee Inmates Must ‘Pay-to-Stay,’” https://perma.cc/5UNR-7TES
(August 28, 2013).
63 An example of such an outcome is the story of a Georgia man, arrested
for stealing a can of beer, who was offered electronic monitoring in lieu of
incarceration. Since he could not afford the nearly $400-per-month fees, he
was sentenced to 12 months in jail. See Joseph Shapiro, “Measures Aimed at
Keeping People Out of Jail Punish the Poor,” NPR News, May 24, 2014; see
also Lauren-Brooke Eisen, Charging Inmates Perpetuates Mass Incarceration
(New York, NY: Brennan Center for Justice, 2015).
64 Wayne A. Logan, “Informal Collateral Consequences,” Washington Law
Review 88 (2013) at 1104-5 and 1107-1109. Also see, Jenny Roberts, “Why
Misdemeanors Matter: Defining Effective Advocacy in the Lower Criminal
Courts,” UC Davis Law Review 45 (2011): 287-88.
65 Regarding technology’s impact on the accessibility of criminal history information, see James Jacobs and Tamara Crepet, “The Expanding Scope, Use, and
Availability of Criminal Records,” NYU Journal of Legislation & Public Policy
11 (2008): 177. For an overview of commercial criminal record databases, see
SEARCH, The National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics,
"Report of the National Task Force on the Commercial Sale of Criminal Justice
Record Information" (Sacramento, CA: SEARCH Group, 2005).
66 Most states’ websites have an online request form, where, for a nominal fee,
a visitor can access statewide criminal records. The application carries a disclaimer that records cannot be guaranteed to be correct or up to date, and
should not be used for employment or housing purposes. However, there are
no mechanisms by which a state can monitor the purpose of a background
check. For examples of state policies and background check applications,
see Tennessee Open Records Information Service, https://perma.cc/W3XBBUVB; New York State Department of Criminal Justice Services, https://
perma.cc/75AY-XDKH; Ohio Bureau of Criminal Investigation, https://perma.
cc/2NU4-DPWY.
67 National Conference of State Legislatures, “Mug Shots and Booking Photos,” November 11, 2014.
68 For information regarding the collateral effects of arrest records, see Shawn
D. Stuckey, “Collateral Effects of Arrests in Minnesota,” University of St.
Thomas Law Journal 5, no. 1 (2008): 335; H. Lane Dennard, Jr. and Patrick C.

JUSTICE IN REVIEW: NEW TRENDS IN STATE SENTENCING AND CORRECTIONS 2014-2015

DiCarlo, Collateral Consequences of Arrests and Convictions: Policy and
Law in Georgia (Macon, GA: Mercer Law School, 2009); and Gary Fields and
John R. Emshwiller, “As Arrest Records Rise, Americans Find Consequences
Can Last a Lifetime,” Wall Street Journal, August 18, 2014. b Stuckey, 2008,
pp. 343-344.
69 For the remainder of the bill summaries in this section, where we refer to
publishing photos or information, we are referring to both print and electronic distribution.
70 Dan Adams, “Legal marijuana could be a $1.1 billion industry in Mass. by
2020,” Boston Globe, Mar. 27, 2016.
71 Rick Green, “Oklahoma House passes criminal justice reform measures”,
The Oklahoman, Mar. 8, 2016; Graham Lee Brewer, “Coalition wants to give
voters a choice on criminal justice reform in Oklahoma,” The Oklahoman,
Jan. 29, 2016.
72 Graham Lee Brewer, “Is criminal justice reform in Oklahoma on the table
for the 2015 legislative session?” The Oklahoman, Nov. 24, 2014; Gene
Perry, “Has Governor Fallin turned a corner on criminal justice reform?,
Oklahoma Policy Institute , okpolicy.org, Sept. 15, 2014, https://perma.
cc/7UCQ-A65H.

VERA INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE

69

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Fred Patrick for his insight and guidance throughout the drafting of this report. A special thank you to Patricia Connelly, Alice Chasan,
and Erika Turner for their hard work in the editing and review process; Carl Ferrero
for designing the report; Kristine Riley for her research assistance; and, as always,
Mary Crowley for her generous assistance. Finally, we’d like to thank our former and
current legal and graduate interns who contributed essential research and editing
at various stages—Kathleen Culhane, Christina Domínguez, Sophie Klinger, and
Khushboo Sapru.

ABOUT CITATIONS: As researchers and readers alike rely more and more on public
knowledge made available through the Internet, “link rot” has become a widely
acknowledged problem with creating useful and sustainable citations. To address
this issue, the Vera Institute of Justice is experimenting with the use of Perma.cc
(https://perma.cc), a service that helps scholars, journals, and courts create permanent links to the online sources cited in their work.

ª
7FSB
*OTUJUVUF
PG
+VTUJDF

"MM
SJHIUT
SFTFSWFE
"O
FMFDUSPOJD
WFSTJPO
PG
UIJT
SFQPSU
JT
QPTUFE
PO
7FSBT
XFCTJUF
BU
XXXWFSBPSHQVCTTUBUFTFOUFODJOHBOEDPSSFDUJPOT
USFOET
5IF
7FSB
*OTUJUVUF
PG
+VTUJDF
JT
BO
JOEFQFOEFOU
OPOQSPmU
PSHBOJ[BUJPO
UIBU
DPNCJOFT
FYQFSUJTF
JO
SFTFBSDI

EFNPOTUSBUJPO
QSPKFDUT


BOE
UFDIOJDBM
BTTJTUBODF
UP
IFMQ
MFBEFST
JO
HPWFSONFOU
BOE
DJWJM
TPDJFUZ
JNQSPWF
UIF
TZTUFNT
QFPQMF
SFMZ
PO
GPS
KVTUJDF
BOE
TBGFUZ

'PS
NPSF
JOGPSNBUJPO

WJTJU
XXXWFSBPSH
'PS
NPSF
JOGPSNBUJPO
BCPVU
UIJT
SFQPSU
BOE
7FSBT
XPSL
PO
TFOUFODJOH
BOE
DPSSFDUJPOT
QPMJDZ
XJUIJO
UIF
DSJNJOBM
KVTUJDF
TZTUFN


QMFBTF
DPOUBDU
3BN
4VCSBNBOJBO

EJSFDUPS
PG
QVCMJDBUJPOT

$FOUFS
PO
4FOUFODJOH
BOE
$PSSFDUJPOT

BU
STVCSBNBOJBO!WFSBPSH


© Vera Institute of Justice 2016. All rights reserved.

Suggested Citation
3FCFDDB
4JMCFS

3BN
4VCSBNBOJBO

BOE
.BJB
4QPUUT
Justice in Review: New Trends in
State Sentencing and Corrections 2014-2015.
/FX
:PSL
7FSB
*OTUJUVUF
PG
+VTUJDF




7FSB
*OTUJUVUF
PG
+VTUJDF

#SPBEXBZ

UI
'MPPS
/FX
:PSL

/:

5FM
	


'BY
	



8BTIJOHUPO
%$
0GmDF

UI
4U
/8

4VJUF


8BTIJOHUPO

%$

5FM
	


'BY
	



/FX
0SMFBOT
0GmDF

$BSPOEFMFU
4U

/FX
0SMFBOT

-"

5FM
	




'BY
	



-PT
"OHFMFT
0GmDF

8JMTIJSF
#MWE

4VJUF


-PT
"OHFMFT

$"

5FM
	


'BY