A new report from the U.S. shows a growing number of American states are cutting costs and enhancing public safety through evidence-based correctional and sentencing reforms – and Canadian critics say it’s proof the Conservative government is heading down the wrong path with measures that aim to put more prisoners behind bars for longer periods of time.

The National Governors’ Association Centre for Best Practices study called “State Efforts in Sentencing and Corrections Reform” outlines how the tough economic climate is forcing states across America to rethink long-term criminal justice strategies. The homeland security and public safety division report suggests ways to achieve lower recidivism rates and reduce costs by shrinking prison populations.

“By adopting evidence-based practices and a cross-governmental approach to reform, focusing resources on high-risk offenders, supporting mandatory supervision and treatment in the community and using real-time data and information to drive decisions, states can cut corrections costs while at the same time improving offender outcomes and ensuring public safety,” the report concludes.

Between 2009 and 2010, at least 40 states cut general spending on corrections, with many reconsidering the fiscal consequences of sentencing policies such as truth in sentencing, three-strikes laws and mandatory minimum sentences.

The report points to a “significant body of research” that shows which sentencing and corrections practices work and which ones don’t. Evidence-based practices lead to an average decrease in crime of 10-20 per cent, while programs that aren’t evidence-based see no decrease or even slight increase in crime rates.

NDP MP Francoise Boivin, who sits on the justice committee and serves as the party’s deputy critic, said the report underscores how the Conservative government is taking Canada in the “exact opposite” direction from other jurisdictions that are learning from past mistakes. Instead of adopting programs that are evidence-based, reduce recidivism and have impact, the Conservatives are adopting policies based on ideology, she said.

“They’re going back to what we have had here, and based on our statistics on crime and recidivism, which is way lower here in Canada, it proves the point that our sentencing system has been working well in that we have much fewer people getting out of jail, then coming back,” Boivin told iPolitics. “All the experts are saying not only is it not good sound policy for bringing more public security to the street, it’s actually going to cost so much that in a few years we’ll have to go back.”

The result could be an expensive experiment that puts more offenders into a system that churns out hardened, more dangerous criminals. Boivin predicts the federal government will also face a string of constitutional challenges from provinces, offenders and lawyers.

MPs on the justice committee will begin clause-by-clause review of C-10 after this week’s recess, and Boivin said the NDP will propose amendments to the omnibus bill.

The NGA report finds a growing number of states are adopting sentencing reforms that move non-violent offenders out of the correctional system more quickly, reserving prison space for those who pose a greater threat to public safety. They are also amending criminal codes to find alternatives to incarceration, downgrade offences, repeal or amend mandatory sentencing laws and adopt credit systems to speed-up the release of lower-risk offenders.

Many states such as New York have also overhauled drug laws that led to a surge in convictions and incarceration of low-level drug cases.

Steve Sullivan, executive director of Ottawa Victims’ Services and former federal victims’ ombudsman, said in a time of scarce resources, the Conservative government should be paying more attention to evidence about what does and doesn’t work to protect public safety.

“The report speaks to the evidence base of how we can use scarce resources where they’re needed,” he said. “And from my perspective working with victims, I’d rather spend money on healing children than punishing sex offenders.”

Sullivan said the Conservatives’ solutions are simplistic and popular, and while they might appear to make sense in theory, it’s been proven they don’t work well in practice. The measures play to their base, but dismiss expert evidence from academics and lawyers.

“Who’s going to argue with the notion of keeping a sex offender in prison longer than we are now? A lot of us are parents, and the average person probably doesn’t read the evidence regarding sex offenders, so that’s a very popular notion,” he said. “Having said that, I think governments have a responsibility to balance what it is people are asking for, what the public perceives, with reality. Because the public perception isn’t always that informed.”

University of British Columbia law professor Michael Jackson, the Canadian Bar Association’s spokesman on C-10, said the report shows evidence-based justice reforms reduce prison populations, and lead to safer communities while reducing costs associated with building and operating prison facilities. But the Harper government is “openly contemptuous” of evidence-based research, and is instead crafting public policy based on “counterproductive and demonstrably failed measures” such as mandatory minimum sentences because they are politically popular.

“The U.S. report makes it clear that branding criminal justice as tough on crime is a poor substitute for evidence-based initiatives if public safety and cost effectiveness is your objective,” he said.

[email protected]