NCSL STA L T A NALYSIS OF STA ACTIONS ON IMPORTANT ISSUES JANUARY 2004 V OLUME 29, NUMBER 1 State Crime Legislation in 2003 By Donna Lyons, Program Director, Criminal Justice State legislatures in 2003 accelerated the trend to divert drug offenders to treatment, roll back certain mandatory sentences and similar policies to modify prison sentences. New laws provide community options for some offenders, including those who violate conditions of probation or parole, and assist with offender re-entry to the community. These actions set sights on reducing reliance on incarceration and corrections costs. Some laws include requirements for assessment of offender needs and assert that state investments be in research-proven or best-practice interventions. Legislation in Kansas will provide non-prison treatment sanctions for defendants convicted of drug possession and determined to pose no risk to public safety. The act requires assessment of these offenders and establishes drug treatment and community corrections supervision. In addition, offenders who violate conditions of drug and alcohol treatment programs may receive sanctions that include fines, community service, house arrest or electronic monitoring in lieu of prison. Oregon lawmakers established an intensive alternative incarceration addiction program, which gives the Department of Corrections discretion to select participants and require of them rigorous responsibility and accountability, including physical labor and service to the community. The law requires that addiction treatment provided be a proven, research-based intervention. This fits within a broad measure in Oregon that says that state funds increasingly must be spent on evidence-based programs. The law defines these as cost-effective and relevant programs or practices that are based on scientific research and provide treatment or intervention intended to reduce the propensity of a person to commit crimes. By the 2005 biennium, the Department of Corrections, Youth Authority, Criminal Justice Commission, Commission on Children and Families and Department of Human Services agencies that deal with mental health and addiction will spend at least 25 percent of fund on such programming; this increases to 50 percent in 2007 and to 75 percent by the 2009 biennium. NCSL S TA EPORT 1
Under a new law, Texas similarly will require best practices standards for treatment provided to drug offenders who will be supervised under a suspended sentence. The act mandates such community supervision and treatment for first-time offenders convicted of possession of small amounts of controlled substances that otherwise would be punishable as state jail felonies. A Colorado enactment last year reduces felony levels and penalties for certain controlled substance crimes, including possession of one gram or less of some substances. The law creates a Drug Offender Treatment Fund to which the savings achieved as a result of the reduced sentences, estimated at $2.2 million, are appropriated. Michigan law also created a Drug Treatment Court Fund, with grants awarded for treatment programs throughout the state. Indiana law calls for creation of forensic diversion programs to provide community-based treatment or services instead of incarceration for people with mental illness or an addictive disorder. The Community Corrections Advisory Board will plan for and establish such programs under the act. In Arizona, lawmakers created a drug offender transition program and will allow three-month advanced release for selected offenders to participate in the program. Missouri will release offenders to probation following 12 to 24 months of prison-based alcohol or drug treatment. States are providing communitybased treatment or services to mentally ill or adddicted offenders. An enactment in Louisiana will allow inmates who have served at least 20 years under a controlled substance conviction to be eligible for evaluation of their risk of danger if released from prison. Those with convictions for sex crimes or crimes of violence are exempt from such review. The policy will potentially allow release of other offenders who are serving life sentences for drug crimes. Another Louisiana act allows certain people convicted of distributing cocaine or marijuana to be eligible to participate in a work release program. In Maryland, legislation gives courts more discretion to impose inpatient drug or alcohol treatment or home detention as a condition of probation or suspended sentence. Several states last year also expanded the reach of drug courts. Mississippi law will allow courts to establish alcohol and drug intervention components to sentencing, establishes offender eligibility for drug court participation, and sets up an advisory committee to monitor and evaluate drug courts. A drug court act in Arkansas will divert certain non-violent offenders to treatment. Another act targets certain controlled substance felons for placement in community correction facilities. 2 NCSL S TA EPORT
A number of other state laws in 2003 revised sentencing and shifted policy toward community corrections for drug and other offenders. Mandatory minimum, truth sentences revised A Delaware act reduces mandatory minimum sentences for many drug possession and trafficking offenses, while increasing the minimum sentence for many violent offenses. Under new law in South Dakota, a mandatory minimum sentence for marijuana possession will require intent to distribute the substance; legislation in North Dakota similarly exempts from laws providing mandatory prison terms for armed offenders those convicted of simple possession of marijuana. A Maine law expands circumstances in which courts may deviate from mandatory minimum sentences to include defendants who have prior criminal history. Laws revise some mandatory minimum sentences, especially for drug offenders. Sentencing law was revised in Iowa last year to allow those sentenced after July 1, 2003, and subject to 85 percent of sentence confinement requirements to be eligible for parole or work release after serving 70 percent of the maximum sentence. For those sentenced prior to that date, motions are allowed to reopen sentence to consider parole eligibility. The same act modifies and aligns amounts of crack and powder cocaine in their penalty structure and eliminates the mandatory, five-year sentence for specified class D substance abuse felonies, making those subject to an indeterminate term determined by the court, as are other felonies of that class. In Missouri, the Department of Corrections may make a binding recommendation to the court that non-violent offenders who have served 120 days of a sentence may serve the remainder of their sentence in the community. Legislation in Washington will expedite release of certain drug offenders and people who have committed other crimes that are not subject to supervision in the community by retroactively increasing earned time to a maximum 50 percent of their sentence. Violent offenders and serious sex offenders likewise will see earned time reduced to 10 percent of sentence. The law also allows community custody for certain offenders who otherwise would be sentenced to jail terms of less than one year. Community corrections expanded A community corrections act in Nebraska creates and encourages courts and the Board of Parole to use community-based facilities and programs for adult felons, to reduce prison NCSL S TA EPORT 3
overcrowding and spending. A sentencing measure in Missouri gives courts discretion to depart from advisory sentences and to order community punishments that may include restitution, offender treatment, and residential and non-residential community supervision. In Louisiana, judicial districts may establish job intervention programs for non-violent first offenders as an alternative to incarceration or other sanctions. Mississippi offenders may be placed in intensive supervision programs in the community, under legislation there. Alabama lawmakers updated and expanded community corrections to create a Community Corrections Division within the Department of Corrections, responsible for establishing and maintaining programs. A State-County Community Corrections Partnership Fund will use legislative appropriations, grants, gifts and other funds for programs established under the act, including those operated by nonprofit groups. A partner act requires the state s Sentencing Commission to develop a system of sentencing standards for use in felony cases, to include community punishment options. A Florida act emphasizes risk assessment of offenders sentenced to community control and requires that the evaluation instrument be similar to a National Institute of Justice model. The legislation also prohibits those convicted of certain forcible felonies from being placed in the community. In special session, Connecticut lawmakers created an Alternatives to Incarceration Advisory Committee to consider means for reducing the prison population. Indiana, New Hampshire and South Carolina are other states that will study sentencing and prison population management, as a result of 2003 actions. Legislation in Kentucky charges the Corrections Commission with developing and implementing a statewide strategic plan for community corrections. The plan is to assess current programs, develop alternative sentencing programs, and reduce state expenditures by increasing community sentences, reducing recidivism, and reducing probation and parole revocations. Lawmakers focused on options for probation and parole violators. Other state laws focused on options for probation and parole violators. Colorado legislation will allow community corrections placement when a parolee has violated any condition of parole other than a new crime. The act requires that, prior to revoking parole, the board recommend appropriate interventions to assist the parolee with reintegration and prevent return to incarceration. The Colorado Department of Corrections is authorized to operate community return-to-custody facilities for non-violent offenders whose parole is being 4 NCSL S TA EPORT
revoked; and impose fees on offenders placed in such facilities. An enactment in Nevada gives courts discretion to impose probation for certain low-level felonies committed while an offender is on parole, who has a previous probation or parole revocation, or who failed to successfully complete a program of treatment or rehabilitation. Offender reentry to the community Nevada also is among states addressing prisoner reentry. Legislation there authorizes the Department of Corrections to establish programs to select offenders suitable for residential or other transitional community supervision. The program includes employment services, vocational training and restitution. Offenders currently on parole who have violated conditions also are eligible for placement in the programs. A Louisiana act, which created a reentry preparation program with the Department of Public Safety and Corrections, requires each institution to have a transition specialist. Offenders are required to participate in a pre-release program six months prior to release, to include instruction in employment, money management and other personal issues. Legislation encourages programs to aid in prisoner reentry into the community. Legislation in Virginia permits the Department of Corrections to place in a work release, residential or other community program non-violent prisoners who are serving a term of at least three years and are within six months of release. Illinois law authorized a pilot program to provide transitional jobs for hard-to-employ people, including those who have been released from a county jail or state prison. Oklahoma legislation added work release centers to reintegration placements for inmates nearing release. In Washington, legislation regulates siting and staffing of community transition facilities. One act prohibits community transition facilities from being sited near schools, parks, day care facilities, youth camps, playgrounds, libraries and religious buildings, and another sets minimum requirements for numbers of staff and maximum numbers of residents in such facilities. Many community corrections and prisoner reentry policies in 2003 addressed fees of criminal offenders, as did other measures that put in place co-payments for medical services in local detention facilities. A package of bills enacted in Michigan increases revenue for various judiciary and criminal justice entities by increasing civil filing and motion fees and consolidating the assessments and costs imposed on civil infractions and criminal offenses, with an expected net increase in revenue generated by such assessments. Minimum costs NCSL S TA EPORT 5
of $60 are imposed on felony offenses and of $45 for serious or specified misdemeanor offenses, with the same costs imposed on juveniles found responsible for such acts. Improving capital justice Capital punishment measures in 2003 responded to U.S. Supreme Court rulings the year before, including prohibition by some states of execution of mentally retarded defendants and amendments to capital sentencing procedure in a handful of others to provide that juries, not judges, make that determination. Legislation in Illinois broadly reforms capital justice. A broad measure in Illinois puts in place capital justice reforms that have been in works for at least four years, when the previous governor placed a moratorium on executions and declared the system to be seriously flawed. The legislature overrode a partial veto by the governor to put in place provisions that affect many areas of criminal justice to address wrongful convictions. The legislation prohibits the state from seeking a death sentence when the only evidence supporting the conviction is uncorroborated testimony of an informant witness, a single eyewitness or a single accomplice. It requires eyewitnesses who view a lineup or photo spread to sign a form stating that they have been advised that the suspect may or may not be included there; that they are not obligated to make an identification; and that they do not assume knowledge by the person conducting the lineup of the suspect s identity. Lineups must be photographed or otherwise recorded; and a pilot program is created to electronically record interviews with suspects in custody in first-degree murder investigations. The bill requires disclosure of all material gained in the investigation of a homicide and requires information on informants or witnesses, including their criminal history and any agreement entered into with the informant for his or her statement. The act directs the attorney general and the State s Attorney Association to consult on voluntary guidelines for seeking the death penalty. The landmark legislation broadens beyond procedural grounds the authority of the Supreme Court to overturn a death sentence if it finds that the sentence is fundamentally unjust as applied to a particular case. The act addresses mental retardation of defendants and allows defendants to request that crime evidence be compared to the state s DNA database and, if certain conditions are met, to the National DNA Index System. The legislation allows those sentenced to death to petition the trial court if newly discovered evidence becomes available that was not available at the time of conviction and that may establish innocence. It also sets time limits on such filings for death sentences and other defendants. 6 NCSL S TA EPORT
In a measure that expands DNA testing of criminals, Connecticut lawmakers established an advisory commission to review cases of wrongful conviction. Colorado, Georgia, Nevada and Ohio legislatures passed laws last year to provide procedures for post-conviction DNA testing. At least 32 states now have such provisions. DNA felon samples Many other state laws in 2003 continue the transformation of law enforcement using forensic DNA. More than a dozen states last year expanded DNA data bases to include more offenders. New laws in Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Mississippi, New Jersey, North Carolina and South Dakota will require collection of DNA samples from all felons, bringing to 35 the number of states with such policies. Maine law added juveniles adjudicated delinquent for most violent felonies and other serious crimes to the state s data base, and an enactment in Arizona clarified that juveniles adjudicated for class 2 drug offenses not just those tried as adults must provide a sample. To date, 33 states require DNA samples of some juvenile offenders. Thirty-five states now require a DNA sample of all convicted felons. A law in Utah removes the statute of limitations on a number of sex crimes, aggravated robbery and aggravated burglary, where the perpetrator can be identified with DNA evidence. A Louisiana enactment similarly allows prosecution of sex crimes within three years of the statutory limit when the identity of the offender is established with a DNA profile, with retroactive application. Lawmakers in Texas addressed accreditation of crime labs that analyze physical evidence in criminal cases, and New Jersey created a laboratory fund, with additional fees imposed on traffic offenses dedicated to this fund. Sex offender registries also continue to be expanded in states, along with laws to make registration more enforceable and effective. An enactment in Arizona requires the Department of Corrections to register sex offenders before they are released from custody; in Maine, courts now are required to inform sex offenders of registration requirements. Under new law in California, convicted sex offenders must provide probation officers with proof they have registered within six days of release and provide proof of required updates to the registry. At least three states Indiana, Louisiana and Rhode Island increased penalties for not complying with the registration requirement. Indiana s law also will require that the registry Web site be updated at least every seven days. NCSL S TA EPORT 7
A broad act in New Mexico addressed penalties for felony sex offenders, including minimum three to 15-year sentences for sex crimes against children. The act also creates a sex offender management board to develop procedure for evaluating, monitoring and treating sex offenders. Lawmakers included in the law factors that district courts should consider in placing offenders in the community and also included that conditions of community supervision may include treatment and polygraph and other testing. In 2003, seven additional states adopted the Interstate Compact for Adult Offender supervision, which has been ratified to establish procedures for interstate information exchange and tracking of offenders who are being supervised in the community. States that became party to the compact last year include Delaware, Indiana, Maine, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New York and West Virginia. The newer Interstate Compact for Juveniles was adopted in 2003 by 11 states Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Rhode Island and Washington. Like the adult compact, this standardizes procedures for interstate management, monitoring and supervision of juvenile offenders. It includes adjudicated delinquents or status offenders who are on probation or parole. The juvenile compact also advances the safe return of juvenile runaways who have left their home state. It will go into effect once 35 states have enacted laws. Interventions for young offenders Actions in 2003 created alternative interventions and dispositions for young offenders. An action Connecticut addresses the upper age of juvenile court jurisdiction. The state is one of just three in which one can be no older than age 15 for an offense to be handled in juvenile court. An implementation team will be at work to plan for the variety of systems changes that would be necessary to step up the age of juvenile jurisdiction first to include 16-year-olds and then 17-year-olds. Other state legislation seeks to prevent crimes and provide appropriate interventions for young offenders. Louisiana and Mississippi put in place teen court programs, in which an alternative to traditional juvenile justice is provided by peer panels that hear cases and recommend dispositions. Kansas law will require new or enhanced community-based sanctions and prevention programs; Nebraska law allows localities to establish pre-trial diversion programs for juveniles. Several state laws addressed mental health needs of juvenile offenders. In Colorado, an enactment allows a 90-day suspended sentence, during
which treatment is provided to developmentally disabled or mentally ill juveniles, with court monitoring and review. Legislation in Washington also provided a mental health disposition alternative for juvenile offenders. Under that act, courts may suspend a juvenile s disposition for 15 to 65 weeks, during which the youth complies with a treatment plan. An Indiana measure allows a juvenile court to order involuntary drug and alcohol treatment for a juvenile offender, with parental involvement in treatment. Juveniles also are included in the Colorado act that seeks to divert and treat drug offenders. Competency of adult offenders was subject of state laws last year. Nevada has abolished the plea of guilty but mentally ill and reinstated exculpation by reason of insanity. The law includes procedures for committing a person acquitted by reason of insanity to a mental health facility and provides guidelines and procedures for the examination of a defendant s competency. Protecting police, the public Law enforcement measures in states in 2003 included those to address eluding police, assaults on law enforcement officers, or impersonating peace officers. Michigan measures created the felony offense of impersonating a peace officer including a sheriff, local or state police officer, or coroner when done to commit or attempt to commit a crime. The Class F felony is punishable by up to four years imprisonment and/or a maximum fine of $5,000. Consecutive sentences are allowed for the impersonation and other offenses. Colorado law also increased penalties for impersonating a police officer, and Oklahoma created penalties for false impersonation of a police officer, including tougher penalties for such acts that result in injury to another. Louisiana law now prohibits second-hand dealers from selling articles of clothing that display the insignia of a law enforcement agency or public utility. New legislation addresses eluding, assaulting or impersonating police officers. Other states including Hawaii, Louisiana, Missouri and Texas increased penalties for assaults against law enforcement officers. Missouri will classify first degree assault on law enforcement officers as crimes that constitute dangerous felony. Eluding police officers, including the danger that pursuits of such suspects present to the public, was addressed last year, as well. Laws in Mississippi, New Mexico, Nevada and Virginia increase penalties for eluding police or resisting lawful arrest. In New Mexico, as well as in Georgia and Washington, policies must be established for police vehicular pursuits. New Mexico s Law Enforcement Safe Pursuit Act requires training, requires that officers have reasonable grounds to believe
the suspect poses a clear and immediate threat to others, and disallows pursuits that create greater danger to the officer and public than if the occupants of the vehicle remain at large. Washington s law similarly requires officer training and sets out policy for determining when the interests of public safety and effective law enforcement justify a vehicle pursuit of suspects. New Hampshire lawmakers established a committee to study laws relating to law enforcement vehicular pursuits. States also continue to address law enforcement racial profiling with new laws in Arkansas, Montana and New Jersey prohibiting the practice. New Jersey s law declares racial profiling as an act that deprives people of their civil rights and creates a crime in the third degree when a public servant stops, detains or impedes the lawful activities of someone because of race, color, religion, ethnicity, gender, handicap or sexual orientation. Twenty-seven states in recent years have passed laws to prohibit law enforcement racial profiling, with measures often including a data collection and reporting on people stopped. The New Jersey law is the first to actually criminalize actions that constitute racial profiling. One of the first states to address racial profiling, Connecticut, updated its law last year to clarify information that must be collected by law enforcement officers and to require that records of numbers, nature and characteristics of traffic violators be shared with the African-American Affairs Commission. Laws facilitate updated and standardized crime information and communication systems. Improved means for communication among law enforcement personnel was facilitated under a Florida act. The measure specifies agencies with which the State Technology Office is to work to establish a comprehensive management plan for a statewide communications system. The office is to make mutual aid channels in the statewide system available to state and federal agencies and is authorized to implement an interoperability network for both public safety and domestic security. Sharing crime-related information was addressed in three additional states that enacted the National Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact last year. The compact establishes formal procedures and a governance structure for use and sharing of criminal information for non-criminal justice purposes, such as employment and security screenings. New Hampshire, North Carolina and Tennessee bring to 20 the number of states that now are party to the compact. 10 NCSL S TA EPORT
Updating crime information systems Washington lawmakers called for creation of an automated, centralized justice information network for law enforcement, jails, prosecutors and court officials to use to house and exchange information. A board is to develop a system that will support standardized data and communications technology among criminal justice entities. A commission in New Hampshire will study creation of an integrated criminal justice information system; their charge includes addressing issues of privacy and security of information that would be included in such a system. Meanwhile, other states made certain records more accessible. An Iowa act allows for dissemination of certain intelligence information by law enforcement personnel to agencies, organizations or individuals in order to protect them from a threat of imminent, serious harm. A similar Oregon law authorizes certain agencies to obtain information on individuals from the state police if it is needed to protect vulnerable people. State laws continue to recognize and enforce victims right. Among such actions last year are laws that expand categories of harm and definitions of those who are eligible to receive crime victim compensation. Under new law in Connecticut, attorney s fees can be included as part of a compensation award, and actions in Maryland and Texas addressed lost wages of family members of crime victims. The Maine Legislature passed a measure to expand the definition of family or household members whose relationship to the victim makes them eligible for compensation, and Oregon law similarly expanded the definition of survivor to include household members who may be compensated. New law in Oregon also will require that courts order restitution in all cases in which a victim suffers injury, loss or damage. It makes the offender s ability to pay restitution a factor in the payment schedule, but not the requirement to pay. A measure in Vermont seeks to better manage restitution payments to victims, creating a special unit in the Center for Crime Victim Services with responsibility for collecting and paying restitution. A Delaware act placed that state among those that make a restitution order fully enforceable as any civil judgment and, in addition, will require courts to retain jurisdiction over offenders until all restitution owed a victim is paid. Crime victim compensation was expanded in several states last year. Victim participation in the process was addressed in several states. Connecticut and Minnesota actions allow victims to have a voice prior to plea bargain agreements with defendants. Similarly, in New Jersey, sexual assault victims will have the opportunity to consult with prosecutors regarding plea negotiations. NCSL S TA EPORT 11 11
In Arkansas, an enactment expands the definition of crime victim to include a government entity or agency and will hold violators of certain controlled substances laws responsible for restitution to the state for clean up of drug manufacture sites. Illinois and Tennessee are other states in which new laws require such restitution for costs to government to clean up sites where drugs have been manufactured. Many other measures in states seek to protect young victims of drugs, including an act in Arkansas that creates a separate felony for exposing a child to drug manufacture substances. Acts in California, Colorado, Illinois, Montana and North Dakota also address child endangerment in drug manufacture. Policies seek to protect children and the public from toxic drug manufacture. Several states including Arkansas, Florida, Montana, Nevada and Utah took a broad approach to protecting the public from the dangers of drug labs, enhancing penalties for manufacture in proximity to schools, parks, churches and similar public gathering places. As the result of new law in Hawaii, a drug busters unit will be at work in the attorney general s office to deal with manufacture and sale of methamphetamine on the islands. Citations to significant state crime enactments in 2003 highlighted in this report are in the appendix that follows. NCSL Criminal Justice Program staff Sarah Brown, Monica Hadd and Blake Harrison contributed to this report. For more information, see the program Web site at http://www.ncsl.org/ programs/cj/crime.htm; email cj-info@ncsl.org; or call (303) 364-7700. 12 NCSL S TA EPORT
Appendix. Citations to Referenced Legislation Capital punishment: Illinois S 472 Crime information systems: Iowa H 216; New Hampshire H 64; Oregon H 2207; Washington H 1605. DNA: Alaska H 49; Arkansas H 1074; Colorado S 164; Connecticut H 5022; Georgia S 119; Louisiana S 295 and S 346; Maine H 300; Massachusetts S 187; Mississippi S 2348; Nevada A 16; North Carolina H 79; New Jersey H 2617; Ohio S 11; South Dakota S 184; Texas 2703; Utah S 116. Drug diversion, treatment, sentencing: Arizona S 1291; Arkansas H 2353; Colorado S 318; Kansas S 123; Florida CS for S 428; Indiana H 1001; Louisiana H 294 and H 504; Maryland S 428; Michigan H 4735; Missouri S 5; Mississippi S 2605; North Dakota S 2211; Oregon H 2647; South Dakota H 1153; Texas H 2668; Virginia H 2245. Drug manufacture: Arkansas H 2486, H 2155 and H 2353; Colorado H 1169; Florida S 1588; Illinois S 1578 and S 1793; Montana S 364 and H 402; Nevada A 33; North Dakota H 1351; Tennessee H 876; Utah H 94. Interstate Compact for Juveniles: Arizona H 2106; Connecticut H 6475; Delaware H 84; Louisiana S 332; Maine H 977; Michigan H 4145; New Mexico H 46; North Dakota H 1254; Washington S 5133. Interstate Compact on Adult Offender Supervision: Delaware H 76; Indiana S 205; Maine L 311; Nebraska L 46; New Hampshire H 633; New York A 851; West Virginia H 2705. Juvenile justice: Connecticut H 1240; Kansas S 11; Indiana H 1689; Louisiana H 1105; Mississippi H 800; Nebraska L 34; Washington S 5903. Law enforcement: Arkansas S 96; Colorado H 1304; Connecticut H 5674; Florida H 2488; Georgia S 292; Hawaii S 1275; Illinois H 92; Louisiana H 1994 and S 875; Michigan S 117 and S 118; Nevada A 335; New Jersey S 429; Mississippi S 2446; Missouri S 5; NCSL S TA EPORT 13 13
Montana H 293; New Hampshire H 179; New Mexico H 30; Oklahoma S 673; Texas H 565; Virginia S 1336; Washington S 5165. Mental health of defendants: Nevada A 156; Texas S 1057. National Crime Prvention and Privacy Compact: New Hampshire H 205; North Carolina H 1024; Tennessee H 806. Sentencing and community corrections : Alabama H 489 and H 490; Colorado S 252; Connecticut H 6808; Illinois H 3316; Indiana H 1145; Iowa S 422; Louisiana S 518; Maine H 633; Mississippi H 780; Missouri S 5; Nebraska L 46; Nevada A 95 and S 264; New Hampshire H 825; Oklahoma S 1061; South Carolina S 626; Washington S 5550, S 5990 and S 5991. Sex offenders: Arizona S 1088; California A 1098; Indiana S 286; Louisiana S 376; Maine H 1107; New Mexico S 470; Rhode Island H 6101. Victims rights, services: Connecticut H 6432 and S 1066; Delaware S 50; Maine H 1103; Maryland S 186; Minnesota S 964; New Jersey S 1143; Oregon S 106 and S 617; Texas H 1895; Vermont S 15. Other: Research-based, Oregon S 267; Criminal fees, Michigan HBs 4732, 4733, 4736, 4741, 4743, 4745, 4746, 4748, 4749, 4750 and SBs 434, 435, 439, 442, 444, 447, 448, 449. 14 NCSL S TA EPORT
State Legislative Reports "Promoting Young Children's Social and Emotional Readiness for School" March 2003 (Vol. 28, No. 6) (ISBN 1-58024-279-0) "Victims' Rights Legislation in the 21 st Century" April 2003 (Vol. 28, No. 7) (ISBN 1-58024-281-2) "Expediting Adoption of Children from Foster Care: Recent State Legislation" June 2003 (Vol. 28, No. 8) (ISBN 1-58024-289-8) "Budgeting for Long-Term Care: Spending Limited Dollars More Wisely" July 2003 (Vol. 28, No. 9) (ISBN 1-58024-291-X) "Using Risk Assessments and Institutional Controls as Brownfields Cleanup Tools" July 2003 (Vol. 28, No. 10) (ISBN 1-58024-300-2) "Indirect Support for Adoptive Families: Lower-Cost Options for States" August 2003 (Vol. 28, No. 11) (ISBN 1-58024-301-0) "Improving Justice Technology Infrastructure" September 2003 (Vol. 28, No. 12) (ISBN 1-58024-303-7) "Improving Teaching Quality Through Teacher Professional Standards Boards" November 2003 (Vol. 28, No. 13) (ISBN 1-58024-305-3) "Liability Protections to Promote Brownfields Redevelopment" December 2003 (Vol. 28, No. 14) (ISBN 1-58024-315-0) "State Crime Legislation in 2003" January 2004 (Vol. 29, No. 1) (ISBN 1-58024-329-0) "Can Merit Scholarships Survive?" January 2004 (Vol. 29, No. 2) (ISBN 1-58024-330-4) STA L T is published 12 to 18 times a year. It is distributed without charge to legislative leaders, council and research directors, legislative librarians, and selected groups for each issue. For further information on STA L T or to obtain copies, contact the NCSL Book Order Department in Denver at (303) 364-7812. 2004 by the National Conference of State Legislatures. This document is printed on recycled paper. NCSL S TA EPORT 15 15