Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 1:12 am
Time: 1:12 am
Results for criminal justice expenditures
33 results foundAuthor: Mills, Helen Title: Prison and Probation Expenditure, 1999-2009 Summary: This is the second of a series of briefings on criminal justice spending in the U.K. It demonstrates that spending on the prison and probation system in England and Wales has grown by 36 percent in real terms since 2004 despite a major reorganisation that was meant to save money. Details: London: Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, 2010. 60p. Source: Internet Resource; Spending Briefing Series Year: 2010 Country: United Kingdom URL: Shelf Number: 119399 Keywords: Criminal Justice ExpendituresPrisons, Costs ofProbation, Costs of |
Author: Great Britain. National Audit Office Title: Criminal Justice System Landscape Review Summary: Under the current constitution and structure of government, there can be no single 'owner' of the criminal justice system. The system is complex, responsibilities cross different departments and involve a wide range of delivery partners, and it involves a wide range of activities and objectives. This 'Landscape Review' is aimed at providing an overview of recent criminal justice performance and practice. Our findings are based on the evidence that we have collected in the course of recent value for money studies, and also on the wealth of documentary evidence in the public domain. Our aim is to inform the debate on future developments in the criminal justice system and especially on how the government can achieve better services for less expenditure. Details: London: National Audit Office, 2010. 27p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 15, 2010 at: http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/1011/criminal_justice_landscape_rev.aspx Year: 2010 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/1011/criminal_justice_landscape_rev.aspx Shelf Number: 120513 Keywords: Costs of Criminal JusticeCriminal Justice ExpendituresCriminal Justice Systems (U.K.) |
Author: Gascon, George Title: Making Policing More Affordable: Managing Costs and Measuring Value in Policing Summary: This paper tries to create space for a careful conversation about the challenge of paying for policing. It starts by asking two questions. First, what is driving up police expenditures? Are police departments growing and providing more services to more people, are the costs of providing these same services simply going up, or are other factors responsible for the increase? Second, what have cities and their residents received in return for their investment in policing? Are there fewer crimes, a greater sense of safety and more satisfaction with police services? What has happened to the bottom line in policing? How have communities benefited from the new spending? This paper tries to answer these questions by examining the costs of policing in one city, Mesa, Ariz. The authors could not collect information from enough departments across the United States to systematically compare costs in midsized cities, so this paper instead compares spending in Mesa over the last decade with the spending of neighboring cities in Arizona and with 10 similarly sized jurisdictions that shared their budget data with the authors. The paper also examines the impact of this new spending, using such conventional measures of police value as the amount of recorded crime, citizens’ sense of safety and call response times. Despite the limitations of these measures, which numerous academics, police chiefs and the Commission on the Accreditation of Law Enforcement Agencies (CALEA) have repeatedly pointed out, they remain the indicators that shape professional assessments of the value of policing. Because they are still the “measures that matter,” this paper relies on them to evaluate the impact of new police spending on communities. Finally, the paper considers a series of tactics now being tested in a few cities and police departments for managing the rising costs of policing, including efforts to cut spending, raise productivity and re-engineer operations. Perhaps none of these tactics, by themselves or in combination, yields a sustainable strategy for paying for policing in the future. But their consideration here should support future conversations about restructuring police services, reorganizing departments, and building new measures of the value of policing that the present financial crisis demands. Details: Cambridge, MA: Harvard Kennedy School, Program in Criminal Justice Policy and Management; Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, national Institute of Justice, 2010. 19p. Source: Internet Resource: New Perspectives in Policing, December 2010: Accessed December 17, 2010 at: http://cms.hks.harvard.edu/var/ezp_site/storage/fckeditor/file/pdfs/centers-programs/programs/criminal-justice/NewPerspectivesPolicing-MakingPolicingMoreAffordable-Dec2010.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://cms.hks.harvard.edu/var/ezp_site/storage/fckeditor/file/pdfs/centers-programs/programs/criminal-justice/NewPerspectivesPolicing-MakingPolicingMoreAffordable-Dec2010.pdf Shelf Number: 120545 Keywords: Costs of Criminal JusticeCriminal Justice ExpendituresPolicing |
Author: Oregon. Reset Subcommittee on Public Safety Title: Report of the Reset Subcommittee on Public Safety Summary: The key objective of the Reset Cabinet is to “develop a plan containing specific recommendations to the Governor to reset State government’s core functions and stabilize its revenue structure.” We have developed options at a time when, according to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting indexes, Oregon’s person and property crimes are at historic lows, prison capacity has grown to its highest level, and the cost of operating the prison system has increased dramatically over the last fifteen years. The Public Safety subcommittee has addressed the expected $2.5 billion shortfall in the 2011‐13 biennial state budget by focusing primarily on the most expensive element of the state’s public safety system – prisons. During the next decade, when the shortfall between revenue and expenses is expected to remain at more than $2 billion if nothing is done, the April 2010 Department of Corrections prison forecast predicts 2,000 additional prison beds will be necessary to carry out our current sentencing policies – pushing the prison population to 16,000 by 2020. There are three main cost drivers in building and operating prisons. Our efforts focused on two: who is entering the prison system and how long they stay. (The third cost driver – the pay and benefits of public safety workers – will be addressed in the main Reset Cabinet report.) The subcommittee options will impact those two cost drivers by looking with a cost/benefit eye at what gives taxpayers the greatest return on their public safety investment and continues to protect communities and reduce future crime victimization. Because the budget savings from some of the options presented will take several years to realize, we provide both short‐term and long‐term steps to optimize the use of our most expensive public safety resource, state prison beds. These options require weighing difficult trade offs in how to reduce budgets and must be driven by evidence based practices and the experience of other states. None of these options are easily achieved, but we believe these options represent a viable opportunity for the State to emerge from its financial crisis with a well balanced and efficient system that prioritizes the public’s safety. In concert with other options, these reductions will provide some budgetary protection for key programs in education and health and human services systems – including mental health and alcohol and drug treatment that directly impact crime and incarceration rates. These systems are essential areas of investment to break cycles of criminality and reduce crime long term. Both the Reset Cabinet and the Subcommittee were asked to put traditional thinking and structures aside and develop options that could be used as new, more economical models of service delivery. This request proved to be a challenge. But the Subcommittee has identified options that meet this test and bear further consideration. These options include modifications in the relationship between the state and counties and the current cost structures for public safety funding. The Subcommittee looked for options that would provide models for incentives to form new partnerships with counties to encourage district attorneys to adopt uniform charging and sentencing practices. Also, the subcommittee suggests that counties use local cost effective, accountability measures to deal with short term, non‐violent offenders who will be shortly returning to their communities. These policies, if implemented, would make more effective use of the expensive prison bed resource. Given the expected loss of federal timber revenue in several counties, these partnerships are critical to maintaining an acceptable level of county services. The subcommittee during the course of its work produced a survey instrument to gauge the reaction of various stakeholders to the acceptance of the problem statement set forth by the Governor in the executive order, and to determine whether there were potential solutions or options around which public safety stakeholders could coalesce. A brief summary of the survey results are provided later in this report and the full results are available at http://cjinstitute.org/projects/oregonreset. In addition, the subcommittee spent time discussing both the challenges and options for solutions with many stakeholder and partner groups including sheriffs, chiefs of police, district attorneys, victims advocates from the Attorney General’s office, community corrections leaders, leadership from the Oregon Youth Authority, Board of Parole and Post‐Prison Supervision, the Judicial Department and others. Because sentencing policy, not crime rates, drives the use of expensive prison beds, the subcommittee believes a restructuring of sentencing policy to a modern, uniform sentencing guideline system based upon truth in sentencing will provide fair, transparent allocation of prison time to those offenders posing the greatest long term threat to our communities. These guidelines must: Take advantage of the more than 9,000 prison beds that have been added to system since the old guideline system was created in 1989 Keep faith with the spirit of the statutory sentencing changes that have been implemented by the Legislature and citizens since those guidelines were created Acknowledge the scarcity of resources in this environment, an issue that is too often ignored when sentencing policies are established. Finally, at the recommendation of many in the public safety community, the subcommittee has proposed that the State adopt federal earned‐time guidelines including 15 percent earned time for all offenders that are not incarcerated for life, and greater use of transitional resources such as halfway houses and electronic monitoring at the end of their sentences. Many of the options presented in this report, if implemented, would take more than a single biennium to achieve their desired result. In some cases it may be five or more years before the financial impacts of these policy choices will be reflected in the State budget. Yet the material addressed later in this report demonstrates that the cumulative effect of these changes, if enacted and adhered to over time, can result in potentially hundreds of millions of dollars in avoided costs and system savings. The short‐term budget challenge is, however, more daunting. While politically difficult to address, the Subcommittee believes the biggest short‐term savings would come from a further legislative delay in the implementation of sentence enhancements contained in Ballot Measure 57, dealing with repeat property offenders. Property crime rates are at historic lows in Oregon, and a decision to delay the measure’s implementation would result in estimated savings of almost $40 million in the 2011‐2013 biennium alone. Virtually all of these options would require legislative action. The key sentencing guidelines measure, however, will require a bi‐partisan legislative effort with a 2/3 approval or a citizen referral and vote in May, 2011. The incoming Governor and Legislature must understand the gravity of the State’s financial situation and seriously consider their role in crafting a long term stable public safety system against the backdrop of our current and projected financial picture. The alternatives are much worse. If Oregonians fail to plan for our public safety system’s future with an honest assessment of the financial situation, the State will not avoid the problem. The State will still have to deal with less money, but rather than using long term, careful planning to assure our ability to carry out the sentences that are imposed, the State will be forced to consider the early release of offenders who have already been sentenced and will risk the same overcrowding of inmates that brought federal litigation in Oregon in the 1980’s. Rather than the temporary policy that bridges the State to sustainable corrections practices, these early releases and prison overcrowding will become the norm. In addition, the State risks disproportionate reductions in certain segments of the public safety system that create dangerous imbalances in the system as a whole. Cuts, for example to courts and indigent defense, have the effect of shutting down the criminal justice system. These actions erode the principle of “swift and certain” sanctions and destroy accountability as certain crimes are essentially ignored. Likewise, limiting resources for law enforcement, prosecutors, and community corrections can create an unbalanced system. In short, if we fail to plan for a changed economic future, we plan to fail as a public safety system. Details: Salem, OR: State of Oregon, 2010. 64p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 19, 2011 at: http://cjinstitute.org/files/OR_pubsafe_subcomreport_final.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://cjinstitute.org/files/OR_pubsafe_subcomreport_final.pdf Shelf Number: 123372 Keywords: Budgets for Criminal JusticeCosts of Criminal Justice (Oregon)Criminal Justice Expenditures |
Author: Pew Center on the States Title: Time Served: The High Cost, Low Return of Longer Prison Terms Summary: Over the past four decades, criminal justice policy in the United States was guided largely by a central premise: the best way to protect the public was to put more people in prison. A corollary was that offenders should spend longer and longer time behind bars. The logic of the strategy seemed inescapable—more inmates serving more time surely equals less crime—and policy makers were stunningly effective at putting the approach into action. As the Pew Center on the States has documented, the state prison population spiked more than 700 percent between 1972 and 2011, and in 2008 the combined federal-statelocal inmate count reached 2.3 million, or one in 100 adults. Annual state spending on corrections now tops $51 billion and prisons account for the vast majority of the cost, even though offenders on parole and probation dramatically outnumber those behind bars. Indeed, prison expansion has delivered some public safety payoff. Serious crime has been declining for the past two decades, and imprisonment deserves some of the credit. Experts differ on precise figures, but they generally conclude that the increased use of incarceration accounted for one-quarter to one-third of the crime drop in the 1990s. Beyond the crime control benefit, most Americans support long prison terms for serious, chronic, and violent offenders as a means of exacting retribution for reprehensible behavior. But criminologists and policy makers increasingly agree that we have reached a “tipping point” with incarceration, where additional imprisonment will have little if any effect on crime. Research also has identified new offender supervision strategies and technologies that can help break the cycle of recidivism. Across the nation, these developments, combined with tight state budgets, have prompted a significant shift toward alternatives to prison for lower-level offenders. Policy makers in several states have worked across party lines to reform sentencing and release laws, including reducing prison time served by nonviolent offenders. The analysis in this study shows that longer prison terms have been a key driver of prison populations and costs, and the study highlights new opportunities for state leaders to generate greater public safety with fewer taxpayer dollars. Details: Washington, DC: Pew Charitable Trusts, 2012. 65p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 26, 2012 at: http://www.pewstates.org/uploadedFiles/PCS_Assets/2012/Prison_Time_Served.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.pewstates.org/uploadedFiles/PCS_Assets/2012/Prison_Time_Served.pdf Shelf Number: 125400 Keywords: Costs of Criminal JusticeCriminal Justice ExpendituresCriminal Justice PolicyImprisonmentInmatesPrison PopulationSentencing |
Author: Justice Policy Institute' Ashton, Paul Title: Rethinking the Blues: How We Police in the U.S. and At What Cost Summary: Despite crime rates being at their lowest levels in more than 30 years, the U.S. continues to maintain large and increasingly militarized police units, spending more than $100 billion every year, according to a report released today by the Justice Policy Institute. Police forces have grown from locally-funded public safety initiatives into a federally subsidized jobs program, with a decreasing focus on community policing and growing concerns about racial profiling and “cuffs for cash,” with success measured not by increased safety and well-being but by more arrests. Rethinking the Blues: How we police in the U.S. and at what cost, highlights the negative effects of over-policing by detailing how law enforcement efforts contribute to a criminal justice system that disconnects people from their communities, fills prisons and jails, and costs taxpayers billions. The report also highlights both alternatives to improve public safety and examples of effective community policing efforts. Details: Washington, DC: Justice Policy Institute, 2012. 63p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 30, 2012 at: Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 125801 Keywords: Community PolicingCosts of Criminal JusticeCriminal Justice ExpendituresPolicing (U.S.) |
Author: Great Britain. Her Majesty's Iinspectorate of Constabulary Title: Valuing the Police: Policing in an Age of Austerity Summary: In times of increasing budgets, the police in England and Wales were successful in achieving the measures set for them – reducing crime and improving public confidence. This report considers the effect of budget cuts on policing, and in particular the impact on sustaining the number of police who are visible and available to the public. Police forces receive between 50 and 90% of their funding from central government, with most of the remainder coming from Council Tax. The Emergency Budget on 22 June 2010 announced that on average there would be a 25% cut in central government budgets between now and 2013/14, and that Council Tax would remain stable for a year. We will not know what this means for policing until it is announced by the Government later this year. However, we do know that a fixed percentage cut applied to all forces would impact disproportionately on those forces that receive a higher proportion of their funding from central government. Our report with the Audit Commission, Sustaining Value for Money in the Police Service, also published today indicates that cost cutting and improvements in productivity could, if relentlessly pursued, generate a saving of 12% in central government funding (see the ‘Re-design’ section below). But we should not underestimate the challenge in reducing costs and, importantly, retaining a police service that is visibly effective in the eyes of the public. Details: London: HMIC, 2010. 31p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 27, 2012 at: http://www.hmic.gov.uk/media/valuing-the-police-policing-in-an-age-of-austerity-20100720.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.hmic.gov.uk/media/valuing-the-police-policing-in-an-age-of-austerity-20100720.pdf Shelf Number: 126479 Keywords: Costs of Criminal JusticeCriminal Justice ExpendituresPolicing (U.K.) |
Author: Vera Institute of Justice, Center on Sentencing and Corrections Title: Performance Incentive Funding: Aligning Fiscal and Operational Responsibility to Produce More Safety at Less Cost Summary: America’s tough-on-crime sentencing policies are often cited as the primary reason the United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world. Yet there is another contributing factor that is often overlooked: a structural flaw in the way most states fund their criminal justice systems that discourages local decision makers from supervising offenders in the community and makes it easier to send them to prison. It is the state corrections agency that bears the cost of incarcerating people in prison. However, both the decision to send an offender to prison and the cost of keeping an offender in the community almost always rest with a different state agency or a local jurisdiction. This is true for either a new conviction or a revocation from probation or parole. In the eyes of local decision makers and in cases involving low-level offenders, sending someone to prison is all too often the preferred option because it saves the actual expense of supervision and avoids the political cost should an offender commit a serious crime while in the community. Because of ongoing state budget deficits and decades of prison population growth, state policymakers have recently begun to focus attention on this misalignment of fiscal and operational responsibility by devising solutions that make system actors more accountable and collaborative. Since 2003, eight states have enacted legislation creating performance incentive funding (PIF) programs that aim to align the interests of the state corrections agency and local decision makers. PIF programs are premised on the idea that if the supervision agency or locality sends fewer low-level offenders to prison—thereby causing the state to incur fewer costs—some portion of the state savings should be shared with the agency or locality. With PIF, agencies or localities receive a financial reward for delivering fewer prison commitments through reduced recidivism and revocations that, in turn, must be reinvested into evidence-based programs in the community. In September 2011, the Vera Institute of Justice, the Pew Center on the States, and Metropolis Strategies brought together more than 50 practitioners from the states that have enacted or were considering PIF legislation. In addition to outlining how PIF programs can lead to better offender outcomes while reducing overall corrections costs, this report discusses seven key challenges and tasks, identified by summit participants, that a state must address when designing and implementing a PIF program: (1) choosing an administrative structure, (2) selecting a funding mechanism, (3) deciding whether to provide seed funding, (4) selecting outcome measures, (5) determining baseline measures, (6) estimating savings, and (7) engaging stakeholders. The report suggests that including multiple measures to evaluate performance and determine eligibility for incentive funding, rather than focusing on just the single outcome of reduced prison commitments, will ensure that public safety is protected while positive outcomes are still achieved. This report also highlights the importance of incorporating evidence-based practices into the incentive funding structure and providing agencies and localities with the resources and support they need to pursue the program’s goals. A successful PIF program can significantly curb prison population growth and costs while increasing public safety: in the first year of its PIF program, California experienced a 23-percent drop in prison commitments of felony probationers, and $88 million of the savings was distributed to county probation agencies. Most important, PIF can transform public safety by contributing to a reduction in recidivism, crime, and revocation rates. Details: New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2012. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 23, 2013 at: http://www.vera.org/files/performance-incentive-funding-report.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.vera.org/files/performance-incentive-funding-report.pdf Shelf Number: 127369 Keywords: Costs of Criminal JusticeCriminal Justice ExpendituresPrisonsSentencing (U.S.) |
Author: Police Executive Research Forum Title: Policing and the Economic Downturn: Striving for Efficiency Is the New Normal Summary: This report provides details about PERF’s 2012 survey of law enforcement agencies, which found that 41 percent of responding departments were planning budget cuts for their next fiscal year. This was an improvement over a PERF survey two years earlier, which found that 61 percent of those same agencies were planning budget cuts. The report also includes a number of case studies of law enforcement agencies that have developed innovative strategies for dealing with significant budget cuts, including the departments in Corpus Christi, TX; Camden, NJ; Lane County, OR; and Manchester, England. Details: Washington, DC: PERF, 2013. 48p. Source: Internet Resource: Critical Issues in Policing Series: Accessed February 16, 2013 at: http://policeforum.org/library/critical-issues-in-policing-series/Economic_Downturn.pdf Year: 2013 Country: International URL: http://policeforum.org/library/critical-issues-in-policing-series/Economic_Downturn.pdf Shelf Number: 127645 Keywords: Costs of Crime (U.S.)Costs of Criminal JusticeCriminal Justice ExpendituresEconomicsPolice AdministrationPolice AgenciesPolice Budgets |
Author: Council of State Governments, Justice Center Title: Lessons from the States: Reducing Recidivism and Curbing Corrections Costs Through Justice Reinvestment Summary: Over the past 20 years, state spending on corrections has skyrocketed—from $12 billion in 1988 to more than $52 billion in 2011.1 Declining state revenues and other fiscal factors are putting a serious strain on many states’ criminal justice systems, often putting concerns about the bottom line in competition with public safety. Strategies tested in numerous states and local jurisdictions, however, show that there are effective ways to address the challenge of containing rising corrections costs while also increasing public safety. Details: New York: Council of State Governments, Justice Center, 2013. 10p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 22, 2013 at: http://justicereinvestment.org/resources/lessons-learned Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://justicereinvestment.org/resources/lessons-learned Shelf Number: 128422 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCosts of CorrectionsCosts of Criminal Justice (U.S.)Criminal Justice Expenditures |
Author: Rushford, Michael Title: Rationalizing Realignment; A perspective on California's return to alternative sentencing Summary: The combined impact of the national recession (which has caused a major reduction in tax revenue) and unsustainable spending policies during the earlier boom have placed unprecedented weight on state governments to significantly reduce spending. Corrections departments have become a major focus of these spending reductions for several reasons. Policies enacted over the past three decades that required longer prison sentences for violent and habitual criminals have increased prison populations in many larger states. Prominent social scientists, criminologists, and academics have criticized these “tough on crime” sentencing policies as a naive abandonment of their growing expertise at identifying low risk offenders who were unsuitable for incarceration and prescribing treatment programs to rehabilitate high risk offenders.1 The favorable publicity enjoyed by these critics and the volumes of research they have produced to support their conclusions have provided a plausible argument in the defense of states which have chosen alternative sentencing rather than to increase prison capacity to accommodate the increased inmate population. California, perhaps more than any other state, is at the center of the conflict between the “tough on crime” sentencing, which has had broad popular support, and the alternative sentencing policies advanced by social scientists and encouraged by the mainstream media. Details: Sacramento, CA: Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, 2012. 16p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 4, 2013 at: http://www.cjlf.org/publications/RationalizingRealignment2012.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.cjlf.org/publications/RationalizingRealignment2012.pdf Shelf Number: 128651 Keywords: Costs of Criminal JusticeCriminal Justice ExpendituresCriminal Justice ReformCriminal Justice Systems (California, U.S.)Sentencing |
Author: Ritter, Alison Title: Government Drug Policy Expenditure in Australia – 2009/10. Summary: In responding to illicit drugs, Australian governments expend resources in providing proactive responses, such as drug treatment or policing of drug-crimes. Governments also expend considerable resources on the indirect consequences of drug use, such as emergency department admissions for overdose, or crimes that are committed to obtain income to purchase drugs. This second category of indirect or reactive spending is generally known as the social cost approach. International experts have emphasised that drug budgets should concentrate on the direct, proactive spending by governments, and this approach is taken here. This study provides a new estimate of Australian governments’ direct or proactive spending on illicit drug policy for 2009/10. Four drug policy domains were examined: prevention, treatment, harm reduction and law enforcement. Federal and state/territory expenditure estimates were derived for each of the four domains. A top-down approach was adopted wherever possible and consistency in method across the four domains was of central concern. The results reveal that Australian governments spent approximately $1.7 billion in 2009/10 on illicit drugs. This included programs to prevent or delay the commencement of drug use in young people, drug treatment services including counselling and pharmacotherapy maintenance, harm reduction programs such as the needle syringe program, police detection and arrest in relation to drug crimes and policing the borders of Australia for illegal importation of drugs and their precursors. Details: Sydney: National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre., 2013. 58p. Source: Internet Resource: DPMP Monograph Series: Monograph No. 24: Accessed June 25, 2013 at: http://ndarc.med.unsw.edu.au/sites/default/files/newsevents/events/Drug%20Budgets%20Mono%2024%20FINAL.pdf Year: 2013 Country: Australia URL: http://ndarc.med.unsw.edu.au/sites/default/files/newsevents/events/Drug%20Budgets%20Mono%2024%20FINAL.pdf Shelf Number: 129153 Keywords: Costs of Criminal JusticeCriminal Justice ExpendituresDrug Abuse and Addiction (Australia)Drug Abuse Policy |
Author: Texas. Legislative Budget Board Title: Criminal Justice Uniform Cost Report, Fiscal Years 2010 to 2012 Summary: This Legislative Budget Board (LBB) report, Criminal Justice Uniform Cost Report, Fiscal Years 2010 to 2012, provides cost per day information for various adult and juvenile correctional operations, facilities, and programs for use in funding determinations and to provide a basis of comparison for the Eighty-third Legislature, 2013. One responsibility of the Criminal Justice Data Analysis Team is to calculate cost per day information. This report summarizes uniform cost information for programs, services, and facilities operated or contracted by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ), the former Texas Youth Commission (TYC), the former Texas Juvenile Probation Commission (TJPC), and the current Texas Juvenile Justice Department (TJJD). The appendices detail the methodology used for data collection and cost per day calculations; provide an overview of each agency’s operations and programs; and provide comparisons to other cost per day figures nationally. Details: Austin: Texas Legislative Budget Board, 2013. 56p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 1, 2013 at: http://www.lbb.state.tx.us/Public_Safety_Criminal_Justice/Uniform_Cost/Criminal%20Justice%20Uniform%20Cost%20Report%20Fiscal%20Years%202010%20to%202012.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.lbb.state.tx.us/Public_Safety_Criminal_Justice/Uniform_Cost/Criminal%20Justice%20Uniform%20Cost%20Report%20Fiscal%20Years%202010%20to%202012.pdf Shelf Number: 129215 Keywords: Costs of CrimeCosts of Criminal Justice (Texas)Criminal Justice Expenditures |
Author: Coelho, Isaias Title: Financing Public Security: Tax and Non-tax Instruments to Finance Citizen Security and Crime Prevention Summary: Drawing on the innovative sources of financing for public security that have developed in Latin American and the Caribbean in recent years, this paper reviews the main revenue instruments that can be used to finance various aspects of citizen security. The paper focuses on the structure of financing for the security budget and does not attempt to provide an assessment of expenditure needs and efficiency. If an in-depth country analysis concludes that more resources are needed, the paper provides a guideline on how to think about the merits of different new financing instruments and of earmarking these funds Details: Washington, DC: Inter-American Development Bank, 2013. 34p. Source: Internet Resource: Policy Brief No. IDB-PB-189: Accessed November 6, 2013 at: http://idbdocs.iadb.org/wsdocs/getdocument.aspx?docnum=37719382 Year: 2013 Country: Latin America URL: http://idbdocs.iadb.org/wsdocs/getdocument.aspx?docnum=37719382 Shelf Number: 131597 Keywords: Costs of Crime Costs of Criminal Justice Criminal Justice ExpendituresSecurity |
Author: Leuprecht, Christian Title: The Blue Line or the Bottom Line of Police Services in Canada? Arresting runaway growth in costs Summary: Despite rapidly rising costs, Canadians are not getting all the police they pay for. Canada's police are pricing themselves out of business; police budgets have increased at a rate double that of GDP over the last decade, while calls from the public for service have remained stable. Police associations have been happy to stoke public fears about safety, but the correlation between numbers of officers, crime rates, and response times has long been shown to be spurious. In fact, a great deal of work now done by highly trained, well-paid, and experienced uniformed officers is only tangentially related to law enforcement and could be done as well or better and more cheaply by someone else, freeing police to do their core job. Consider the fact that almost 40 percent of the Toronto Police Service's workforce made Ontario's 2012 "Sunshine List" of employees making more than $100,000, including six parking enforcement officers and a cadet in training. Consider also that much of uniformed officers' time is spent waiting to give testimony in court, transcribing interviews, teaching CPR, transporting prisoners, or a hundred other duties that take them off the street. In some jurisdictions outside Canada, civilian investigators even handle burglaries, leaving full officers to take on more demanding cases. We can learn from such examples. Canada needs a new debate about how we provide police services. That debate would focus on three main areas. First is the changing nature of policing, public expectations of police, and myriad inefficiencies related to the role of police in Canada's justice system. These powerful cost drivers go well beyond the salaries and benefits police enjoy but do not get the same attention. Second is the economies of scale to be harnessed from overhead. This report points out many areas where savings can be generated beyond what agencies themselves have already identified. They include: having forces share or contract dispatch, tactical teams, forensics, and investigations; common provincial standards and processes for hiring, communication, and procurement; and using technology, including record management systems to gather evidence and share it with the court and defence, and using lapel cameras, licence plate readers, and more, to make the job easier. Third, even if we reduce overhead and find economies of scale the benefits are limited, since almost 90 percent of police budgets go to pay salaries. Police work is complex, difficult, and demanding and should be well compensated. The real question is why police who are making upwards of $100,000 a year are performing so many tasks that are not really core policing duties and that other jurisdictions are delivering as or more effectively, efficiently, and productively through alternative service delivery in the form of both civilianization and outsourcing. Examples include: administrative functions, such as finance and human resources; burglary investigations, lifting fingerprints, and collecting DNA evidence; prisoner transport and court security; transcription of interviews; professional development and training; and background checks. Finally, general recommendations in this study to curtail the overall growth of police service costs include: re-directing calls and call volume to allow police to spend more time on problem-focused and community-oriented policing; rewarding achievement rather than seniority; cross-training police, fire, and Emergency Medical Services; reforming the leadership and institutional culture (or brace for a crisis); spending less time reactively "fighting crime" and more time on proactive intervention, mitigation, and prevention; having police colleges spend more time on developing critical thinking and analytical skills so as to counter a paramilitary institutional culture; and shifting from command-and-control principles to more participative and dispersed leadership and management. In the end, the responsibility lies with legislators to provide legislative frameworks that constrain cost escalation on the one hand, and provide greater latitude in service delivery on the other. The balance struck by reform and legislative renewal in Quebec is instructive in this regard. Details: Ottawa: Macdonald-Laurier Institute, 2014. 40http://www.macdonaldlaurier.ca/files/pdf/MLI_CostofPolicing_Final.pdf. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 8, 2014 at: http://www.macdonaldlaurier.ca/files/pdf/MLI_CostofPolicing_Final.pdf Year: 2014 Country: Canada URL: http://www.macdonaldlaurier.ca/files/pdf/MLI_CostofPolicing_Final.pdf Shelf Number: 132301 Keywords: Costs of Criminal JusticeCriminal Justice ExpendituresPolice ReformPolicing (Canada) |
Author: Kearney, Melissa S. Title: Ten Economic Facts about Crime and Incarceration in the United States Summary: Crime and high rates of incarceration impose tremendous costs on society, with lasting negative effects on individuals, families, and communities. Rates of crime in the United States have been falling steadily, but still constitute a serious economic and social challenge. At the same time, the incarceration rate in the United States is so high-more than 700 out of every 100,000 people are incarcerated-that both crime scholars and policymakers alike question whether, for nonviolent criminals in particular, the social costs of incarceration exceed the social benefits. While there is significant focus on America's incarceration policies, it is important to consider that crime continues to be a concern for policymakers, particularly at the state and local levels. Public spending on fighting crime-including the costs of incarceration, policing, and judicial and legal services-as well as private spending by households and businesses is substantial. There are also tremendous costs to the victims of crime, such as medical costs, lost earnings, and an overall loss in quality of life. Crime also stymies economic growth. For example, exposure to violence can inhibit effective schooling and other developmental outcomes (Burdick-Will 2013; Sharkey et al. 2012). Crime can induce citizens to migrate; economists estimate that each nonfatal violent crime reduces a city's population by approximately one person, and each homicide reduces a city's population by seventy persons (Cullen and Levitt 1999; Ludwig and Cook 2000). To the extent that migration diminishes a locality's tax and consumer base, departures threaten a city's ability to effectively educate children, provide social services, and maintain a vibrant economy. The good news is that crime rates in the United States have been falling steadily since the 1990s, reversing an upward trend from the 1960s through the 1980s. There does not appear to be a consensus among scholars about how to account for the overall sharp decline, but contributing factors may include increased policing, rising incarceration rates, and the waning of the crack epidemic that was prevalent in the 1980s and early 1990s. Despite the ongoing decline in crime, the incarceration rate in the United States remains at a historically unprecedented level. This high incarceration rate can have profound effects on society; research has shown that incarceration may impede employment and marriage prospects among former inmates, increase poverty depth and behavioral problems among their children, and amplify the spread of communicable diseases among disproportionately impacted communities (Raphael 2007). These effects are especially prevalent within disadvantaged communities and among those demographic groups that are more likely to face incarceration, namely young minority males. In addition, this high rate of incarceration is expensive for both federal and state governments. On average, in 2012, it cost more than $29,000 to house an inmate in federal prison (Congressional Research Service 2013). In total, the United States spent over $80 billion on corrections expenditures in 2010, with more than 90 percent of these expenditures occurring at the state and local levels (Kyckelhahn and Martin 2013). A founding principle of The Hamilton Project's economic strategy is that long-term prosperity is best achieved by fostering economic growth and broad participation in that growth. Elevated rates of crime and incarceration directly work against these principles, marginalizing individuals, devastating affected communities, and perpetuating inequality. In this spirit, we offer "Ten Economic Facts about Crime and Incarceration in the United States" to bring attention to recent trends in crime and incarceration, the characteristics of those who commit crimes and those who are incarcerated, and the social and economic costs of current policy. Chapter 1 describes recent crime trends in the United States and the characteristics of criminal offenders and victims. Chapter 2 focuses on the growth of mass incarceration in America. Chapter 3 presents evidence on the economic and social costs of current crime and incarceration policy. Details: Washington, DC: The Hamilton Project, Brookings, Institute, 2014. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: Policy Memo: Accessed May 10, 2014 at: http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2014/05/01%20crime%20facts/v8_thp_10crimefacts.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2014/05/01%20crime%20facts/v8_thp_10crimefacts.pdf Shelf Number: 132316 Keywords: Costs of CrimeCosts of Criminal JusticeCrime RatesCriminal Justice ExpendituresEconomics of CrimeIncarcerationPrisoners |
Author: Aharoni, Eyal Title: An Assessment of Program Sustainability in Three Bureau of Justice Assistance Criminal Justice Domains Summary: The Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) aims to improve community safety through effective programming throughout the United States. To maximize the impact of its investments, BJA has an interest in supporting programs that will be sustained beyond initial federal funding. This notion of program sustainability is becoming increasingly important as programs have been challenged to operate with increasingly scarce resources. RAND Corporation researchers aimed to better understand the characteristics and environments of programs that are likely to persist beyond federal seed funding and to delineate strategies that will enable BJA to assist programs that it funds in their efforts to sustain themselves. Using archival documentation and survey methods, they assessed 231 BJA grantee programs spanning three BJA funding domains - drug courts, human trafficking, and mental health - to identify characteristics associated with sustainability. They found evidence of program sustainment in most BJA grantees studied, particularly in sustained funding. They also examined the association between organizational and contextual factors and sustained operations and sustained funding. Finally, they recommend a plan for ongoing measurement of sustainability. Details: Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2014. 48p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 14, 2014 at: http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR500/RR550/RAND_RR550.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR500/RR550/RAND_RR550.pdf Shelf Number: 132344 Keywords: Criminal Justice AdministrationCriminal Justice ExpendituresCriminal Justice ProgramsCriminal Justice Research |
Author: Easton, Stephen Title: The Cost of Crime in Canada Summary: While in 1998 Canada spent over $42.4 billion on crime- $15.5 billion on what we think of as the direct cost of crime and the remainder on the less easily measured consequences for the victims - today's estimates reveal that Canadians spend over $85 billion being victimized by, catching, and punishing crime. Victims' losses through criminal acts committed against them amount to over $47 billion, more than half of the total. The current cost of crime is over 5% of our national product and this is an underestimate. The crime rate has been falling since the early 1990s and there is a paradox here since in many dimensions the cost of crime has risen, not fallen. At the same time as crime is declining, the cost of dealing with crime by the police, the courts, and the prisons has become greater. At least part of the reason for this increase has been the requirements of the justice system itself. To safeguard the rights of Canadians, the Supreme Court of Canada has imposed a set of evolving requirements on the police and prosecution that make it manifestly more expensive to capture and prosecute. This is not to argue that the courts should not impose these requirements. It is, however, important to understand their consequences and, of course, there are other contributors to the increasing costs. Over the decade from 2002 to 2012 the crime rate has fallen by roughly 27%: from 7,700 to 5,600 crimes per 100,000 of the population. Nonetheless, the cost of dealing with crime by the justice system has risen by 35%. The greatest increases have been in policing (44%) followed by corrections at (33%). One of the puzzles has been that the incarceration rate has changed little since 1978 while the crime rate fluctuated from a 1991 peak of over 10,000 per 100,000 to 5,600 today. Our measure of the cost of crime has many gaps. Canadian data do not permit an annual assessment of the cost of crime at this time. We have provided or developed annual measures for different components of crime, including the cost of the justice system and the cost of pain and suffering associated with the crimes that we measure. However, there are still no annual assessments of the costs of private security, business losses, medical costs, foregone productivity costs, and a number of other contributors to the overall cost of crime. Details: Vancouver, BC: Fraser Institute, 2014. 122p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 16, 2014 at: http://www.fraserinstitute.org/uploadedFiles/fraser-ca/Content/research-news/research/publications/cost-of-crime-in-canada-2014.pdf Year: 2014 Country: Canada URL: http://www.fraserinstitute.org/uploadedFiles/fraser-ca/Content/research-news/research/publications/cost-of-crime-in-canada-2014.pdf Shelf Number: 133729 Keywords: Costs of Crime (Canada)Costs of Criminal JusticeCriminal Justice Expenditures |
Author: Justice Policy Institute Title: The Right Investment? Corrections Spending in Baltimore City Summary: Maryland taxpayers are spending $5 million or more to incarcerate people from each of about half of Baltimore's communities (25 of 55), with total spending of $288 million a year on incarcerating people from Baltimore in Maryland's prisons. Based on data recently made available by a new Maryland law, The Right Investment?: Corrections Spending in Baltimore City shows for the first time where people who are incarcerated are from, and how much Maryland taxpayers spend on their incarceration. The report includes detailed tables that show where people incarcerated in Maryland are from, including the 23 counties and Baltimore City, select 157 cities and towns, and Maryland Senate and House of Delegate Districts, as well as information that can better inform investment decisions in these communities to help solve long-standing challenges and improve public safety. Details: Washington, DC: Justice Policy Institute and Prison Policy Initiative, 2015. 55p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 26, 2015 at: http://www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/justicepolicy/documents/rightinvestment_design_2.23.15_final.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/justicepolicy/documents/rightinvestment_design_2.23.15_final.pdf Shelf Number: 135074 Keywords: Costs of CorrectionsCosts of Criminal JusticeCriminal Justice Expenditures |
Author: U.S. Department of Education, Policy and Program Studies Service Title: State and Local Expenditures on Corrections and Education Summary: Over the past three decades, state and local government expenditures on prisons and jails have increased about three times as fast as spending on elementary and secondary education. At the postsecondary level, the contrast is even starker: from 1989-90 to 2012-13, state and local spending on corrections rose by 89 percent while state and local appropriations for higher education remained flat. This increase in corrections spending has been driven by - among other factors - an increase in the number of people incarcerated in prisons and jails. The United States has only 5 percent of the world's population but more than 20 percent of the world's incarcerated population (Lee 2015). Linkages exist between educational attainment and incarceration. For example, two-thirds of state prison inmates have not completed high school (BJS 2009). Young black men between the ages of 20 and 24 who do not have a high school diploma (or an equivalent credential) have a greater chance of being incarcerated than of being employed (Neal and Rick 2014). Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, 2016. 31p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 25, 2016 at: http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/other/expenditures-corrections-education/brief.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/other/expenditures-corrections-education/brief.pdf Shelf Number: 139852 Keywords: Costs of CorrectionsCosts of Criminal JusticeCriminal Justice ExpendituresEducation |
Author: Canada. Department of Justice. Evaluation Division Title: Drug Treatment Court Funding Program Evaluation : final report Summary: 1. Introduction The Drug Treatment Court Funding Program (DTCFP) is a contributions funding program that provides financial support and administers funding agreements to six drug treatment court (DTC) sites: Toronto (established in 1998), Vancouver (2001), Edmonton (2005), Winnipeg (2006), Ottawa (2006), and Regina (2006). This report presents the evaluation findings and responds to the Treasury Board Secretariat's 2009 Policy on Evaluation, which requires that all direct expenditures of the federal government be evaluated every five years. The evaluation, which was conducted between June and September 2014, covers the work of the DTCFP between fiscal years (FYs) 2009-10 and 2013-14. 2. Methodology The evaluation comprised three main lines of evidence: - a document and data review, including relevant Justice Canada sub-studies and research studies, including a recidivism study and a study comparing the results of urine drug tests (UDTs) of graduates and non-completers during the program; - 48 interviews with participants in the program; and - an online survey of DTC stakeholders and staff. Details: Ottawa: Department of Justice Canada, 2015. 148p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 13, 2016 at: http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2015/jus/J2-413-2015-eng.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Canada URL: http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2015/jus/J2-413-2015-eng.pdf Shelf Number: 145085 Keywords: Costs of Criminal JusticeCriminal Justice ExpendituresDrug CourtsDrug Treatment ProgramsProblem Solving Courts |
Author: Gabor, Thomas Title: Costs of Crime and Criminal Justice Responses Summary: In light of rising criminal justice expenditures in Canada over the last decade, concerns about the sustainability of the Canadian justice system programs and services have emerged. Although there is a growing body of international evidence on the associated costs, little has been done to synthesize this literature. This report presents a global, comprehensive literature review on the costs of crime and criminal justice responses for the purpose of examining their comparative burdens to society. An important aim of this report was to lay the groundwork for a comparison of cost estimates from Canadian studies with those found in the international literature and to aid in the development of a framework that could be applied in future costing studies. The report emphasizes the importance of costing methodology (e.g., accounting-based versus court-based awards), crime definitions, study location, population age, and the differentiation between tangible and intangible costs when determining accurate cost estimates for crimes and criminal justice responses. Finally, it offers some key theoretical considerations for the interpretation of study findings, and identifies four recommendations that social science researchers and operational personnel need to know about the future of crime costing studies. Details: Ottawa: Public Security Canada, 2016. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Research Report: 2015-R022: Accessed December 23, 2016 at: https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/2015-r022/2015-r022-en.pdf Year: 2016 Country: Canada URL: https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/2015-r022/2015-r022-en.pdf Shelf Number: 144811 Keywords: Costs of CrimeCosts of Criminal JusticeCriminal Justice Expenditures |
Author: Mai, Chris Title: The Price of Prisons: Examining State Spending Trends, 2010-2015 Summary: After decades of a stable rate of incarceration, the U.S. prison population experienced unprecedented growth from the early 1970s into the new millennium - with the number of people confined to state prisons increasing by more than 600 percent, reaching just over 1.4 million people by the end of 2009. The engine driving this growth was the enactment and implementation over time of a broad array of tough-on-crime policies, including the rapid and continuous expansion of the criminal code; the adoption of zero-tolerance policing tactics, particularly around minor street-level drug and quality-of-life offenses; and the proliferation of harsh sentencing and release policies aimed at keeping people in prison for longer periods of time (such as mandatory minimum sentences, truth-in-sentencing statutes, and habitual offender laws). Unsurprisingly, this explosion in the use of incarceration had a direct financial influence on state budgets. Creating and sustaining such a sprawling penal system has been expensive. With more people under their care, state prison systems were compelled to build new prison facilities and expand existing ones. To staff these new and expanded facilities, they also had to hire, train, and retain ever more employees. In addition to expanding the state-operated prison system, some states also began to board out increasing numbers of people to county jails, privately-run facilities, and other states' prison systems. After hitting a high of 1.4 million people in 2009, however, the overall state prison population has since declined by 5 percent, or 77,000 people. Lawmakers in nearly every state and from across the political spectrum - some prompted by the 2008 recession - have enacted new laws to reduce prison populations and spending, often guided by a now-large body of research supporting alternative, more effective responses to crime. In addition to fiscal pressures, the push for reform has been further bolstered by other factors, including low crime rates; shifting public opinion that now favors less incarceration and more rehabilitation; and dissatisfaction with past punitive policies that have failed to moderate persistently high recidivism rates among those sent to prison. With these various political, institutional, and economic forces at play, most states have adopted a variety of different policies, including those that increase opportunities to divert people away from the traditional criminal justice process; expand the use of community-based sanctions; reduce the length and severity of prison sentences for certain offenses, including the rollback of mandatory penalties; increase opportunities for people to gain early release; and better provide enhanced reentry support for those leaving prison or jail. In light of nearly a decade of broad-based criminal justice reform, this report seeks to determine where state prison spending stands today and how it has changed in recent years. In particular, if a goal of recent reforms has been to make deep and lasting cuts to prison spending by reducing the prison population, have states who have witnessed the desired downward shift in prison size also witnessed it in spending? To answer this question, researchers at the Vera Institute of Justice (Vera) developed a survey to measure changes in state prison population and expenditures between 2010 and 2015, and conducted follow-up interviews with state prison budget officials to better understand spending and population trends. Vera's study confirms that prisons remain an expensive enterprise, despite the success of many states - including Michigan, New Jersey, New York, and South Carolina - in simultaneously reducing their prison populations while achieving budget savings. The first part of this report describes 2015 prison expenditures, identifying the main driver of corrections spending across responding states. The second half of the report then discusses how changes in prison populations during the study period, and other trends largely outside the control of departments of corrections have affected prison spending. What is clear is that increased spending is not inevitable, since nearly half of states have cut their spending on prisons between 2010 and 2015. But while one might expect that states with shrinking prison populations are uniformly spending less on prisons, or conversely that states with growing populations are spending more, Vera's findings paint a more complicated picture. Indeed, often there is no single reason that explains a rise or fall in spending, but a multitude of factors that push and pull expenditures in different directions. Details: New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2017. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 25, 2017 at: https://storage.googleapis.com/vera-web-assets/downloads/Publications/price-of-prisons-2015-state-spending-trends/legacy_downloads/the-price-of-prisons-2015-state-spending-trends.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://storage.googleapis.com/vera-web-assets/downloads/Publications/price-of-prisons-2015-state-spending-trends/legacy_downloads/the-price-of-prisons-2015-state-spending-trends.pdf Shelf Number: 145794 Keywords: Costs of CorrectionsCosts of Criminal JusticeCriminal Justice ExpendituresMass IncarcerationPrisons |
Author: Mogeni, Evans Geoffrey Title: Economic Determinants of Crime Trends in Kenya Summary: The paper was intended to establish the major economic causes of crime upsurge in Kenya by using the Johansen Cointegration and VEC model, using annual data from 1975-2012 of gross per capita income, public expenditure on law, order, and safety, consumer price index, and Conviction. The time series stationary properties of the data were examined through the use of augmented dickey-Fuller (ADF) test. We established the existence of negative significant long run Relationship between crime and GDP per capita. Convictions also had negative and significant relationship with crime. Public expenditure on safety, law and order (PSLO) had positive relationship with crime. Short run Granger causality was established running from Public expenditure on safety, law and order (PSLO) to crime in Kenya. Details: Nairobi: University of Nairobi, 2013. 67p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 26, 2017 at: http://erepository.uonbi.ac.ke/bitstream/handle/11295/57891/Mogeni_Economic%20determinants%20of%20crime%20trends%20in%20Kenya.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y Year: 2013 Country: Kenya URL: http://erepository.uonbi.ac.ke/bitstream/handle/11295/57891/Mogeni_Economic%20determinants%20of%20crime%20trends%20in%20Kenya.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y Shelf Number: 145802 Keywords: Costs of Criminal Justice Crime Statistics Crime Trends Criminal Justice ExpendituresEconomics of Crime Socioeconomic Conditions and Crime |
Author: Forman, Benjamin Title: Getting Tough on Spending: An Examination of Correctional Expenditure in Massachusetts Summary: Prisons and jails are a major cost center for state government. The $1.2 billion we spend each year incarcerating residents is just the tip of the iceberg. Much more significant is the cost of recidivism. Numerous reviews have shown that correctional facilities in Massachusetts are not set up to address the underlying problems of those they serve. As result, these institutions harden many offenders and return them to the community in a more dangerous state than when they entered. These individuals go on to commit more crimes and destabilize more families and neighborhoods, sending a wave of criminal justice and human service expenses rippling through the state budget. Getting Tough on Spending examines correctional budgets between FY 2011, an apex for the state's incarcerated population, and FY 2016, the most recent fiscal year for which final expenditure data are available. The analysis suggests that there is significant opportunity to reallocate correctional resources to reduce recidivism and the associated costs to taxpayers. Details: Boston: MassInc., 2017. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 27, 2017 at: https://massinc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Getting-Tough-on-Spending-1.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://massinc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Getting-Tough-on-Spending-1.pdf Shelf Number: 145837 Keywords: Costs of Corrections Costs of Criminal Justice Criminal Justice Expenditures |
Author: Center for Popular Democracy Title: Freedom to Thrive: Reimagining Safety and Security in Our Communities Summary: The choice to resource punitive systems instead of stabilizing and nourishing ones does not make communities safer. Instead, study after study shows that a living wage, access to holistic health services and treatment, educational opportunity, and stable housing are far more successful in reducing crime than police or prisons. This report examines racial disparities, policing landscapes, and budgets in twelve jurisdictions across the country, comparing the city and county spending priorities with those of community organizations and their members. While many community members, supported by research and established best practices, assert that increased spending on police do not make them safer, cities and counties continue to rely overwhelmingly on policing and incarceration spending while under-resourcing less damaging, more fair, and more effective safety initiatives. Each profile also highlights current or prospective campaigns that seek to divest resources away from police and prisons towards communities and their development. We call this the invest/divest framework. We also offer a "Budget 101" to help readers understand some of the terms reflected in this report, and provide a general framework of budget analysis and advocacy. At the end of the report we highlight the potential impact of participatory budgeting, a popular financial governance strategy which can assist advocates and communities in advancing the invest/divest framework. Key Findings Among the jurisdictions profiled, police spending vastly outpaces expenditures in vital community resources and services, with the highest percentage being 41.2 percent of general fund expenditures in Oakland. Among cities profiled, per capita police spending ranges from $381 to as high as $772. Consistent community safety priorities emerged across jurisdictions. Most notable among them are demands for mental health services, youth programming, and infrastructure such as transit access and housing. Details: New York: The Center, 2017. 100p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 7, 2017 at: https://populardemocracy.org/sites/default/files/Freedom%20To%20Thrive%2C%20Higher%20Res%20Version.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://populardemocracy.org/sites/default/files/Freedom%20To%20Thrive%2C%20Higher%20Res%20Version.pdf Shelf Number: 147158 Keywords: Criminal Justice ExpendituresPolicing Public Safety Racial Disparities |
Author: Garis, Len, ed. Title: Designing Out Crime Summary: The book Eliminating Crime (Cohen et al., 2014) focused on seven strategies the police could employ to reduce crime. Despite our confidence in the importance of those strategies and the ability of police to execute them, we are aware that the police alone cannot make crime go away. Crime prevention is a societal matter that relies on a commitment from the entire criminal justice system plus the community at large to be successful. Furthermore, policing is expensive. Ironically, it is even more so when criminals are caught, because the rest of the criminal justice system is likely to be engaged. To say that responding to crime is expensive is a significant understatement. Governments in Canada, for example, collectively spend over $8 billion a year on police services to fight crime. That is just the beginning: overall, Canada spends over $20 billion a year on its criminal justice system (Story and Yalkin, 2013). Compounding this is the observation that total criminal justice expenditures climbed by more than 23 per cent from 2002 to 2012. As Story and Yalkin note, this growth occurred despite overall crime rates having fallen by the same percentage during that period. Moreover, there is every indication that the cost of responding to crime, at least in terms of policing, will continue to increase unless we start doing things differently (Leuprecht, 2014; Kempa, 2014: RCMP, 2015; Home Offi ce, 2015). We also need to be aware that the cost of crime involves more than just that attributed to the criminal justice system. There are costs to business, insurance costs, health care and social service costs, and losses to individuals in terms of missed work days, pain and suffering, legal costs, and important quality of life losses (see Cohen, 2000). There are also societal and individual costs associated with the fear of crime (Dolan and Peasgood, 2006). Overall, the cost to victims is exorbitant. For example, focusing on the economic impact of spousal violence in Canada for 2009, a recent Department of Justice Canada study estimated the total social and economic cost at $7.4 billion. More significantly, at least 80 per cent of that cost was picked up by victims (Zhang et al, 2012). Reducing the cost of crime will remain challenging because we keep changing how the criminal justice system responds to crime. Not long ago, the police investigation of a drug traffi cking case involved nine steps - now it requires at least 65 (Malm et al., 2007). Similarly, dealing with an impaired driver used to take about one hour of a police officer's time. Now it takes an officer at least four hours. A domestic assault case which used to take less than an hour to process now takes at least 10 hours. Much of this change has come from our demand that police officers work in ways that facilitate more rigourous prosecution requirements and that provide for greater accountability. It also comes from added officer health and safety concerns, improved operational sophistication, and increased oversight issues. Undoubtedly, these sometimes important and necessary changes have consumed much of the criminal justice cost savings that might otherwise have come with the recent decline in crime. Regardless, our view is that if we are to arrest the rising cost of crime, efforts must be made to further reduce the volume of crime and the accompanying impact on victims. We need to find a way where we need fewer police, fewer court officials, fewer correctional workers, and fewer of any other worker who makes a living from the criminal justice system. We say this because the single largest cost of our criminal justice system is the salaries and benefits for people working in the system. Given the increased complexities of responding to crime in the 21st century, we should not expect the cost per criminal incident to decline soon. The only way to reduce the cost of crime significantly is to reduce our need to respond to crime, and that comes about by further reducing the incidence of crime. Various actors within the criminal justice system and elsewhere have been trying for decades to reduce crime through one strategy or another. Some of these strategies have emphasized improving social and living conditions; creating more and better access to educational and job opportunities for marginalized groups; reducing relative poverty; and, introducing initiatives to help individuals escape from environments believed to support criminogenic or crime-causing conditions. Other strategies have focused on hardening targets (for example, using security systems, product alarms, card chips and automotive immobilizers) to make committing crime more difficult for offenders. Yet others have led to designing buildings and living spaces to make potential crime spots less attractive to offenders. Still other strategies involve having citizens become more involved as guardians of their homes and neighbourhoods though such efforts as Block Watch, Neighbourhood Watch, and Crime Free Multihousing. Some have focused on using surveillance technology such as CCTV and other camera systems, to deter offenders. Other strategies have focused on early intervention with at-risk youth while others have focused on people already caught up in the criminal justice system who have significant predispositions toward criminality (for example, substance abusers or habitual offenders). The list goes on, with all strategies having the goal of either getting to the supposed root causes of crime, or creating conditions where crime is less likely to recur or happen in the first instance. Despite the obvious importance of crime prevention, its history has not been particularly impressive. The topic of crime prevention is not a popular area of study for criminologists and schools of criminal justice. A review of course offerings at these schools, a scan of journal articles and books in the field, or a look at criminal justice conference proceedings over the past decades will show that crime prevention is one of the least studied areas in the field of criminology and criminal justice. Its treatment by the criminal justice system is not much better. As we have noted, there has been a range of initiatives aimed at crime prevention. Few can argue, however, that the issue has been pursued with any sustained vigour. Details: Abbotsford, BC: University of the Fraser Valley, Centre For Public Safety And Criminal Justice Research, 2016. 114p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 3, 2017 at: https://cjr.ufv.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Designing-Out-Crime.pdf Year: 2016 Country: International URL: https://cjr.ufv.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Designing-Out-Crime.pdf Shelf Number: 148024 Keywords: Costs of Crime Crime Prevention Criminal Justice ExpendituresDesign Against Crime |
Author: Bretteville-Jensen, Anne Line Title: Costs and Unintended Consequences of Drug Control Policies Summary: Evaluation is an integral part of a good governance approach to public policy. This principle applies equally to the component of drug policy designed to counter the availability of and access to illicit drugs. Estimation or full costing of drug-related public investment - including both direct expenditure and also indirect costs and impact on public resources should therefore be a key objective of any evaluation. To evaluate and improve drug policy, it is imperative to know and take note of all possible effects of different interventions and actions. All policies, regardless of purpose or intention, come with a risk of unintended consequences. Public expenditure estimates can be used as a tool for assessing whether the expected or desired results of the policy in question are actually reflected in action, and they constitute a necessary tool for implementing thorough policy evaluations. Public expenditure studies should mirror all relevant activities and policy approaches and may be particularly appropriate in times of austerity. Accurate estimates of public spending will help policymakers plan relevant interventions and allocate necessary funds to authorities in charge of specific aspects of the policys implementation. A thorough assessment of drug policy expenditures will also contribute to improved transparency and accountability of public institutions. This publication brings together the findings of wider study conducted by the Pompidou Group in cooperation with the EMCDDA seeking to identify the unintended effects and associated costs of drug control policies. The aim of this publication is threefold. First, increase international awareness about the importance of estimating public expenditure on supply reduction initiatives. Second, stress the importance of harmonizing definitions and increasing availability, comparability and reliability of data as well as methods for sound estimates. Third, contribute to developing sound estimation practices to obtain accurate, complete and reliable drug policy evaluations. Details: Strasbourg Cedex, France: Council of Europe, 2017. 70p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 17, 2018 at: https://rm.coe.int/rma/drl/objectId/09000016807701a9 Year: 2017 Country: Europe URL: https://rm.coe.int/rma/drl/objectId/09000016807701a9 Shelf Number: 148789 Keywords: Costs of Criminal Justice Criminal Justice ExpendituresDrug Abuse Drug Control Policy Drug Enforcement Drug Policy |
Author: Washburn, Maureen Title: Costs Rise Amid Falling Populations at California's Division of Juvenile Justice Summary: A fact sheet from the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice finds that state spending at California's state youth correctional system, the Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ), continues to rise despite continued reductions in its youth population. For the 2018-19 fiscal year, the Governor's Budget proposes expanding DJJ to a larger population of young adults, accompanied by a budget increase of nearly $4 million. The fact sheet finds: State youth correctional facilities will cost taxpayers a record high of $317,771 per youth in FY 2017-18. Since 2011, DJJ has reported a 39% decrease in its population, resulting in facilities that are operating at just 37% of their design capacity. As a result, per capita costs at DJJ have climbed each year since FY 2012-13. The DJJ budget has increased for three consecutive years, despite a downward trend in population. The budget proposal to expand DJJ in FY 2018-19 would offset the division's years-long population declines and increase its budget to over $200 million. Counties reimburse a small share of DJJ costs and vary widely in their reliance on the system. The 19 counties with the highest DJJ commitment rates are 29 times more likely, on average, to place a young person at DJJ compared to the state's 20 lowest committing counties. The result is a lopsided fiscal burden: counties with low DJJ commitment rates, such as Santa Clara or San Diego, subsidize the cost of counties with higher rates. Details: Sacramento: Center for Juvenile and Criminal Justice, 2018. 5p. Source: Internet Resource: Fact Sheet: Accessed March 12, 2018 at: http://www.cjcj.org/uploads/cjcj/documents/costs_rise_amid_falling_populations_at_californias_division_of_juvenile_justice.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: http://www.cjcj.org/uploads/cjcj/documents/costs_rise_amid_falling_populations_at_californias_division_of_juvenile_justice.pdf Shelf Number: 149432 Keywords: Costs of CorrectionsCosts of Criminal JusticeCosts of Juvenile JusticeCriminal Justice ExpendituresJuvenile Justice Systems |
Author: Morgan, Anthony Title: How much does prison really cost? Comparing the costs of imprisonment with community corrections Summary: The costs associated with managing offenders in prison and in the community can be significant. Estimated costs are usually derived from the Report on government services, which reports both the operating expenditure and capital costs for prisons and community corrections. However, research has shown that sentencing a person to a period of incarceration can have much wider implications for the individual, their family, government and the broader community. These implications may be positive or negative, and may therefore generate both costs and savings. Understanding the wider costs associated with different sentence options can be helpful in informing effective correctional policy and practice. Yet relatively few studies have attempted to estimate the wider costs or savings associated with pathways through imprisonment or community corrections. The purpose of this research was to calculate the total net cost of pathways through imprisonment and community corrections in Victoria, taking into account a range of direct and indirect costs and savings associated with a matched cohort of prisoners and offenders. This study was undertaken in two stages. The first stage estimated the costs and savings accrued during sentences that began in 2009-10 (the reference episode). The second stage estimated the wider costs and savings for both this reference episode and subsequent pathways through imprisonment and community corrections over a five year period. The methodology used to develop these estimates and the results are presented in this report. Details: Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology, 2018. 84p. Source: Internet Resource: AIC Research Report 05: Accessed April 30, 2018 at: http://apo.org.au/system/files/142801/apo-nid142801-725506.pdf Year: 2018 Country: Australia URL: http://apo.org.au/system/files/142801/apo-nid142801-725506.pdf Shelf Number: 149964 Keywords: Community CorrectionsCorrectional AdministrationCosts of CorrectionsCriminal Justice ExpendituresPrison Administration |
Author: Willis, Matthew Title: Justice reinvestment in Australia: A review of the literature Summary: Justice reinvestment (JR) is an emerging field in the Australian criminal justice landscape. It is a data-driven approach to reducing criminal justice system expenditure and improving criminal justice system outcomes through reductions in imprisonment and offending. JR is a comprehensive strategy that employs targeted, evidence-based interventions to achieve cost savings which can be reinvested into delivering further improvements in social and criminal justice outcomes. However, there is no single definition of JR, and the effective development and implementation of JR strategies involve an evidence-based understanding of the local contexts, circumstances and needs that impact on involvement in the criminal justice system. JR has gained a great deal of support in Australia, with a number of JR strategies in operation or under development. As it has emerged in Australia, JR has taken on a wider meaning than has been applied in the US. While the focus of JR in the United States (US) and the United Kingdom (UK) has been about reducing the costs of incarceration, in Australia a broader application of JR is being developed, with states and territories also examining how to reduce crime and strengthen communities. In Australia, JR is being described as a way of addressing key justice problems including the over-representation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the justice system. As well as there being no single definition of JR, there have been a range of different approaches to its development and implementation. The criminal justice outcomes sought through JR can be achieved through approaches that include: - changes to policy and legislation that would otherwise tend to increase the likelihood of people being imprisoned; - improved treatment programs and models of supervision for individuals at the most risk of offending; - investing in neighbourhoods that house a disproportionately high number of offenders; - development of interventions based on locally identified needs and sound evidence; - improving drug addiction and mental health outcomes; and - engagement of interested and motivated supporters, including those providing financial and in-kind contributions for developing and implementing JR approaches. range of different financial approaches can be taken to facilitate JR strategies. Some models involve realizing savings from criminal justice interventions which are then reinvested to build and maintain those outcomes. Other approaches involve upfront investment from other sources, so that savings can be realized that are then used to finance a return on the initial investment. Under these approaches initial investment is procured through non-government sources like private companies or charitable institutions. Repayment of this initial investment by the government is linked to further investment, encouraging the use of strategies to achieve tangible benefits, such as demonstrated reductions in reoffending and prison population growth. JR has also contributed to the development of innovative approaches to financing; for example, social impact investment through mechanisms such as social impact bonds or Payment by Results arrangements. As a data-driven and evidence-based approach, JR relies on rigorous evaluation and monitoring of interventions and their outcomes. JR strategies must be underpinned by a framework of robust evaluation so that the impacts of interventions and resulting cost savings can be demonstrated and the results used to generate further savings and positive outcomes. In the US, JR has grown at a rapid rate since it was first conceived in the early 2000s, driven by the need to address the high incarceration and remand costs of the US criminal justice system. This has now grown into a large-scale body of funding, supported by the US Government as well as by large not-for-profit organisations. More than half of all US states now have JR programs in place, with many of these implemented in accordance with the frameworks established by the Justice Reinvestment Initiative, backed by the Bureau of Justice Administration. Reviews by key stakeholder organizations in the US give strong indications of JR having been successful in achieving actual or projected cost savings in several states (see Bureau of Justice Administration nd a; Council of State Governments Justice Center 2011b). Independent analysis has highlighted some issues with attribution of these savings to JR initiatives, but indicators of success remain and appear likely to continue to build over time. JR strategies adopted in the US have focused largely on reforms to criminal justice system practices and processes, backed by legislative change. Key areas for reform have included: - increased use of risk and needs assessment to more effectively match offenders with programs and services-particularly cognitive-behavioural and substance use treatment programs; - increasing the range of sentencing options available to courts; - improving the quality, extent and nature of supervision for offenders on probation and parole; and - changing responses to breached probation and parole conditions-for example, providing more non-custodial options and reducing the length of prison terms that can be imposed for breaches. The US adoption of JR has led to the creation of models, including financial models, to guide the stages of development and implementation. Development and implementation models have emphasised a number of crucial steps, including: - establishment of governance structures; - analysis and mapping; - development of options for cost savings through improved criminal justice and social outcomes; - quantification and reinvestment of savings; and - outcome and impact evaluations. JR has been positively received in Australia. The Commonwealth, as well as most if not all of the states and territories, have taken steps to explore the potential of JR strategies. In many cases these strategies have focused on the over-representation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the justice system, as well as changes to the youth justice system. In those jurisdictions that have generated greater progress in JR implementation, this has been achieved through the collaborative efforts of government, service providers, community representatives and academics. At the time of writing, separate community-led JR projects were well underway in the western New South Wales towns of Bourke and Cowra. The ACT had also taken substantial steps towards developing a JR strategy, including financial commitment through the Territory budget. JR is an emerging concept in Australia, and there remains considerable scope for the establishment of JR models and approaches that are adapted to Australian circumstances. In contrast to US models that have focused strongly on reforms within the criminal justice system, Australian approaches appear likely to include system reforms as well as a strong focus on localised social changes. As Australian iterations of JR emerge, they may well differ in some substantial ways from US models. While they are likely to retain the key principles of being data-driven, focused on cost savings and improved criminal justice outcomes, it also appears that the Australian application of JR aims for improved social outcomes. Details: Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology, 2018. 65p. Source: Internet Resource: Research Reports no. 9: Accessed May 14, 2018 at: https://aic.gov.au/publications/rr/rr09 Year: 2018 Country: Australia URL: https://aic.gov.au/publications/rr/rr09 Shelf Number: 150171 Keywords: Cost-Benefit AnalysisCosts of CorrectionsCosts of Criminal JusticeCriminal Justice ExpendituresEvidence-Based PracticesJustice Reinvestment |
Author: Sykes, Brian L. Title: Cost savings to Cook County when arrested persons access their right to legal defense within 24 hours Summary: The rapid rise in incarceration throughout the United States since 1980 has increased the fiscal cost to cities, counties, and states. Between 1985 and 2009, state expenditures on corrections rose by 700% to more than $47 billion (James et al. 2012). Illinois, for example, spent 5.2% of its general fund on state corrections in 2007 (PEW 2008). The rise in the penal population is due to a host of changes in the criminal justice system - longer sentences, increasing inequality in surveillance, and growth in punishment for non-violent offenses (Pettit 2012; Alexander 2010; Western 2006). These policy shifts have converged to increase the fiscal cost of incarceration for municipalities as well. The recent economic downturn, however, has caused legislators to reexamine expenditures and to devise methods that will reduce expenses, thereby filling budget deficits associated with increased unemployment, lower tax revenue, and growth in government spending. In 2011, Chicago was projected to have a 2014 budget deficit of $790 million, which has subsequently been reduced to $339 million through various "governmental reforms" (City of Chicago 2014, p. 1). The cost of corrections is an additional area of reform where local and state governments can rein in spending. This report outlines one method Cook County can use to reduce expenditures and conserve resources. If all Cook County inmates had access to legal representation within the first 24 hours after arrest in police stations, their jail stays would be significantly shorter, and the County would save between $12.7 and $43.9 million annually. Details: Chicago: First Defense Legal Aid, 2014. 46p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 14, 2018 at: https://www.first-defense.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Cost-savings-report4.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: https://www.first-defense.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Cost-savings-report4.pdf Shelf Number: 150540 Keywords: Cost-Benefit Analysis Costs of Corrections Costs of Criminal Justice Criminal Justice ExpendituresLegal Aid Legal Defense |
Author: Guthrie, J. Title: Exploring the potential of Justice Reinvestment in Cowra: Community Report Summary: Cowra, in central west New South Wales, is in the Federal electorate of Hume and the state electorate of Cootamundra. This research project was designed to work with the community to enable them to set their priorities for how they would like money that is currently spent on incarcerating their citizens reinvested back into the community. The project was led by Dr Jill Guthrie with colleagues from the Australian National University (ANU), the University of New South Wales and other organisations. It was guided by a reference group of representatives from the Cowra Aboriginal Land Council, Cowra Shire Council and other local and international experts. The project tested the research methodology and theory of Justice Reinvestment (JR), a framework for rethinking the criminal justice system in terms of value for money invested. Within a JR approach, taxpayer money is not spent imprisoning people for low-level criminal activity; instead, that money is reinvested into the community where those people live. JR requires a shift in policy and social outlook from one of incarceration to one of non-incarceration and investing in the community and in people. It requires involvement by governments at all levels (federal, state and local, as well as Indigenous governance), non-government organisations, service providers, the business sector, the education, employment and health sectors, the police and the judiciary. The entire Cowra Community - Indigenous and non-Indigenous - participated, represented by stakeholders from health, education, housing, employment and criminal justice as well as Indigenous and non-Indigenous governance structures. This enabled whole-of-community responses to the issues. Details: Canberra: Australian National University, 2017. 110p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 28, 2018 at: https://rsph.anu.edu.au/files/FINAL_COMMUNITY_REPORT.pdf Year: 2017 Country: Australia URL: https://rsph.anu.edu.au/files/FINAL_COMMUNITY_REPORT.pdf Shelf Number: 153895 Keywords: Costs of Corrections Costs of Criminal Justice Criminal Justice ExpendituresCriminal Justice Reform Justice Reinvestment |