CENTER ON SENTENCING AND CORRECTIONS

Report of the Vera Institute of
Justice to the Tennessee Governor’s
Task Force on Sentencing and
Recidivism
Summary and Analysis of the Task Force’s
Recommendations to the Public Safety Subcabinet

Christine Herrman
Rebecca Silber
Sara Sullivan
Elena Vanko
Jessa Wilcox
Vera Institute of Justice
June 6, 2015

Report to the Governor’s
Task Force on Sentencing and Recidivism
June 5, 2015

This report is an overview and analysis of the work to date of the Tennessee Governor’s Task
Force on Sentencing and Recidivism from the Vera Institute of Justice. It includes background
information, a summary and analysis of the current proposed recommendations, answers to the
questions raised by the Task Force in work group meetings and in the May 2015 Task Force
meeting, and suggestions for additional consideration. This is not the draft report of the Task
Force, which the Task Force will receive for its review and comment later this summer. Rather,
this is Vera’s analysis and guidance to the Task Force regarding the current state of the
recommendations and decision-making process, with suggestions for additional considerations.
Vera’s analysis also incorporates impact projections on the Tennessee Department of
Correction’s (TDOC) prison population, where available.
Overview and Summary
This report is primarily an analysis of the current Task Force recommendations, organized by
work group. The current recommendations of the work groups are:
Sentencing Structure
1. Revise the current sentencing structure in order to achieve greater certainty and
transparency at the time of sentencing.
2. Establish a criminal justice research council to provide a nonpartisan forum for statewide
sentencing policy development, information development, research, and planning
concerning criminal sentences and their impacts.
3. Implement risk analysis at all stages of decision-making, including pre-trial, sentencing,
and post-prison supervision.
Sentencing Classifications and Enhancements
4. Raise the felony property crime threshold to $1,000.
5. Enhance penalties for repeat drug trafficking.
6. Enhance penalties for repeat aggravated burglary.
7. Enforce more severe penalties on repeat domestic violence offenders by enhancing a third
or subsequent domestic violence misdemeanor conviction to a felony, and make an arrest
for domestic violence assault trigger an automatic order of protection.
8. Allow restricted driver’s licenses for those who lose their licenses as a result of unpaid
fines for non-moving violations or convictions in criminal cases.
Community Supervision
9. Establish individualized case plans for offenders on community supervision.

Vera Institute of Justice

| Report to the Governor’s Task Force on Sentencing and Recidivism

1

10. Use positive incentives as a key component to supervision, including establishment of a
structured incentive system and implementation of earned discharge from community
supervision.
11. Reevaluate standard and special conditions of community supervision by reducing the
number of standard and special supervision conditions and tailoring supervision
conditions to fit an individual offender’s risks and needs.
12. Convene a committee of stakeholders to reexamine the management and treatment of sex
offenders.
13. Identify alternative responses for those under community supervision who are not
compliant with payment of fines and fees, allowing offenders to keep driver’s licenses.
14. Develop additional alternative responses for non-compliance with conditions of probation
and parole when such non-compliance does not rise to the level of a new felony. Such
alternative responses should include administrative, short-term jail sanctions (1-7 days)
and a pilot probation revocation center that allows work release.
15. Require mandatory post-prison supervision with targeted services.
16. Provide intensive reentry planning for offenders who will leave prison with no
community supervision. Consider a transitional housing program with a work/study
release component.
17. Reconsider statutory limitations on eligibility for earned and good time in prison.
18. Incorporate a coaching model into training and implementation plans when rolling out
new, or enforcing current, policies, programs, and practices in community supervision.
Programming & Treatment
19. Invest in transitional programming and treatment services pre- and post-release to reduce
recidivism. Such programming and treatment must be evidence-based, cost-competitive,
and responsive to the needs of the targeted population.
20. Provide fiscal, administrative, and legal support for a Social Impact Bond model of
investment to pilot promising reentry programs in at least two counties.
21. Ensure that risk and needs assessments are standardized and uniformly used as part of a
comprehensive treatment and programming continuum from jail intake through reentry.
22. Continue to expand the use of recovery and specialty courts statewide.
23. Complete issuance of state identification cards to all TDOC inmates upon release.
Proposals currently under consideration are:
1. Invest in effective interventions to combat aggravated assault, particularly for offenders
aged 18-34, and create opportunities in state law to sentence these offenders to these
alternatives.
2. Cap the amount of time an offender can serve in a secure setting due to a revocation of
probation or parole based on a violation that is not a new felony offense.
For each work group and each recommendation or proposal, Vera has provided context and
analysis of the recommendation’s or the proposal’s potential impact on reducing recidivism,
prison population and costs, and improving public safety, based on available research and the
experience of other jurisdictions. Based on this analysis, the Task Force’s recommendations fall
into one of three categories:

Vera Institute of Justice

| Report to the Governor’s Task Force on Sentencing and Recidivism

2

•

•

•

First, recommendations or proposals under consideration that have the potential to
enhance public safety, reduce recidivism, and reduce prison population and costs
(Recommendations 2, 4, 8, 9-13, 15-23; Proposal 1; see pages 9-11, 13, 15, 17-19, and
21-28);
Second, recommendations or proposals under consideration that may have the potential
to enhance public safety, reduce recidivism, and reduce prison population and costs,
depending on the details and safeguards adopted (Recommendations 1, 3, 14; Proposal 2;
see pages 8, 10, 20, and 22); and
Third, recommendations or proposals under consideration whose impacts on enhancing
public safety and reducing recidivism are not supported by available research
(Recommendations 5-7, see pages 13-14).

Background
Since 1981, Tennessee’s imprisonment rate, measured by the number of people incarcerated per
100,000 residents, has climbed 256 percent, from 171 in 1981 to 438 in 2013, according to data
from the U.S. Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics.1 In the most recent statewide
study of recidivism, from 2010, the percentage of people released from prison or jail in
Tennessee who were reincarcerated within three years was 46 percent, and this rate remained
relatively flat for the 2001 to 2005 release cohorts.2
In recent years the national prison population has begun to decline, and states around the country
have achieved reductions in their prison populations, their recidivism rates, and their crime rates.
In 2013, a number of states in the South saw their total prison and jail populations decrease from
the previous year: Georgia (-2.6%), Kentucky (-4.9%), Louisiana (-2.2%), Mississippi (-1.6%),
North Carolina (-0.6%), South Carolina (-1.5%).3 During that same time, Tennessee’s prison
population grew by 0.4 percent. Between 2008 (when the national prison population reached its
peak) and 2013, the 10 states with the largest decreases in their imprisonment rate also
experienced an average 13 percent decline in their crime rates.4 While Tennessee’s overall crime
rate has declined since 2010, its violent crime rate ranks among the top five U.S. states.5 Several
states that have undertaken comprehensive criminal justice reforms in recent years have achieved
significant reductions in their recidivism rates, such as Georgia (-10%), North Carolina (-19.3%)

1

E. Ann Carson, Prisoners in 2013 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics,
2014, NCJ 247282), 7; Stephanie Minor-Harper, Prisoners in 1981 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,
Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1982, NCJ 82262), 2.
2
Mary Karpos, Tennessee Department of Correction Recidivism Study Felon Releases 2001-2007 (Nashville, TN:
Tennessee Department of Correction, 2010), 4.
3
Carson, Prisoners in 2013, p. 3.
4
Pew Charitable Trusts, Most States Cut Imprisonment and Crime (Washington, DC: Pew Charitable Trusts, 2015).
5
Tennessee is one of fifteen states that are compliant with the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS).
NIBRS has more robust reporting requirements, and counts far more crime than the more commonly used Uniform
Crime Reports (UCR) system. As a result, it is common that NIBRS-compliant states report a higher rate of crime
than UCR states. However, Tennessee’s violent crime rate is far above that of even the other 14 NIBRS-compliant
states. FBI, Crime in the United States 2013 (Washington, D.C.: FBI, 2014), Table 5; BJS, Status of NIBRS in the
States (Washington, D.C.: BJS, 2014).6 National Reentry Resource Center, Reducing Recidivism: States Deliver
Results (New York: Council of State Governments Justice Center, 2014), 1.
Vera Institute of Justice

| Report to the Governor’s Task Force on Sentencing and Recidivism

3

and South Carolina (-17.9%), all with recidivism rates below 29% for their 2010 release
cohorts.6
These issues—high recidivism rates, a growing prison population, and an unacceptably high
violent crime rate—were the impetus for the creation of the Governor’s Task Force on
Sentencing and Recidivism. The Task Force will make recommendations to the Public Safety
Subcabinet, a multiagency executive branch group chaired by Commissioner Bill Gibbons of the
Department of Safety and Homeland Security, which leads and coordinates Governor Haslam’s
public safety policy initiatives.
The Task Force and its Mission
In August 2014, Governor Haslam appointed 27 members to the Governor’s Task Force on
Sentencing and Recidivism. The Task Force includes six members of the General Assembly, five
current and former district attorneys general, three sheriffs and police chiefs, a county mayor,
five executive branch officials, three judges, one public defender, one victim advocate, one
community programming provider, and two representatives of the business community. It met
for the first time in September 2014. The Task Force was charged by the Governor with a
mission:
To improve public safety in Tennessee by identifying (1) strategies to reduce
recidivism among individuals leaving prisons and jails and (2) changes to
sentencing laws and practices that will more effectively use criminal justice
resources to reduce crime and address the growth of the prison and jail
population.
To achieve its mission, the Task Force is supported by the Vera Institute of Justice (Vera) and
staff from the Governor’s Public Safety Subcabinet. The Task Force will make recommendations
to the Governor through this Public Safety Subcabinet by the end of the summer of 2015.
There is no one answer or silver bullet to address public safety challenges such as crime rates
and prison population growth, but the Task Force’s title and mission are appropriate places to
start.
Prison populations are the result of two factors: the number of new prison admissions and how
long individuals stay. Sentencing laws control both the classification of crimes (which offenses
merit a prison sentence) and the length of sentences or sentence ranges.
Recidivism, a return to prison for a new crime or a violation of the terms of community
supervision, generally results from a previously incarcerated individual’s inability to return to a
law-abiding life in the community. Sentences for those who commit a new crime after release
from prison or jail are likely to be longer because they have previously been convicted and
served prison or jail time. Thus, recidivists contribute to both the prison population (because they
6

National Reentry Resource Center, Reducing Recidivism: States Deliver Results (New York: Council of State
Governments Justice Center, 2014), 1.
Vera Institute of Justice

| Report to the Governor’s Task Force on Sentencing and Recidivism

4

are new admissions and will likely serve a somewhat longer sentence as a repeat offender) and to
a rising crime rate.
Guiding Principles
As the Task Force pursues its mission of identifying ways to reduce recidivism and effectively
use criminal justice resources to improve public safety, it is helpful to review the approaches that
have guided the discussions of the work groups.
Rather than relying on anecdotes, recent headlines, or intuition to judge the effectiveness of
policies or programs, a policy-recommending body like the Task Force has to examine empirical
evidence of their effects. Evidence-based Practices (EBP) are policies, programs, or approaches
for which there is consistent, scientific evidence of effectiveness; well-designed empirical studies
have proven them to have measurable, successful outcomes. In its work, the Task Force has
considered policies and practices—ranging from community programming to community
supervision practices—that have demonstrated their ability to reduce recidivism and therefore
increase public safety. Implementing practices that are evidence-based will enable Tennessee to
build on the lessons learned in other jurisdictions, invest limited resources in more effective
programs, and maximize the prospect of reducing recidivism and increasing public safety.
The foundation of most evidence-based criminal justice practices are the principles of Risk,
Needs, and Responsivity (RNR). Assessing an individual for his or her “risk” places the person
within a group according to the overall demonstrated likelihood of persons within that group
committing a crime, while needs refer to the factors that research has linked to criminal behavior
and that make it more likely the person will offend, known as “criminogenic needs”.
Responsivity requires that, to be most effective, programs and supervision approaches must be
tailored to the learning styles, psychological and emotional state, and cultural background of the
offender and be provided by well-trained staff. To reduce the risk of recidivism, it is crucial to
assess offenders’ individual risk levels and particular criminogenic needs using validated
assessment tools, and to respond appropriately to these risks and needs. Interventions should be
targeted to specific needs and differentiate between offenders of different risk levels. Higher-risk
offenders with greater criminogenic needs should receive more intensive services for a longer
time, while those at lower levels should receive minimal interventions. Assessing risk and needs
can enhance the effectiveness of policies at multiple stages of the criminal justice system—from
pre-trial detention decisions to probation and parole supervision.
Many of the Task Force’s recommendations wisely incorporate evidence-based practices and
encompass the principles of risk, needs, and responsivity.
The Work Groups
Under the leadership of Commissioner Bill Gibbons (Department of Safety and Homeland
Security) and Commissioner Derrick Schofield (Department of Correction), the Task Force
divided into four work groups, with members choosing the group they wished to join:

Vera Institute of Justice

| Report to the Governor’s Task Force on Sentencing and Recidivism

5

Sentencing
1.
Sentencing Structure
2.
Sentencing Classifications and Enhancements
Reducing Recidivism
3.
Community Supervision
4.
Programming and Treatment
To date, the Task Force has held five full meetings. Additionally, its work groups have met both
in person and by conference call at and between these meetings.
Dividing the Task Force into work groups has allowed members to engage with relevant topics,
learn more about them, and make more specific recommendations to the Subcabinet. Each work
group’s goals and topics were chosen by the members. The work groups met during Task Force
meetings and between them (about 5-7 times each), heard from experts and practitioners from
other jurisdictions, and received substantive reports and memoranda from Vera. Nine months,
however, is a short span of time to delve deeply into the complex issues of sentencing and
recidivism. As a consequence, some of the recommendations from work groups are awaiting
further detailed analysis of their impact on public safety, prison populations and other factors;
others raise issues for future consideration in policy areas that the Task Force did not have time
to explore fully.
Below are reports on the activities and recommendations of each of the four work groups,
accompanied by Vera’s analysis of the recommendations.

Vera Institute of Justice

| Report to the Governor’s Task Force on Sentencing and Recidivism

6

1.

SENTENCING STRUCTURE

Goal of the Work Group: To identify ways that Tennessee’s sentencing structure can be
improved in order to increase public safety.
As in most states, Tennessee’s criminal code has changed over time as a result of legislation
responding to issues of particular concern from year to year. Consequently, the code has come to
have inconsistencies in proportionality and has led to confusion among practitioners and the
general public about the actual penalties for offenses.
Areas of Focus and Discussion: There were three general areas of discussion within the work
group. Principally, the work group members—and the Task Force in general—were concerned
about the lack of transparency and certainty at the time of sentencing. The work group discussed
at length the many factors in law, policy, and practice that influence sentence length, and the
need for both victims and offenders to understand the likely time that an offender would serve
for a particular crime. There was unanimous agreement that the current sentencing structure in
Tennessee needs revision in order to address these issues. Devising a new system will require a
criminal justice research council, the second area of discussion for the work group. The lack of
clarity regarding time to be served, caused in part by the accretion of new laws and penalties
over the original criminal code, requires both legislators and executive branch officials to have
access to timely data and analysis of the impact and outcomes of current and proposed laws and
policies. Finally, the work group was interested in the use of risk and needs assessments at time
of sentencing and during post-incarceration supervision.
To assist with its deliberations, the Sentencing Structure work group met with and heard from
several representatives from other states that faced similar challenges. Virginia Sentencing
Commission Executive Director Meredith Farrar-Owens presented to the work group on
Virginia’s sentencing reforms, which include both determinate sentencing and the use of a risk
assessment at sentencing. After instituting determinate sentencing in 1995, Virginia’s prison
population had grown by 2012, though by a modest 9 percent.
North Carolina Justice Reinvestment Administrator George Pettigrew and University of North
Carolina Law Professor Jamie Markham described to the work group North Carolina’s
experience in instituting determinate sentencing in the 1990s. Determinate sentencing led to
dramatic and unsustainable prison population growth in North Carolina, which was the impetus
for criminal justice reforms in 2011. The 2011 reforms included use of short-term Confinement
in Response to Violations (CRV), rather than revocation to prison, and Advanced Supervised
Release, under which an earlier, supervised release date is set out in a sentencing order as an
incentive for completion of programming and good behavior in prison.
Dr. Richard Stroker, of the Center for Effective Public Policy and formerly of the South Carolina
Department of Corrections and the South Carolina Department of Probation, Parole, and Pardon
Services, facilitated a discussion about how to improve parole decision-making.

Vera Institute of Justice

| Report to the Governor’s Task Force on Sentencing and Recidivism

7

RECOMMENDATIONS
Following its months of meetings, reading, and discussions, the work group agreed on the
following three recommendations:
Recommendation 1: Revise the current sentencing structure in order to achieve greater
certainty and transparency at the time of sentencing.
The work group found that the current sentencing structure in Tennessee engenders confusion
among all participants in the justice system—prosecutors, judges, defense attorneys, judges,
defendants and victims alike—and therefore undermines public confidence in the justice system.7
One possible model for such a revision, proposed by a workgroup member and received
favorably by the rest of the workgroup, would keep the existing classification of felony offenses,
the range of punishment associated with each offense, and the categorization of offenders would
be maintained. The actual length of incarceration would be determined with definiteness at the
time of sentencing, based on two factors: the overall length of sentence imposed, and the
offender’s prior history. The release eligibility date would become the presumptive release date.
Upon reaching this presumptive release date, an inmate would be released unless his or her
conduct while incarcerated resulted in institutional sanctions. If an inmate received certain
institutional sanctions, the date of his or her presumptive release could be extended according to
a pre-determined sanctions grid. An inmate might achieve a reduction in those sanctions by
participating in approved programs, but in no event will sanction reductions reduce the length of
incarceration below the original presumptive release date (that will take into account the
possibility of earning a 15 percent sentence credit for good time, for which most sentences are
currently eligible).
Although the Board of Parole would be retained for the maintenance and supervision of legacy
offenders (those sentenced under prior law and whose sentences have not expired), this model
would end discretionary parole release, as individuals would be released upon reaching the
presumptive release date. A risk and needs assessment for each offender should begin at intake
into state incarceration so that the plan for each individual’s post-release supervision is in place
upon his or her presumptive release date. A period of post-release supervision of between 6 and
18 months will be required for all persons released from incarceration, in accordance with the
risk and needs assessment.8

7

Public opinion research has found that the percentage of a sentence served was more important to respondents than
its length. A 2012 national survey conducted by the Pew Center on the States showed that 68 percent of respondents
favored a person being sentenced to five years and being released on parole after serving four of those years, while
only 19 percent favored a person being sentenced to ten years and being released on parole after serving five years.
See Public Opinion Strategies and The Mellman Group, Public Opinion on Sentencing and Corrections Policy in
America (Philadelphia: Pew Center on the States, 2012).
8
Post-release supervision that is based on the specific risk/needs/responsivity of the individual offender is also
likely to lead to greater public safety. See Recommendation 15 for a more in-depth discussion of post-release
supervision.
Vera Institute of Justice

| Report to the Governor’s Task Force on Sentencing and Recidivism

8

Analysis: Transparency and certainty at the time of sentencing are essential to maintaining the
legitimacy of the criminal justice system. When the actual length of a criminal sentence is based
on so many variables that no one can identify the amount of time an offender will serve, distrust
of the system, the system’s players, and its processes is inevitable. Importantly, belief in the
legitimacy of the system is based on perceptions of fairness even more than actual outcomes.9 A
full examination of the current system of sentencing in Tennessee is warranted. But eliminating
discretionary parole release could result in significant prison population growth. It is therefore
imperative that before any revisions of the sentencing system are made, an analysis of the
average amount of time currently served by offenders for each crime category, as well as a
review of the current prison discipline system in Tennessee, be completed.10 That analysis should
then inform any revised sentencing ranges. In order to incentivize compliance with prison rules,
a new system must include, as the proposed model above does, the ability for the offender’s incustody behavior to have an impact on the total length of his or her incarceration. This should
include not only incentives for good behavior but incentives for participation in programming
and treatment that may improve reentry outcomes and reduce recidivism. Additionally, adequate
training of corrections staff and oversight of the in-custody discipline system would be essential,
since so much more would be at stake in any finding of rule-breaking.
Recommendation 2: Establish a criminal justice research council to provide a nonpartisan
forum for statewide sentencing policy development, information development, research,
and planning concerning criminal sentences and their impacts.
To develop the revised sentencing system proposed in Recommendation 1 and provide ongoing
information to the General Assembly, Tennessee should establish a criminal justice research
council. In 1995, Tennessee’s Sentencing Commission was abolished due to concerns about the
Commission’s encroachment on legislative prerogatives. Recognizing that history, the criminal
justice research council would have more limited authority over sentencing laws.
As of February 2015, at least 22 states, the District of Columbia, and the federal government
have a sentencing or criminal justice research body or council that is charged with sentencing
policy research and development.11 Such bodies are created to study sentencing and the criminal
justice system generally and to focus on a few important goals: enhancing public safety;
promoting fairness, consistency, and proportionality in sentencing; and more effectively and
efficiently using limited criminal justice resources by reducing reliance on incarceration. Public
safety is enhanced by incarcerating dangerous and high-risk people, but it is also enhanced by
limiting the use of long prison sentences (which can reduce the ability of many to achieve a
normal, law-abiding life after release) and punishing some people with community-based
sanctions and programs that address their underlying criminogenic needs.12 A criminal justice

9

Tom Tyler, “Obeying the Law in America: Procedural Justice and the Sense of Fairness,” Issues of Democracy 6,
no.1 (2001): 19.
10
Such an analysis cannot be completed in the time span of this Task Force.
11
National Association of Sentencing Commissions, “About NASC,” http://thenasc.org/aboutnasc.html (accessed
May 29, 2015).
12
Jeremy Travis, Bruce Western, and Steve Redburn, eds., The Growth of Incarceration in the United States:
Exploring Causes and Consequences (Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2014).
Vera Institute of Justice

| Report to the Governor’s Task Force on Sentencing and Recidivism

9

research council can help ensure that Tennessee’s criminal justice system operates effectively to
achieve these goals.
Some features essential to the success of a criminal justice research council (“council”) are
• Objectivity. The council’s work would rely on the availability and analysis of data drawn
from many sources. Its findings and any advice it might give state government must be
based on its objective reading of data, and information gathered from research and the
experience of other states. The ability of the council to influence—but not dictate—
policy is critical to its success.
• Data capacity. Data is critical for a council to function and to have an objective voice.
Detailed, reliable, and complete data from both state and local jurisdictions is central to
fiscal impact statements, corrections population projections, program evaluations, and
creating and monitoring guidelines. Armed with sufficient data, a council can credibly
stand as the neutral, objective entity in the room.
• Resource management. The most effective and successful criminal justice commissions
are those that develop an expertise in resource management and provide their states with
information about prison capacity and costs.13 This role goes hand-in-hand with a
criminal justice research council that prioritizes the collection of data and remains
objective and neutral.
• Diversity. Diverse membership accomplishes two goals: First, it ensures that sentencing
issues will be considered from a variety of perspectives, including those of practitioners
from across the system as well as members of the community most affected by crime and
incarceration. Second, it brings substantive expertise on sentencing and criminal justice
issues to policy discussions. A council made up of representatives from critical state and
local agencies, legislators, community members, and at least one expert from outside
government (such as an expert in criminology or budgeting) will make it more likely that
data and evidence will guide criminal justice decision-making.
• Funding for sufficient operational resources. Without sufficient funding or staff, a council
cannot perform its duties. An unpublished study by Vera in 2008 concluded that a wellfunctioning criminal justice research council should have between five and ten full-time
staff members and an annual operating budget of between $500,000 and $900,000. The
foundation of building the credibility and respect that the council would need to influence
policymaking is the development of comprehensive data capacity. Resources—in terms
of funding and staff—are needed to collect data, develop sophisticated data systems and
simulation models, and conduct data analyses. Staff with legal expertise would also be
critical to working with and advising state officials.
Analysis: A criminal justice research council in Tennessee would serve many purposes. In
addition to its role in developing the specific policy, practice, and legislative changes needed to
implement Recommendation 1, a council could offer ongoing information to support the work of
Tennessee’s legislative, executive, and judicial branches, by conducting research and evaluations
13

Richard S. Frase, “State Sentencing Guidelines: Diversity, Consensus, and Unresolved Policy Issues,” Columbia
Law Review 105 (2005): 1216; Rachel E. Barkow, “Sentencing Guidelines at the Crossroads of Politics and
Expertise,” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 160 (2012): 1604 (quoting Kevin R. Reitz and Curtis R. Reitz,
“Building a Sentencing Reform Agenda: The ABA’s New Sentencing Standards,” Judicature 78 (1995): 189).
Vera Institute of Justice

| Report to the Governor’s Task Force on Sentencing and Recidivism

10

and serving as a neutral clearinghouse of data and information on current and proposed policies
and practices.
Recommendation 3: Implement risk analysis at all stages of decision-making, including
pre-trial, sentencing, and post-prison supervision.
States like Virginia, Georgia, and some local jurisdictions have begun piloting and using
evidence-based risk assessment tools at sentencing or to inform plea negotiations. State and local
jurisdictions have used these tools for some time to inform pre-trial release/detention decisions,
to set parole and probation conditions, and to determine the terms of supervision. Tennessee law
currently mandates the use of risk and needs assessment tools for preparation of pre-sentence
reports and for development of supervision plans.14
Analysis: Expanding the use of validated risk assessment tools in other areas of the criminal
justice system has merit, but pre-sentence assessment tools pose important constitutional and
jurisprudential issues. Tennessee should consider protections of the right against selfincrimination and development of procedures for alternatives to potential self-incrimination that
are fair and that do not inadvertently provide disincentives to participation in the risk assessment
process. Risk assessments can be useful in determining whether an offender is appropriate for
alternatives to incarceration; however, there are reasons to proceed with caution when
considering the use of such tools for determining the length of sentence or term of incarceration.
Concerns have been expressed by experts that the focus of some risk assessment tools on factors
such as marital status, neighborhood, and financial status may have a disparate racial impact.15
The National Center for State Courts has advised that “risk and need assessment information
should be used in the sentencing decision to inform public safety considerations related to
offender risk reduction and management. It should not be used as an aggravating or mitigating
factor in determining the severity of an offender’s sanction.”16

14

Tenn. Code Ann. 41-1-412 (2014).
See generally Sonja Starr, “The New Profiling: Why Punishing Based on Poverty and Identity Is Unconstitutional
and Wrong,” Federal Sentencing Reporter 27, no. 4 (2015): 229-236.
16
Pamela M. Casey, Roger K. Warren, and Jennifer K. Elek, Using Offender Risk and Need Assessment Information
at Sentencing (Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, 2011), 11.
15

Vera Institute of Justice

| Report to the Governor’s Task Force on Sentencing and Recidivism

11

2.

SENTENCING CLASSIFICATIONS AND ENHANCEMENTS

Goal of the Work Group: To ensure proportionality, rationality, and modernization of
Tennessee’s sentencing regime in order to be responsive to current public safety challenges and
needs.
Areas of Focus and Discussion: The work group’s discussions focused on crime categorizations
and penalties in current statutes, particularly addressing domestic violence, property crime,
driver’s license revocations, and drug crimes.
To support the work group’s discussions, Vera prepared and presented research and policy
surveys on issues that had been raised as areas of possible discussion by members of the larger
Task Force and the work group. When examining property crimes, the work group learned that
Tennessee’s $500 felony threshold was far lower than the national average, which is more than
$900. Discussions of current drug laws found that many neighboring states, including many that
have made significant changes to their criminal justice system in recent years, have higher felony
marijuana weight threshold than Tennessee’s. Additionally, a number of states have narrowed
their school zone enhancements for drug crimes in order to tailor the enhancement to the concern
about the proximity of children to drug dealing.
Several other enhancements were examined by the work group, including: eliminating the third
and subsequent felony marijuana possession enhancement, and enhancing repeat drug trafficking
and aggravated burglary sentences. The work group ultimately decided that the third and
subsequent possession enhancement was an important public safety tool and agreed on
enhancements for recidivist aggravated burglary and drug trafficking. Initial impact analyses of
some of these enhancements are presented below.
The group had numerous discussions about how to respond to repeat domestic violence
offenders, the challenge of Tennessee’s broad definition of domestic violence and its adverse
public safety implications (such as exclusion from coverage under the federal National Instant
Criminal Background Check Systems, which only cover intimate-partner violence), and the
effectiveness of programming interventions, such as batterers intervention programs.
Another issue, raised by numerous Task Force members, is driving on a suspended, revoked, or
cancelled driver’s license. The work group learned that Tennessee law provides for suspension,
cancellation, or revocation of a driver’s license for many offenses unrelated to moving
violations, such as nonpayment of court fines and fees and failure to pay child support. These
sanctions impose additional employment challenges for those already struggling to pay their
court fines, and flood courts with thousands of cases that might be better handled
administratively. Finally, the work group discussed inconsistencies in state law that demand to
be remedied, such as penalties for rape, which is probatable but not parolable.

Vera Institute of Justice

| Report to the Governor’s Task Force on Sentencing and Recidivism

12

RECOMMENDATIONS
Reduce Penalties for Low-level Non-violent Offenses
Recommendation 4: Raise the felony property crime threshold to $1,000.
Currently, property crimes in Tennessee are designated as felonies for property valued at $500 or
more. This threshold applies to all property crimes, from theft to shoplifting to criminal mischief.
Under this recommendation, the following misdemeanor and felony classes would be proposed:
§ 0-$999=A Misdemeanor
§ $1,000-$9,999= E felony
§ $10,000-$49,999= D felony
§ $50,000-$99,999= C felony
§ $100,000-$249,999= B felony
§ $250,000 and over= A felony
Analysis: $500 is well below the national average of $950, and has not been modernized to
account for inflation since 1989. This recommended change brings Tennessee in line with other
states and wisely rethinks what should be considered a felony in an effort to reallocate and
reprioritize public safety resources. The designation of crimes as misdemeanors or felonies
impacts both the penalty imposed, and, sometimes more significantly, the resulting post-sentence
completion consequences, such as those regarding housing and employment.
Raising the felony threshold to $1000 would decrease the TDOC population by 0.78% over five
years.17
Increase Penalties for Serious Drug and Violent Felonies
Recommendation 5: Enhance penalties for repeat drug trafficking.
An enhancement would apply to a third or subsequent conviction for drug trafficking.
Defendants would have to serve 85 percent of their sentence or a mandatory minimum.
Analysis: Requiring recidivist drug sellers, manufacturers, or traffickers to serve 85 percent of
their sentence would increase the state’s prison population by 4 percent over five years.18 A
narrowly-tailored enhancement, for the most serious traffickers, would have a more modest
impact.
Recommendation 6: Enhance penalties for repeat aggravated burglary.
An enhancement would apply to a third or subsequent conviction for aggravated burglary.
Defendants would have to serve 85 percent of their sentence or a mandatory minimum.

17
18

Data analysis is from Applied Research Services, Inc. (ARS) based on TDOC data.
Ibid.
Vera Institute of Justice

| Report to the Governor’s Task Force on Sentencing and Recidivism

13

Analysis: Similar to repeat drug trafficking, repeat aggravated burglary would become an 85
percent crime or subject to a mandatory minimum. The increase to an 85 percent crime would
increase the felony population by 2 percent over five years.19 Aggravated burglary is the most
commonly paroled offense, at about 50 percent of the sentence. Increasing the length of stay to
85 percent would almost double the sentence.20
Recommendation 7: Enforce more severe penalties on repeat domestic violence offenders
by enhancing a third or subsequent domestic violence misdemeanor conviction to a felony,
and make an arrest for domestic violence assault trigger an automatic order of protection.
Analysis: The population impact of the domestic violence felony enhancement cannot be
ascertained through TDOC data because it relies on misdemeanor-level data. However, some
research indicates that incarceration, even when combined with treatment, produces higher
recidivism rates for domestic violence offenders than fines or other court-ordered proscriptions,
such as treatment and counseling interventions.21 Although recidivism reduction may not be the
sole goal of sentencing decisions, it is important to consider whether sanctions other than
incarceration may be more effective in reducing domestic violence in Tennessee.
The goal of Recommendations 2, 3, and 4 is to reduce crime by incapacitating and deterring the
most serious criminals. However, there is little evidence that longer sentences have this desired
impact. The most recent meta-analysis of the best research on the relationship between
sentencing and crime reduction estimates that incarceration through incapacitation has had only a
modest impact on the reduction in crime during the last several decades.22 Moreover, longer
prison sentences have diminishing returns, as many offenders age out of their criminal behavior
before their sentences are completed.23 Rather than increasing reliance on prison sentences for
these offenders, Tennessee may want to consider investing in policing resources, both numbers
of police offices and technological resources that allow law enforcement to predict crime
patterns.24

19

Ibid.
This figure is based on ARS’s analysis of TDOC data.
21
Thomas P. George, Domestic Violence Sentencing Conditions and Recidivism (Olympia, WA: Administrative
Office of the Courts, 2012), 15-17. This study was based on data from the state of Washington.
22
Travis et al., The Growth of Incarceration in the United States, p. 155. A recent study estimated that the crime
prevention effects of incarceration had a modest to negligible impact on crime rates—6 percent for property crime in
the 1990s, less than 1percent of the property crime decline since 2000, and no impact on the decline in violent crime
during the last 24 years. See Oliver Roeder, Lauren-Brooke Eisen, and Julia Bowling, What Caused the Crime
Decline? (New York: Brennan Center for Justice, 2015), 15. The deterrence impact of longer sentences has been
found immaterial. See Travis et al., The Growth of Incarceration in the United States, pp. 139-140.
23
Travis et al., The Growth of Incarceration in the United States, pp. 143-144.
24
Roeder et al., What Caused the Crime Decline?, p. 4.
20

Vera Institute of Justice

| Report to the Governor’s Task Force on Sentencing and Recidivism

14

Driving on Revoked Licenses
Recommendation 8: Allow restricted driver’s licenses for those who lose their license as a
result of unpaid fines for non-moving violations or convictions in criminal cases.
Analysis: Driving with a suspended or revoked license (as a result of unpaid fees or fines
unrelated to moving violations) is a common offense across states, consuming judicial resources
and trapping people in a cycle of poverty, debt and desperation. For other offenses, such as DUI,
restricted licenses are available to allow people to work. Such restricted licenses are more
appropriate here. Another alternative is allowing parole and probation officers to play a role in
helping restore driving privileges or obtain a restricted license as an incentive for compliance on
supervision. This recommendation acknowledges that suspending driving licenses for nonvehicle offenses, a necessity for most people in the state to care for children and keep a job, only
pushes people further outside the law, encourages disrespect for the law, and exacerbates the
depth of their involvement with the criminal justice system.
PROPOSAL STILL UNDER CONSIDERATION
Consider Alternatives for Certain Violent Offenders
Proposal 1: Invest in effective interventions to combat aggravated assault, particularly for
offenders aged 18-34, and create opportunities in state law to sentence these offenders to these
alternatives.
Recognizing that aggravated assaults are a critical public safety issue in Tennessee but increased
penalties may not be the most impactful response, the work group is looking into what effective
interventions exist for aggravated assaults by younger offenders, and is considering making a
recommendation in that area.

Vera Institute of Justice

| Report to the Governor’s Task Force on Sentencing and Recidivism

15

3.

COMMUNITY SUPERVISION WORK GROUP

Goal of the Work Group: To reduce recidivism by implementing community supervision policies
and practices that will increase success and reduce returns to prison.
Areas of Focus and Discussion: The Community Supervision Work Group’s meetings and
discussions focused on current Tennessee Department of Correction practices, as well as
evidence-based and promising practices in the field.
TDOC presented its new supervision standards, which were implemented in 2014. They include
graduated levels of supervision based on an offender’s risk and compliance, and a Probation and
Parole Violation Matrix that provides guidance on the appropriate response to violations of
supervision conditions. The work group learned about the challenges TDOC faces in reducing
recidivism rates for people on community supervision, with a particular focus on the sex
offender population and max-outs (people who serve their entire sentence in prison, returning to
the community with no supervision). Information sessions were held with probation and parole
officers (PPOs), supervisors, district directors, and correctional administrators to better
understand what is working and what can be improved to ensure that people supervised are
successful in the community and are not recidivating. Among many things, these information
sessions highlighted the importance of having a good risk and needs assessment tool; the
challenges parolees and probationers face with housing, employment, and transportation; the
increased challenges for sex offenders and people in rural areas; inconsistencies in judicial
responses to violations regionally and within the same districts; and the limited options for
rewarding and incentivizing positive behavior.
The work group heard several presentations from policy experts, practitioners, and researchers
about effective practices and how other states have responded to these challenges. Vera staff
discussed mandatory supervised release programs in other states, such as West Virginia and
Kentucky, which require certain offenders to spend a portion of their sentence on community
supervision after release from prison (commonly referred to as post-prison supervision).
Dr. Jennifer Pealer, Assistant Professor, East Tennessee State University, presented information
on the evidence that using research-based risk assessments to guide supervision levels and
interventions produces more successful outcomes; the higher risk population needs more intense
supervision, the lower risk population needs less, and over-supervising low-risk offenders may
actually increase their risk of reoffending.
Dr. Richard Stroker, Senior Manager, Center for Effective Public Policy, an expert in community
supervision, offered the work group concrete examples of turning evidence-based principles into
specific strategies to more effectively manage probation and parole populations and change
offender behavior. These strategies have been implemented by supervision agencies across the
country and evaluated by researchers. They are rooted in an approach that sees every supervisee
as an individual with his or her own life goals. These strategies include establishing a case plan
with each offender that incorporates recognition of his or her desires and goals and is appropriate
to his or her needs and situation; using incentives and rewards, along with sanctions, to
encourage positive behavior; responding to all violations appropriately and consistently, using
Vera Institute of Justice

| Report to the Governor’s Task Force on Sentencing and Recidivism

16

structured tools to guide officers’ decisions on rewards and sanctions; and adopting a balanced
approach that includes measures for control, programming, and treatment.
Effective community supervision is aimed at achieving success for those on supervision, with the
goal of reducing their continued involvement in criminal activity, improving their lives and
outcomes, and increasing public safety. Success on supervision means fewer crimes, greater
public safety, and fewer returns to prison. No longer is the goal solely to monitor probationers or
parolees until they commit an infraction and then revoke their probation or parole. In the last 35
years, the field has learned a lot about what works to help supervisees succeed and resume a lawabiding life. This involves knowing individuals’ risk of reoffending, supervising them at a level
consistent with their risk, identifying the criminogenic factors that drive their behavior, and
designing a case plan that responds to those needs. It also means minimizing disruptions in the
positive aspects of a person’s life: school, job, involvement with a church or program, family
care, etc. Unnecessary conditions, office visits, and programming should therefore be avoided.
Violation or revocation actions that put people in jail or prison can be especially harmful if not
needed to immediately deal with a risk to public safety. Each period of reincarceration puts the
supervisee further behind in achieving normalcy.
The work group discussions and considerations of the information presented resulted in the
following recommendations, which represent the emerging consensus of the work group.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Promote Offender Success on Community Supervision
Recommendation 9: Establish individualized case plans for offenders on community
supervision.
All offenders should have individualized case plans that are tailored to their needs, provide
transparency in expectations between the officer and the offender, and allow the probation/parole
officer and offender to work together to identify goals and priorities to complete supervision
requirements.
Analysis: Individualizing case plans and working collaboratively with people on parole and
probation supervision to define expectations and goals has been shown to improve success for
those on supervision.25
Recommendation 10: Use positive incentives as a key component to supervision, including
establishment of a structured incentive system and implementation of earned discharge
from community supervision.
TDOC should reframe its approach to community supervision to emphasize positive incentives
for success as much as negative sanctions for violations. Specifically, Tennessee should create a
25

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), 23-29.
Vera Institute of Justice

| Report to the Governor’s Task Force on Sentencing and Recidivism

17

structured incentive system, similar to the sanction matrix, and should establish earned
time/earned discharge for probation and parole.
Analysis: Research on human behavior indicates that offenders, like all people, are most likely to
change their behavior with a combination of positive and negative responses. In seeking
compliance with the terms of supervision, officers are more likely to succeed in their mission if
they incorporate both sanctions for non-compliance or negative behavior and positive responses
or incentives to acknowledge compliance and successes. People on parole or probation
supervision who actively participate in required programming and comply with their case plans
should accrue credits toward their supervision terms. These earned credit programs are powerful
incentives for compliance. They also allow community supervision agencies to focus on higherrisk, higher-need populations and discharge early those who have proven they can be successful
in the community. Rather than simply shortening supervision terms, earned discharge policies
are the “ultimate incentive” for compliance and make smart use of supervision resources by
concentrating supervision resources during the early part of parole and probation supervision,
when violations are most likely to occur.26
Recommendation 11: Reevaluate standard and special conditions of community
supervision by reducing the number of standard and special supervision conditions and
tailoring supervision conditions to fit individual offenders’ risks and needs.
Analysis: Parole and probation supervision mandates compliance with standard conditions (for
all offenders) and special conditions (imposed on certain offenders related to their offense or
other characteristics). These conditions may include anything from curfews to travel restrictions
to abstinence from alcohol. Often, people on parole or probation supervision are subject to
myriad standard and special conditions that are unnecessarily onerous and confusing. The goal
should be to establish standard conditions that are few in number but significant and relevant,
with which supervisees can reasonably comply. Many states have reconsidered the long list of
conditions placed on offenders on probation and parole. Georgia, for instance, now has only five
standard conditions, and between 2007 and 2013 saw marked decreases in both non-criminal
violations of the terms of supervision and new criminal offense revocations for parole, from 567
to 134 non-compliance violations and from 2,993 to 2,065 new criminal offense revocations.27
Recommendation 12: Convene a committee of stakeholders to reexamine the management
and treatment of sex offenders.
Tennessee should create a committee to reexamine sex offender management and treatment, with
an eye toward increasing sex offender housing and treatment options, establishing a more
comprehensive and effective plan to supervise sex offenders, and reconsidering residency
restrictions to ensure all sex offenders have a stable home and can receive treatment services.
The committee should be comprised of stakeholders including, but not limited to, state and local
government officials and agency representatives and community treatment providers. The
committee should work in consultation with a national expert in sex offender supervision,
treatment, and management.
26
27

Ibid., pp. 16-17.
National Reentry Resource Center, Reducing Recidivism, p. 7.
Vera Institute of Justice

| Report to the Governor’s Task Force on Sentencing and Recidivism

18

Analysis: Current restrictions on where sex offenders can live and be present impose severe
limitations in housing options, resulting in homelessness; barriers to employment (even for jobs
for which they would otherwise be eligible despite their crime); and challenges in accessing
treatment and pro-social community activities. Treatment options for sex offenders are already
limited; movement restrictions exacerbate the issue. These restrictions can significantly increase
the risk of reoffending and decrease the likelihood of participation in and completion of
treatment.28 These concerns are shared by many of the members of the Programming and
Treatment Work Group.
Recommendation 13: Identify alternative responses for those under community supervision
who are not compliant with payment of fines and fees, allowing offenders to keep driver’s
licenses.
Analysis: Losing a driver’s license is a huge barrier to securing and maintaining employment,
and thus to an offender’s ability to pay fines and fees. This issue is discussed in more detail
above, Recommendation 8.29
Prioritize prison beds for serious and high-risk offenders
There are too many beds in Tennessee prisons occupied by people who were on probation or
parole and were returned to prison for violating a condition of their supervision (rather than for
committing a new criminal offense). In fiscal year 2014, 40 percent of system-wide prison
admissions were for parole and probation violators.30 Such imprisonment, intended to punish
non-compliance, does little to advance the chances that such persons will be able to resume a
normal, law-abiding life. It removes individuals from families and communities and adversely
impacts opportunities for employment, treatment, or education. Incarceration, when not needed
for immediate public safety, simply adds to the likelihood of failure and recidivism. Although
some offenders on supervision need to be jolted into compliance when their behavior begins
heading into risky territory, a broader array of alternatives to detention and incarceration are
needed. These should be accompanied by increased training and education of officers about the
other ways to achieve positive change in their supervisees’ behavior and about the detrimental
impact of removal from the community on offenders’ long-term recidivism.

28

Keri B. Burchfield, “Implications of Residence Restrictions on Sex Offender Housing”, Criminology & Public
Policy, 10, no. 2 (2011): 413-414.
29
Other states and jurisdictions, notably Houston, Texas, have devised other alternatives for non-payment of fines
and fees, such as mandatory community service through which offenders earn credit against outstanding fines and
fees. Tex. Code Crim. Pro. Art. 45.049.
30
Tennessee Department of Correction, Tennessee Felon Population Update March 2015 (Nashville, TN:
Tennessee Department of Correction, 2015), 8.
Vera Institute of Justice

| Report to the Governor’s Task Force on Sentencing and Recidivism

19

Recommendation 14: Develop additional alternative responses for non-compliance with
conditions of probation and parole when such non-compliance does not rise to the level of a
new felony. Such alternative responses should include administrative, short-term jail
sanctions (1-7 days) and a pilot probation revocation center that allows work release.
Develop additional alternative responses analysis: Many decades of research on human
behavior indicate that an immediate response to behavior is always more effective than a delayed
response.31 TDOC has a robust sanctions matrix that provides a range of sanctions for violations
that officers can impose quickly. These community-based sanctions should be the preferred
response when offenders violate the terms of their supervision. Any response that requires secure
confinement can have negative consequences on positive supports an offender has in the
community. Even a short period of detention or incarceration can cause offenders to lose jobs,
housing, or custody of their children. Only when all community-based sanctions have been
imposed and an individual continues to violate, secure confinement sanctions other than a
revocation to prison should be considered.
Short-term jail sanctions analysis: TDOC should strive to respond to violations with a
community-based response. If those responses are not proving to be effective with an individual,
short-term jails stays can be used as a sanction in lieu of revocation. The least amount of time
should be used initially, 1-3 days, and should only escalate to up to 7 days if a shorter term has
been used and has not been effective at curbing that individual’s behavior. Administrative
sanctions allow PPOs to impose the jail time without direct judicial approval, enabling a more
immediate sanction. To protect due process rights, offenders may have an administrative hearing
or waive their right to one.32
Pilot probation revocation center analysis: Using prison and jail beds to respond to low-level
non-compliance with parole and probation conditions should be avoided by using a
comprehensive graduated response matrix and community resources for treatment and
programming. However, when confinement for non-compliance is necessary, revocation centers
may be an effective alternative to prisons and jails. Revocation centers should be used sparingly,
following the use of administrative jail sanctions as discussed in Recommendation 14a, and as a
means of last resort in responding to violations. Revocation centers should allow for work/study
release, allowing violators to continue their employment or studies in the community, thereby
reducing the negative impact of the incarceration on the individual’s pro-social activities while
also enforcing accountability.
Tennessee should pilot a probation revocation center located in the jurisdiction with the highest
concentration of offenders who are entering prison as a result of a revocation and who have jobs
or are enrolled in school at the time of the revocation.

31

Solomon, et al., 13 Strategies, p. 13.
N.C. Gen. Stat. 15A-1343.2(e) (discussing the waiver procedure for allowing probation and post-release
supervision officers to impose administrative jail sanctions).
32

Vera Institute of Justice

| Report to the Governor’s Task Force on Sentencing and Recidivism

20

Ensure people leave prison with supervision
Recommendation 15: Require mandatory post-prison supervision with targeted services.
Offenders who are not statutorily eligible for parole, and offenders who are statutorily eligible
for parole but not approved by the parole board, or refuse parole, should serve the last 12 months
of their prison sentence on community supervision.
Analysis: Mandatory post-release supervision is a sensible policy for managing offenders’
transitions to the community and improving reentry outcomes. Studies have shown that postrelease supervision reduces recidivism.33 Cost-benefit analyses demonstrate that the most
effective way to design a period of post-release supervision is to include it within the sentence
imposed, rather than to add it on to a sentence.34
Although providing supervision addresses an important gap, it is worth noting that simply
mandating supervised release without linking that supervision to services targeted specifically to
those who would otherwise serve the totality of their sentences – or “max out” – may not have
the desired effect. Without appropriate services, these individuals may violate the conditions of
their release, return to prison and once again face the prospect of maxing out their sentences
behind bars.35 Policy approaches to the max-out challenge need to take into account both the
need for services and the question of how to address violations of supervision that may lead back
to maxing out.
Recommendation 16: Provide intensive reentry planning for offenders who will leave
prison with no community supervision. Consider a transitional housing program with a
work/study release component.
In fiscal year 2014, more than 4,000 offenders were released from TDOC custody (TDOC
prisons and TDOC backup) who had served the totality of their sentences (or “maxed out”) in
prison. For some offenses, sentence expiration is mandated by Tennessee law. Hundreds of other
offenders each year voluntarily forego grants of parole release and choose to expire their
sentence to avoid post-release supervision. Tennessee has a higher unsupervised release rate
(30.7%) than the U.S. average (21.5%).36
Analysis: Offenders who are released to communities with no community supervision fare worse
and have higher recidivism rates than those discharged to parole supervision.37 Even states with
mandatory supervised release have some offenders who max out of prison after the remainder of
the sentence is revoked after violation of conditions of release. Revocation of entire remaining
33

The Pew Charitable Trusts, Max Out: The Rise in Prison Inmates Released Without Supervision (Washington DC:
The Pew Charitable Trusts, 2014) 6.
34
Ibid., p. 9-10.
35
See generally Vera Institute of Justice, The Potential of Community Corrections to Improve Safety and Reduce
Incarceration (New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2013).
http://www.vera.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/potential-of-community-corrections.pdf.
36
Ibid., p. 4, Fig. 2. http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/Assets/2014/06/04/MaxOut_Report.pdf.
37
The Pew Charitable Trusts, The Impact of Parole in New Jersey (The Pew Charitable Trusts, 2013) 2-3.
http://www.pewstates.org/uploadedFiles/PCS_Assets/2013/PSPP_NJParole-Brief.pdf.
Vera Institute of Justice

| Report to the Governor’s Task Force on Sentencing and Recidivism

21

sentences should be avoided in order to ensure the number of people being released without
supervision is minimal. In the small number of cases where this does occur, intensive reentry
planning should be provided prior to release, such as a transition housing program that would
allow an offender to gradually transition into the community.
Recommendation 17: Reconsider statutory limitations on earned and good time in prison.
Analysis: Providing further incentive to inmates for program participation and good behavior
may increase compliance in TDOC prisons. Moreover, educational programming has been
shown to decrease recidivism and be cost effective.38 This recommendation should be
coordinated with Recommendation 1, which would set an earliest presumptive release date at the
time of sentencing that could be moved later, but not earlier. As discussed earlier, the earliest
presumptive release date should take into consideration Tennessee’s longstanding sentence credit
system to incentive participation in prison programming.
Engage Community Supervision staff
Recommendation 18: Incorporate a coaching model into training and implementation
plans when rolling out new, or enforcing current, policies, programs, and practices in
community supervision.
Analysis: Many evidence-based practices and strategies in community supervision contradict
long-held beliefs and practices in probation and parole. Successful implementation requires a
supportive approach to staff that includes coaching in addition to classroom-style training.
Coaching by trained instructors or supervisors is a key element in the implementation of
nationally recognized evidence-based practices, such as Effective Practices in Community
Supervision (EPICS) and SOARING2. Both of these strategies are in use in community
supervision agencies across the country. Coaching ensures that practices are implemented
correctly and effectively, and that staff are supported in using new tools and approaches.
PROPOSAL STILL UNDER CONSIDERATION
Proposal 2: Cap the amount of time an offender can serve in a secure setting due to a
revocation of probation or parole based on a violation that is not a new felony offense.
Analysis: Currently, more than 40 percent of TDOC admissions are due to revocation of
probation or parole for reasons other than commission of a new felony offense. TDOC can
prioritize use of prison beds and resources on violent and high-risk offenders by imposing
sanctions of confinement only on those who commit a new felony while under supervision. If
confinement sanctions are used, they should be graduated, with a maximum amount of
confinement time set for first and subsequent offenses. Such an approach will ensure
38

Lois M. Davis, Robert Bozick, Jennifer L. Steele, Jessica Saunders and Jeremy N. V. Miles. Evaluating the
Effectiveness of Correctional Education: A Meta-Analysis of Programs That Provide Education to Incarcerated
Adults (Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2013), 57. http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR266.
Vera Institute of Justice

| Report to the Governor’s Task Force on Sentencing and Recidivism

22

accountability for non-compliance while taking into consideration the appropriate and
proportionate response.
Other states that have limited the amount of time someone spends in secure confinement for
violations that are not new felonies include Georgia (180-day cap at its probation detention
centers), and North Carolina (90-day cap on detentions, and defendants must have already served
the 90-day detention period for violations twice before a court can revoke probation). 39

39

Off.Code Ga. Ann. § 42-8-35.4(a) (2015), N.C. Gen. Stat.. § 15A-1344(d)(2) (2015).
Vera Institute of Justice

| Report to the Governor’s Task Force on Sentencing and Recidivism

23

4.

PROGRAMMING AND TREATMENT

Goal of Work Group: To identify ways that programming and treatment can be used at each
stage of the criminal justice system to reduce recidivism and achieve increased public safety.
The evidence has mounted over the last 30 years that the most effective way to prevent those
with criminal convictions from reoffending is to marry an appropriate level of correctional
control with targeted programming and treatment as needed to address criminogenic needs. As
related in the discussion of the community supervision work group, this requires both a validated
risk and needs assessment instrument administered by a well-trained staff person and repeated at
recommended intervals, and the availability of quality programming that the tool indicates is
needed. Such programming should begin as soon as possible in an individual’s involvement with
the criminal justice system as it can contribute to the successful completion of each stage of a
sentence.
Areas of Focus and Discussion: The work group engaged in a vigorous effort to understand both
the kinds of programming that now exist in Tennessee and some of the research findings on
effective interventions. The members also looked at the points in the system at which treatment
and programming are most important in preventing further criminal justice system involvement
and recidivism.
Alternatives to incarceration: The members learned about the principles of effective intervention
and recovery courts. They toured, met with staff, and attended a graduation at Davidson County
Drug Court, a court-operated residential drug court program.
Reentry: The members heard presentations from several community organizations on the
availability of services for those leaving prison: Project Return presented on the difficulty of
finding employment upon reentry; The Next Door provided information on reentry and aftercare
services for women leaving prison; and Men of Valor presented on reentry services for men.
Additionally, Vera staff provided information on local, regional, and statewide reentry councils.
The work group members also toured and met with staff at Project Return and The Next Door.
In-Prison Programming and Treatment: The work group heard from TDOC staff about the
availability and types of rehabilitation and reentry services, including diagnostic and
classification processes within TDOC and from North Carolina Department of Public Safety staff
on vocational, secondary, and postsecondary education available within their prisons and upon
reentry.
Financing: Members of the workgroup coordinated a presentation to the entire Task Force by
Social Finance on the use of an innovative financing tool to expand reentry services.

Vera Institute of Justice

| Report to the Governor’s Task Force on Sentencing and Recidivism

24

RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendation 19: Invest in transitional programming and treatment services pre- and
post-release to reduce recidivism. Such programming and treatment must be evidencebased, cost-competitive, and responsive to the needs of the targeted population.
Analysis: Addressing treatment and service needs prior to release can be a cost-effective way to
reduce recidivism.40 Even for those facing long prison terms, treatment, education, and other
programming during incarceration can reduce violence in prison, build skills needed after
release, and address the issues that led to criminality in the first place. Building upon the work
already begun by TDOC in reentry planning, it would serve Tennessee’s long-term public safety
goals to invest in cost-effective, evidence-based programming and treatment pre- and postrelease that address criminogenic risk factors (those that contribute to the likelihood of
reoffending). Both prison and reentry programming that employ the principles of risk, needs,
and responsivity can make the best use of limited resources to maximize the impact of
interventions on recidivism. Using these principles ensures that the intensity of treatment
matches the risk of reoffending, targets criminogenic needs, and is compatible with the
individual’s learning style and particular characteristics.
The factors that are most central to criminal behavior include antisocial thinking, antisocial
peers, antisocial personality patterns, and substance abuse; problems with stable housing and
employment; inadequate education; and a lack of positive family support.41 Both prison and
reentry programs must address these factors, identified through a validated risk and needs
assessment instrument, with a specific consideration for gender-specific programming and the
impact of past trauma on the ability of an individual to be responsive to particular programs.
Rates of posttraumatic stress disorder and exposure to violence among incarcerated males and
females in the US are exponentially higher than rates among the general population.42 Significant
past trauma, especially childhood trauma, may impact the individual’s ability to benefit from
many commonly used cognitive interventions. In such instances, the trauma must be effectively
treated to maximize the benefits of the programming.43
Additionally, Tennessee should explore creating structured-transitional release centers as a stepdown from prison to community reentry. TDOC has already partnered with The Next Door to
create an evidence-based pre-release transitional center for women, and should explore
expanding this model. Transitional centers provide services that help prepare individuals for the
challenges of returning to the community after release. Such services, typically focused on
40

See generally, Fred Osher, Henry Steadman, and Heather Barr, A Best Practice Approach to Community Reentry
From Jails for Inmates with Co-occuring Disorders: the APIC Model (Delmar, NY: National GAINS Center, 2002),
http://gainscenter.samhsa.gov/pdfs/reentry/apic.pdf.
41
D.A. Andrews, James Bonta, and J. Stephen Wormith, “Recent Past and Near Future of Risk and/or Need
Assessment,” Crime & Delinquency 52, no.1 (2006): 7-27.
42
Niki A. Miller and Lisa M. Najavits, “Creating Trauma-Informed Correctional Care: A Balance of Goals and
Environment,” European Journal of Psychotraumatology 3 (2012).
43
See Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, SAMHSA’s Concept of Trauma and Guidance
for a Trauma-Informed Approach (Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance
Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2014), http://store.samhsa.gov/shin/content//SMA144884/SMA14-4884.pdf.
Vera Institute of Justice

| Report to the Governor’s Task Force on Sentencing and Recidivism

25

securing housing and employment and reestablishing family relationships severed by
incarceration, can help reduce recidivism. Several states, including Ohio and Connecticut, have
created pre-release centers where individuals with 6 to 18 months left in custody receive services
to address a variety of issues, including employment, housing, parenting, and substance use. 44
While expanding and investing in high quality programming requires budgetary expenditures,
effective programming that reduces recidivism is ultimately cost effective. For example, an
investment in educational opportunities in prisons has been shown to be a cost-effective way to
reduce recidivism and the costs of reincarceration.45 To the extent that the state realizes cost
savings through the adoption of other recommendations by the Task Force, the state can use
these anticipated savings as the basis for an upfront investment. A number of states that have
implemented systemic criminal justice reforms in recent years have done just that. Georgia, for
example, invested nearly $20 million in community programming, including drug courts and
other programming for people on community supervision.46 The investment was supported by
projected cost savings from other reforms.
Recommendation 20: Provide fiscal, administrative, and legal support for a Social Impact
Bond model of investment to pilot promising reentry programs in at least two counties.
The Task Force is cognizant of the upfront costs it will take to finance additional reentry
programs throughout the state. One innovative tool that should be explored is the use of pay-forsuccess financing tools or Social Impact Bonds (SIBs) to fund evidence-based reentry programs
discussed in the recommendation above.
Social impact bonds are an innovative financing tool for social programs. Private investors pay
the upfront costs of providing social services and government agencies repay the investors, with
a return, only if a third-party evaluator determines that the services achieved the agreed upon
outcomes.47 At their most beneficial, SIBs give private investors the opportunity to provide funds
for initiatives that have the potential to save government money in the long-term by preventing
serious social problems and reducing costs for later remedial services.48
Analysis: Social impact bonds can be a way to scale up current programs that have already been
evaluated and have demonstrated effectiveness in achieving desired outcomes. Service providers
have the assurance of multiyear funding commitments with upfront capital, which allows the
44

Mary O’Leary, “Connecticut Inmates Begin Reintegration Program as Part of Gov. Malloy’s Second Chance
Society Initiative,” New Haven Register News, April 21, 2015.
45
Davis, et al. Evaluating the Effectiveness of Correctional Education, p. xviii.
46
The funding was focused on expanding the availability of drug courts across the states, and creating statewide
operating standards and a certification process. GA H.B. 1176 (2012). Many states have adopted the ten key
components of successful drug court design, developed by the National Association of Drug Court Professionals.
Many courts around the nation have adopted these standards, including courts in Tennessee.
47
John K. Roman, Kelly A. Walsh, Sam Bieler, and Samuel Taxy, An Overview of Pay for Success: Funding the
Infrastructure for Evidence-Based Change (Washington, DC: Urban Institute Justice Policy Center, 2014), 3,
http://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/alfresco/publication-pdfs/413151-An-Overview-of-Pay-for-SuccessFunding-the-Infrastructure-for-Evidence-Based-Change.PDF.
48
John Roman, Kelly Walsh, Samuel Bieler, and Samuel Taxy, Sharing Risk: How Pay for Success Can Make
Government More Efficient (Washington, DC: Urban Institute Justice Policy Center, 2014),
http://www.urban.org/research/publication/sharing-risk-how-pay-success-can-make-government-more-efficient
Vera Institute of Justice

| Report to the Governor’s Task Force on Sentencing and Recidivism

26

service providers to replicate their programs to reach more people. Social impact bonds are a
complex tool and involve the interests of multiple stakeholders, including agencies at multiple
levels of government, the intermediary, service providers, investors, and the public.49 There must
be specific articulation of a desired social outcome and target population. Finally, state funding
must be set aside for outcomes payment.50
Two things are important to note. First, SIBs are not a systemic solution for financing
community programming. They should be used where a specific issue is identified, there is
evidence of an intervention that targets that issue, outcomes can be clearly defined, and investors
are willing to take some risk.51 Reentry programming to reduce recidivism falls squarely in this
category. Second, SIBs are not yet proven tools, with preliminary data from the initial UK
project just being released.52
Recommendation 21: Ensure that risk and needs assessments are standardized, uniformly
used, and implemented as part of a comprehensive treatment and programming continuum
from jail intake through reentry.
Analysis: For the past several years, TDOC has used a validated risk and assessment tool.53
Tennessee should ensure that a validated risk and needs assessment tool is being uniformly used
throughout the state, including in local correctional systems.54 (At the pretrial stage, a different,
more targeted risk tool should be implemented as the risks to be measured are somewhat
different.) Parts of the risk and needs assessment should be shared with community providers
upon release, while respecting the privacy rights of the individual, especially if the person
reentering is no longer under supervision and has completed his or her sentence.
Along with the system-wide use of risk and needs tools, TDOC should complete an assessment
of current programmatic and treatment capacity, quality, and availability in relation to the
49

Laura Callanan, Jonathan Law, and Lenny Mendonca, From Potential To Action: Bringing Social Impact Bonds
to the US (McKinsey & Company, 2012), 8-9, http://mckinseyonsociety.com/downloads/reports/SocialInnovation/McKinsey_Social_Impact_Bonds_Report.pdf.
50
Social Finance, presentation to the Governor’s Task Force on Sentencing and Recidivism, Nashville, TN, May 6,
2015, on file with the Vera Institute of Justice.
51
Roman et al., An Overview of Pay for Success: Funding the Infrastructure for Evidence-Based Change, p.3.
52
Data on this project, however, looks positive with recidivism for the targeted population declining by 11 percent
over the period of the pilot while the equivalent national recidivism rate rose by 10 percent. Emma Disley and
Jennifer Rubin, Phase 2 Report From the Payment By Results Social Impact Bond Pilot At HMP Peterborough
(United Kingdom, Ministry of Justice Analytical Series, 2014), 2,
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/325738/peterborough-phase-2-pilotreport.pdf.
53
TDOC is currently transitioning from the LSI-R to a proprietary tool designed by the National Council on Crime
and Deliquency for Tennessee. Local jails in Tennessee use various risk assessment tools, such as the LS/CMI
(Shelby County Correctional Center) and others. The practice varies by facility. There are a number of nationallyknown risk and needs assessment tools in use, such as the Wisconsin (now know as the CAIS); COMPAS; and LSIR. See generally D.A. Andrews, James Bonta, and Stephen Wormith, “The Recent Past and Near Future of Risk
and/or Need Assessment”, Crime & Delinquency 52, no. 1 (2006): 7-8; Winnie Ore and Chris Baird, Beyond Risk
and Needs Assessments (San Francisco, CA: National Council of Crime and Delinquency, 2014).
54
There are jurisdictional challenges to mandating specific practices in local correctional systems. This is an area
that a work group focusing on individuals who are serving their sentences in local jails should address. See
discussion p. 32.
Vera Institute of Justice

| Report to the Governor’s Task Force on Sentencing and Recidivism

27

identified needs of its population and the communities to which they will be returning. This will
ensure an efficient allocation of limited program and treatment resources by identifying gaps and
surpluses in programming and better aligning services to the population’s needs.
Recommendation 22: Tennessee should continue to expand its use of recovery and specialty
courts.
Analysis: Since 2003, Tennessee, by statute, has recognized that drug courts can be an effective
way of sentencing nonviolent offenders who are abusing substances or are chemically
dependent.55 Each jurisdiction in Tennessee is authorized to start a drug court with statutory
provisions providing direction relating to eligibility and guiding principles. 56
This recognizes the growing consensus that drug courts achieve statistically significant reduction
in the recidivism rates of program participants relative to treatment in prison groups.57 Tennessee
should continue to expand and standardize these recovery courts; ensure that eligibility to
participate is based on established, evidence-based criteria; and ensure that a validated risk and
needs assessment tool is used to determine the appropriate type and level of programming,
services, and supervision. Additionally, Tennessee should build on its commitment, reflected in
recent appropriations, to create additional recovery courts that combine the services of drug
courts with mental health and veterans’ courts.
Recommendation 23: Complete issuance of state identification cards to all TDOC inmates
upon release.
Analysis: While TDOC is to be commended for its newly implemented Offender Reentry Plan,
which requires securing inmates’ birth certificates and some form of state identification two
years prior to the projected release date, various stakeholders report that individuals are currently
still being released without a state-issued identification. While this could be the result of a
backlog from the old system, TDOC should make every effort to ensure that every individual
reentering the community has state identification, a social security number, and one month’s
worth of any prescribed medication to ease some of the many barriers to reentry.

55

Tenn. Code Ann. § 16-22 (2014).
The Act tasks the Office of Criminal Justice Programs in the Department of Finance and Administration with
developing standards of operation for drug court treatment programs.
57
Washington State Institute for Public Policy, Evidence-Based Adult Corrections Programs: What Works and What
Does Not (Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy, 2006),
http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/ReportFile/924. While there is a large body of research on the benefits of drug courts,
there has been some criticism of the research methodology and of courts adjusting admission criteria to favor
participation of those with the most potential to succeed. See Joanne Csete and Denise Tomasini-Joshi, Drug
Courts: Equivocal Evidence on a Popular Intervention (New York: Open Society Foundations, 2015), 15.	
  	
  
56

Vera Institute of Justice

| Report to the Governor’s Task Force on Sentencing and Recidivism

28

BELOW ARE SOME EXAMPLES OF ADDITIONAL POLICY OPTIONS THAT VERA
BELIEVES RESPOND TO THE GOVERNOR’S OBJECTIVES AND DESERVE
CONSIDERATION BY THE TASK FORCE:
Respond appropriately to drug offenses
In recent years, there has been growing momentum in states around the country to reconsider how
their criminal justice systems can more effectively and appropriately respond to drug offenses.
Many states have reformed their laws, policies, and practices in light of research demonstrating
the effectiveness of community-based sanctions and substance abuse treatment for some drug
offenders, as well as public attitudes that now overwhelmingly support treatment and prevention
efforts over punitive sanctioning policies.58 These reforms have included reducing or repealing
mandatory penalties for drug offenses, limiting automatic sentencing enhancements, and
modifying drug-sentencing schemes. Reconsidering and revising some drug policies would likely
help Tennessee more effectively use its criminal justice resources to reduce crime, lower
recidivism, and improve public safety. In particular, Tennessee could:
1.
Reevaluate the school zone enhancement for drug offenses.
A number of states have reconsidered the efficacy and wisdom of automatic sentence
enhancements that subject an offender to an increased penalty if certain triggering criteria apply.
In particular, at least five states have made changes to their drug-free school zone
enhancements.59 Some of the reforms have included limiting application of the enhancement to
hours when children are reasonably expected to be present and decreasing the size of the school
zone; South Carolina has stipulated that its enhancement applies only when a defendant has
knowledge that they were within proximity of a school.60
2.
Reconsider the weight threshold for felony marijuana possession.
Many states have, in recent years, recalibrated their drug sentencing schemes to better
differentiate between minor and more serious offenses and to provide more flexibility in the
types of sentences for drug offenses. Tennessee’s felony weight threshold for marijuana
possession, at 0.5 ounce, is lower than comparable states.61 Georgia and South Carolina’s
marijuana felony threshold is one ounce, for example, while North Carolina’s is 1.5 ounces.62 In
Virginia, all marijuana possession amounts are a misdemeanor.63
3.
Eliminate the third and subsequent marijuana possession felony enhancement.
The enhancement making a third and subsequent marijuana possession a felony was one of the
first issues the sentencing enhancements work group reviewed and initially considered to
58

Ram Subramanian and Rebecka Moreno, Drug War Détente? A Review of State-level Drug Law Reform, 20092013 (New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2014), 5,
http://www.vera.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/state-drug-law-reform-review-2009-2013-v6.pdf.
59
Ibid., p. 10
60
Ibid., p. 10
61
Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-418 (2014).
62
O.C.G.A. § 16-13-30(d) (2014); N.C. Gen. Stat. § 90-95 (2014); S.C. Code Ann. § 44-53-370 (2014).
63
Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-250.1 (2014).
Vera Institute of Justice

| Report to the Governor’s Task Force on Sentencing and Recidivism

29

recommend eliminating. That changed because concerns were raised about the importance of
the felony designation for enforcing firearms restrictions on these offenders. However, the
combination of Tennessee’s low marijuana possession threshold and the third and subsequent
felony enhancement for possession make Tennessee’s marijuana possession laws particularly
stringent compared to neighboring states. These laws may result in low-level drug offenders
being sentenced more severely than is needed to address the state’s public safety goals and, by
subjecting some individuals to long prison terms, may actually reduce their ability to be lawabiding after release. To the extent that the enhancement provides an important law
enforcement tool against gun possession, such a restriction could still be maintained for repeat
offenders even without the felony designation.
Develop policies for release of elderly or aging prisoners who are at low risk of recidivism.
Prisons in Tennessee and throughout the United States house a growing population of elderly
adults.64 Sentencing policies that result in longer terms of incarceration—such as mandatory
minimum sentences and truth-in-sentencing laws—have contributed to the number of elderly
prisoners and make it likely this population will continue to grow.65 Between 1999 and 2007, the
number of people 55 or older in state and federal prisons increased by 77 percent and the number
of inmates ages 45 to 54 grew 68 percent, according to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics.66
From 2007 to 2010, the number of state and federal prisoners age 65 or older grew 94 times
faster than the total prison population.67
TDOC’s most recent statistical abstract shows that on the snapshot date of June 30, 2014, about
15 percent of Tennessee’s prison population (4,668 inmates) were age 50 and above; 1,155
prisoners (almost 4 percent of the total population) were 60 years or older.68 Though 50- or 60year-olds are not generally considered elderly, health practitioners, corrections officials, and
researchers agree that the aging process appears to be accelerated for incarcerated individuals,
meaning that an inmate’s physiological age may exceed his or her chronological age.69

64

See Tina Chiu, It’s About Time: Aging Prisoners, Increasing Costs, and Geriatric Release (New York: Vera
Institute of Justice, 2010), http://www.vera.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/Its-about-time-agingprisoners-increasing-costs-and-geriatric-release.pdf; Human Rights Watch, Old Behind Bars: The Aging Prison
Population in the United States (New York: Human Rights Watch, 2012),
http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/usprisons0112webwcover_0.pdf; and Tina Maschi, Alexandra
Kalmanofsky, Kimberly Westcott and Lauren Pappacena, An Analysis of United States Compassionate and
Geriatric Release Laws: Towards a Rights-Based Response for Diverse Elders and Their Families and Communities
(New York: Be the Evidence Press, Fordham University 2015).
65
Maschi et al., An Analysis of United States Compassionate and Geriatric Release Laws, p. 4; Chiu, It’s About
Time, pp. 3-4.
66
Chiu, It’s About Time, p. 4
67
The older prison population increased by 63 percent, while the total prison population grew by 0.7 percent during
the same period. Human Rights Watch, Old Behind Bars, p. 6
68
Tennessee Department of Correction, The Tennessee Department of Correction Fiscal Year 2013-2014 Statistical
Abstract (Nashville, TN: Tennessee Department of Correction, 2014), 25,
http://www.tn.gov/correction/pdf/StatisticalAbstract2014.pdf; State definitions of “older” or “elderly” inmates
varies, with many states using age 50 as a threshold, but others using 55, 60, or 65. Chiu, It’s About Time, pp. 4-5.
69
Maschi et al., An Analysis of United States Compassionate and Geriatric Release Laws, p. 4.
Vera Institute of Justice

| Report to the Governor’s Task Force on Sentencing and Recidivism

30

Elderly or “geriatric” prison populations present significant challenges for corrections officials
and state budgets, as these individuals often have extensive and costly medical needs.70
Compared to young prisoners, older inmates have higher rates of both mild and serious health
conditions, including hearing loss, visual impairment, hypertension, arthritis, and dementia, to
name a few.71 Some geriatric prisoners require levels of medical care equivalent to that offered in
assisted living, nursing homes, or hospice care.72 Because of these increased medical needs,
corrections departments generally must spend much more to incarcerate elderly prisoners than
younger inmates.73
Older inmates are also far less likely than younger prisoners to commit additional crimes or
violate parole conditions after release from prison. Research has consistently found age to be one
of the most significant predictors of criminality, with criminal activity tending to peak in early
adulthood and to decrease as an individual grows older.74 Studies indicate that the early release
of some elderly prisoners can pose a relatively low risk to public safety.75 For example, a 2004
study found a recidivism rate of only 9.5 percent among offenders over 50, compared to a rate of
35.5 percent of young offenders under age 21.76
Due to the growing numbers and higher costs of incarcerating elderly prisoners, as well as the
lower risk of recidivism among such prisoners, states have increasingly considered early release
options for certain older inmates who pose a relatively low public safety risk.77 As of 2015, 47
states, the District of Columbia and the federal Bureau of Prisons had various processes allowing
for the early release of some geriatric inmates, including discretionary parole, inmate furloughs,
and medical release.78 To be eligible for release, older inmates must meet certain requirements,
generally related to their age, medical condition, and risk to public safety as well as, in some
states, the severity of their offense and the length of their sentence served. For example, in
Alabama inmates can be considered for early release if they are 55 or older and suffer from
chronic debilitating disease or life-threatening illness; in Texas, inmates are eligible for
consideration at any age if they are elderly, physically disabled, or terminally ill and are not a
threat to public safety.79
These early release policies can potentially save state corrections systems significant amounts of
money. While there are concerns that such releases may simply shift the costs of these
individuals’ healthcare to other state agencies, they may still result in overall savings to the state,
70

Ibid., p. 6.
According to the Journal of the American Medical Association, prisoners over 55 have an average of three chronic
conditions and up to 20 percent have a mental illness. Chiu, It’s About Time, p. 5.
72
Human Rights Watch, Old Behind Bars, p. 7
73
Chiu, It’s About Time, p. 5; and Human Rights Watch, Old Behind Bars, p. 5 (“According to information gathered
by Human Rights Watch, including previously unpublished data, annual medical expenditures are three to eight
times greater for older state prisoners than for others.”)
74
Maschi et al., An Analysis of United States Compassionate and Geriatric Release Laws, p. 5.
75
Chiu, It’s About Time, p. 5.
76
Ibid., p. 5. Recidivism was measured after two years of release, for offenders who were sentenced under federal
sentencing guidelines.
77
Ibid., p. 2.
78
Maschi et al., An Analysis of United States Compassionate and Geriatric Release Laws, p. 7-8.
79
Chiu, It’s About Time, p. 7.
71

Vera Institute of Justice

| Report to the Governor’s Task Force on Sentencing and Recidivism

31

due to the added cost of prison security and control measures for these individuals if kept
incarcerated.80
Tennessee currently has a limited medical furlough policy which allows the TDOC
commissioner to release an individual from TDOC institutional custody to community
supervision.81 However, such furloughs are limited to inmates who are “in imminent peril of
death” or have severe physical or psychological deterioration, and the release can be revoked at
any time. Tennessee should consider developing a broader early release policy for older
offenders who pose little risk to public safety. Such a policy could potentially ease the strain on
corrections facilities and save the state money without significantly endangering public safety.	
  
Create a work group to address the status of those individuals who are serving their sentences
in local jails.
In Tennessee, many offenders serving a sentence between one and three years must serve their
sentence in the county’s jail or workhouse, if there is one.82 Offenders from Shelby County and
Davidson County who are serving a sentence between four and six years are likewise be assigned
to a county facility.83 As of April 2015, there were 3,895 people serving felony sentences in
Tennessee jails.84 These individuals do not receive the same programming and reentry planning
as those who are in TDOC operated facilities, which raises concerns about the impact on the
state’s recidivism reduction goals. A 2010 study of Tennessee recidivism rates by TDOC
highlighted a “glaring disparity” in the rate of return for those individuals leaving local jails.85
The report stated that, “Felons released from jails are returning at significantly high rates.
Comparisons of return rates by type of release and offense consistently demonstrate that felons
released from jail are both more likely to return to prison and do so within a shorter span of
time.”86
Reducing the recidivism rates for these individuals is an area worthy of attention, and Governor
Haslam should form a workgroup to investigate and make recommendations on this topic.

80

Ibid., p. 2; Human Rights Watch, Old Behind Bars, p. 6.
Administrative Policies And Procedures, State of Tennessee Department of Correction, Index # 511.01.1,
effective June 15, 2014, http://www.tn.gov/correction/pdf/51101-1.pdf.
82
Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-104(b) (2014).
83
Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-104(b)(2) (2014).
84
Tennessee Department of Correction, Tennessee Jail Summary Report (Nashville, TN: Tennessee Department of
Correction, 2015), http://www.tn.gov/correction/pdf/JailApril2015.pdf. The costs of jails also comprise a large
share of TDOC’s budget. According to TDOC, per diem rates paid by TDOC to local jails ranged from $30-$67 in
fiscal year 2014, and costs TDOC more than $185 million in fiscal year 2013. (By comparison, on a per diem basis,
TDOC estimate the per diem costs of TDOC confinement to be $74.19.)
85
Karpos, Tennessee Department of Correction Recidivism Study Felon Releases 2001-2007, p. 64.
86
Ibid.
81

Vera Institute of Justice

| Report to the Governor’s Task Force on Sentencing and Recidivism

32