Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: November 22, 2024 Fri
Time: 12:18 pm
Time: 12:18 pm
Results for justice reinvestment
35 results foundAuthor: Archer, Justin Title: Improving Strategic Planning through Collaborative Bodies Summary: Justice reinvestment is a systemwide process of data analysis and collaborative decisionmaking used to identify drivers of criminal justice costs and reinvest resources to yield a more cost-beneficial impact on public safety. It is not a single decision, project, or strategy, but rather a multistaged, ongoing process involving the collaboration of local stakeholders across city, county, and state systems. It is therefore critical that, at the onset of engaging in this process, sites establish a strategic planning entity whose primary mission is to direct efforts and ensure that goals are met. Beyond directing efforts and tracking goals, this type of collaborative body can also ensure that the right decisionmakers are involved in reinvestment efforts and that no critical stakeholders are excluded. This brief will first discuss the importance of strategic planning entities within criminal justice systems and explain why a jurisdiction may want to pursue the formation of a strategic planning body. The discussion should help localities examine the collaborative efforts among its agencies and determine if the formation of an organized planning body is appropriate. The brief will then outline how these bodies are structured and operated, giving guidance for those who wish to form such a collaboration. Finally, a case study from one local justice reinvestment site, Allegheny County, is presented to highlight how a successful collaborative body can conduct a case review to identify systemic issues and develop solutions. Details: Washington, DC: Justice Policy Center, Urban Institute, 2012. 10p. Source: Justice Reinvestment at the Local Level Brief 3: Internet Resource: Accessed November 12, 2012 at http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412542-Improving-Strategic-Planning-through-Collaborative-Bodies.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412542-Improving-Strategic-Planning-through-Collaborative-Bodies.pdf Shelf Number: 126918 Keywords: Costs of Criminal JusticeCrime Prevention ProgramsCriminal Justice AdministrationJustice Reinvestment |
Author: James, Juliene Title: Justice Reinvestment in Action: The Delaware Model Summary: Justice reinvestment is a data-driven approach to corrections policy that seeks to cut spending and reinvest savings in practices that have been empirically shown to improve safety and hold offenders accountable. The Vera Institute of Justice is working with Delaware to advance its efforts under the Justice Reinvestment Initiative—a project sponsored by the U.S. Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Assistance. Delaware’s work in justice reinvestment began in the summer of 2011, when Governor Jack Markell established the Delaware Justice Reinvestment Task Force through executive order to conduct a comprehensive examination of the factors contributing to the size of the corrections population, both pretrial and sentenced individuals. Vera assisted the task force in analyzing these factors and assessed the capacity and quality of institutional and community-based programs. The task force found that people awaiting trial made up a large proportion of the prison population, that supervision practices resulted in a large number of probationers spending time in prison, and that Delaware prisoners served long sentences with limited opportunity to earn reductions in their sentences—even when they had made significant steps toward rehabilitation. Based on these findings, Vera helped the task force develop a policy framework to address these drivers of the corrections population and ensure that scarce justice resources are used to reduce recidivism and enhance public safety. Legislators translated these policy recommendations into Delaware Senate Bill 226. Among other changes, the legislation requires implementation of an objective risk assessment instrument to help magistrates make informed decisions about pretrial release, makes available objective risk and needs assessment for judges’ use in sentencing, supports improved community supervision practices, and creates incentives for those who are incarcerated and under supervision to complete evidence-based programs designed to reduce recidivism. Strong bipartisan efforts led to the near-unanimous passage of the legislation, which Governor Markell signed in August 2012. As other jurisdictions consider how best to invest limited public safety dollars, Delaware’s experience offers a helpful example of what can be accomplished through a close consideration of data and social science. Because it is a unified system—one of only a handful in which the state’s Department of Correction has custody of both pretrial and sentenced populations—Delaware’s recent work is relevant not only to other states, but also to local jurisdictions, which typically are responsible for jail populations. This brief reflects on Delaware’s efforts. Details: New York: Vera Institute of Justice, Center on Sentencing and Corrections, 2013. 8p. Source: Internet Resource: Policy Brief: Accessed May 8, 2013 at: http://www.vera.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/justice-reinvestment-in-action-delaware.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.vera.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/justice-reinvestment-in-action-delaware.pdf Shelf Number: 128682 Keywords: Corrections (Delaware, U.S.)Costs of Criminal JusticeCriminal Justice ReformJustice ReinvestmentPrisoners |
Author: LaVigne, Nancy Title: Justice Reinvestment Initiative State Assessment Report Summary: Seventeen Justice Reinvestment Initiative states are projected to save as much as $4.6 billion through reforms that increase the efficiency of their criminal justice systems. Eight states that had JRI policies in effect for at least one year - Arkansas, Hawaii, Louisiana, Kentucky, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, and South Carolina - reduced their prison populations. Through the Initiative, states receive federal dollars to assess and improve their criminal justice systems while enhancing public safety. This report chronicles 17 states as they enacted comprehensive criminal justice reforms relying on bipartisan and inter-branch collaboration. The study notes common factors that drove prison growth and costs and documents how each state responded with targeted policies. Details: Washington, DC: The Urban Institute, 2014. 145p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 22, 2014 at: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412994-Justice-Reinvestment-Initiative-State-Assessment-Report.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412994-Justice-Reinvestment-Initiative-State-Assessment-Report.pdf Shelf Number: 132123 Keywords: Community JusticeCorrections ReformCosts of Criminal JusticeCriminal Justice ReformJustice Reinvestment |
Author: Sowerwine, Sam Title: Sentencing contradictions - Difficulties faced by people living with mental illness in contact with the criminal justice system Summary: This discussion paper focuses on the need to ensure the diversion of people who are homeless and those with a mental illness out of the criminal justice system. Where such diversion does not occur, sentencing options should be focused on addressing the underlying causes of criminal activity. There is a public interest in reducing recidivism and supporting 'justice reinvestment' approaches that move funds away from more expensive, end-of-process crime control options, such as incarceration, towards programs that target the factors that cause offenders to commit crime. This reinvestment should take place both internally and external to the criminal justice system. However, it is imperative that community service organisations - generally the core service providers of such programs - are adequately resourced. There is also a need for specially tailored services to meet the complex needs of people with mental illness. For this reason, it is important that treatment and care under diversionary programs take a multi-disciplinary and multi-stranded approach. Details: Sydney: Public Interest Advocacy Centre, Ltd., 2013. 30p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 8, 2014 at: http://www.piac.asn.au/sites/default/files/publications/extras/13.10.15_sentencing_contradictions_-_difficulties_faced_by_people_living_with_mental_illness_and_the_criminal_justice_system_-_briefing_paper.pdf Year: 2013 Country: Australia URL: http://www.piac.asn.au/sites/default/files/publications/extras/13.10.15_sentencing_contradictions_-_difficulties_faced_by_people_living_with_mental_illness_and_the_criminal_justice_system_-_briefing_paper.pdf Shelf Number: 132288 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationHomeless PersonsHomelessness (Australia)Justice ReinvestmentMentally IllMentally Ill Offenders |
Author: Council of State Governments Justice Center Title: Justice Reinvestment in Hawaii: Analyses & Policy Options to Reduce Spending on Corrections & Reinvest in Strategies to Increase Public Safety Summary: In June 2011, Governor Neil Abercrombie and House and Senate leaders in Hawaii requested technical assistance from the Council of State Governments Justice Center (CSG Justice Center) to employ a data-driven justice reinvestment approach to develop a statewide policy framework that would reduce spending on corrections and reinvest savings in strategies that increase public safety. This report outlines the analyses conducted by the CSG Justice Center and policy options proposed to the Hawaii State Legislature as a result of the justice reinvestment process. Details: New York: Council of State Governments Justice Center, 2014). 12p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 9, 2014 at: http://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/JR-in-HI-Analyses-and-Policy-Options.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/JR-in-HI-Analyses-and-Policy-Options.pdf Shelf Number: 134219 Keywords: Community Justice (Hawaii) Corrections Reform Costs of Criminal Justice Criminal Justice Reform Justice Reinvestment |
Author: Council of State Governments Justice Center Title: Justice Reinvestment in Kansas: Analyses & Policy Options to Reduce Spending on Corrections & Reinvest in Strategies to Increase Public Safety Summary: In June 2012, Governor Sam Brownback, Chief Justice Lawton Nuss, Attorney General Derek Schmidt, Department of Corrections (DOC) Secretary Ray Roberts, and House and Senate leaders requested technical assistance from the Council of State Governments Justice Center (CSG Justice Center). They sought to employ a data-driven "justice reinvestment" approach to develop a statewide policy frame work that would reduce spending on corrections and reinvest resulting savings in strategies that increase public safety. Assistance provided by the CSG Justice Center was made possible through a partnership with and funding from the Pew Center on the States Public Safety Performance Project and the Bureau of Justice Assistance, a component of the U.S. Department of Justice. Details: New York: Council of State Governments Justice Center, 2013. 20p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 9. 2014 at: http://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Kansas-JR-Final-Report.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Kansas-JR-Final-Report.pdf Shelf Number: 134218 Keywords: Community Justice (Kansas)Corrections Reform Costs of Criminal Justice Criminal Justice Reform Justice Reinvestment |
Author: Council of State Governments Justice Center Title: Justice Reinvestment in Alabama: Overview Summary: In early 2014, Alabama Governor Robert Bentley, Chief Justice Roy Moore, Senate President Pro Tempore Del Marsh, House Speaker Michael Hubbard, and Department of Corrections Commissioner Kim Thomas requested support from The Pew Charitable Trusts and the U.S. Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Assistance to explore a 'justice reinvestment' approach to improve public safety, manage corrections spending, and reinvest savings in strategies that can decrease crime and reduce recidivism. The Council of State Governments Justice Center (CSG Justice Center) was asked to provide intensive technical assistance to help collect and analyze data and develop appropriate policy options for the state. The Alabama legislature passed a joint resolution (SJR 20) in February 2014 that created the bipartisan, inter-branch Prison Reform Task Force (Task Force)-which includes designees from all three branches of government and state and local criminal justice system stakeholders-to study the state's criminal justice system using the justice reinvestment approach.1 Senator Cam Ward (R-Alabaster) will chair the Task Force, which will submit a report on the study's findings and policy recommendations to the legislature prior to the 2015 session. CSG Justice Center staff, under the direction of the Task Force, will conduct a comprehensive analysis of data collected from various relevant state agencies and branches of government. To build a broad picture of statewide criminal justice trends, data on jail and community corrections will be sought from local governments and analyzed where possible. CSG Justice Center staff also will convene focus groups and lead interviews with people working on the front lines of Alabama's criminal justice system. Based on these exhaustive quantitative and qualitative analyses, the Task Force will use its findings to develop options for the legislature's consideration that are designed to both increase public safety and contain the cost of corrections. This overview highlights recent criminal justice trends in Alabama that the Task Force will be exploring in the coming months. Details: New York: Council of State Governments Justice Center, 2014. 6p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 18, 2014 at: http://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/JR-in-Alabama-Overview.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/JR-in-Alabama-Overview.pdf Shelf Number: 134124 Keywords: Corrections ReformCosts of Criminal JusticeCriminal Justice ReviewCriminal Justice Systems (Alabama)Justice Reinvestment |
Author: Council of State Governments, Justice Center Title: Juvenile Reinvestment in Alabama: Analysis and Policy Framework Summary: This report summarizes comprehensive analyses of sentencing, corrections, probation, and parole data presented to Alabama's Prison Reform Task Force. It outlines strategies and policy options to reduce the prison population and recidivism in the state by strengthening community-based supervision and treatment, prioritizing prison space for violent and dangerous offenders, and providing supervision to every person released from prison. The report also offers strategies for supporting victims of crime through improved victim notification. If implemented, the report's suggested policies would reinvest $26 million in recidivism reduction strategies in FY2016 and avert $407 million in prison construction and operations costs by FY2021 Details: New York: Council of State Governments Justice Center, 2015. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 30, 2015 at: http://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/JRinAlabamaPoliciesandFramework.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/JRinAlabamaPoliciesandFramework.pdf Shelf Number: 135832 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity Based CorrectionsCommunity SupervisionCorrectional InstitutionsJustice ReinvestmentParolePrisonsProbation |
Author: Council of State Governments. Justice Center Title: Justice Reinvestment in Washington: Analysis and Policy Framework Summary: Washington has the highest reported property crime rate in the nation. People convicted of property offenses have a high likelihood of committing a new crime, yet Washington is the only state in the country where supervision is not available as a sentence for most people convicted of property offenses, despite the significant impact supervision can have on reducing the likelihood of reoffending. In addition, the state's prison population is projected to grow by 6 percent over the next 10 years, from 17,502 in FY2014 to 18,542 by FY2024, in part, due to an increasing number of repeat property offenders being sentenced to prison for long lengths of stay. In 2014, the CSG Justice Center was asked to analyze Washington's criminal justice data, interview stakeholders from across the criminal justice system, and work with state leaders to develop data-driven policy options designed to reduce spending on corrections and increase public safety. Among other things, Washington's Justice Reinvestment Policy Framework would: - Adopt a new sentencing grid for felony property offenses that mandates a period of supervision and, if needed, treatment for people convicted of less serious property offenses; - Fund local law enforcement efforts to deter property crime; - Create a fund to provide financial assistance to victims of property crime; and - Incentivize counties to improve pretrial practices. The Justice Reinvestment Policy Framework would help the state avoid up to $291 million in prison construction and operating costs that would otherwise be needed to accommodate the growth that was forecast to occur by FY2024. To achieve these outcomes, the state would need to reinvest $90 million by FY2021 in law enforcement grants, supervision and treatment, support for counties, and financial assistance for victims of property crime. Through improvements to the criminal justice system, this policy framework establishes a goal of reducing the property crime rate by 15 percent by FY2021, deterring crime, and reducing recidivism. The Justice Reinvestment Policy Framework will be considered by the legislature during the 2015 session. Details: New York: Council of State Governments, 2015. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 5, 2015 at: http://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/JusticeReinvestmentinWashington.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/JusticeReinvestmentinWashington.pdf Shelf Number: 135914 Keywords: Costs of CorrectionsCosts of Criminal JusticeCriminal Justice ReformCriminal Justice systemsJustice ReinvestmentProperty CrimesSentencing Reform |
Author: Wong, Kevin Title: Local Justice Reinvestment Pilot: Final process evaluation report Summary: The Local Justice Reinvestment (LJR) Pilot was part of the Ministry of Justice (MOJ) commitment to test new approaches to criminal justice through Payment by Results (PbR) commissioning and has informed the government's Transforming Rehabilitation (TR) reforms. Justice Reinvestment assumes that there are significant reductions in crime and offending to be made by partners working more effectively together at the local level. Cost savings, realised through lower demand on the Criminal Justice System (CJS), can then be reinvested back into the system. Six pilot sites were established - in Greater Manchester and the London boroughs of Croydon, Hackney, Lambeth, Lewisham and Southwark - covering both the adult and youth CJS in all sites except Hackney, which covered the adult CJS only. In these sites, local partners were free to target their resources on offenders in line with their local priorities and crime and/or reoffending patterns. They received a reward payment from MOJ if the cost of demand reduced by more than 5 per cent for adults and 10 per cent for youths, up to a maximum of 20 per cent, in either of the two test years (July 2011 to June 2012, July 2012 to June 2013) measured against the baseline period (July 2010 to June 2011). The value of the reward increased in line with greater reductions in the cost of demand, up to a maximum of 20 per cent. The cost of demand was based on prices set for CJS metrics which included numbers of: custodial convictions of a specified duration; custody months for those convictions; community orders and suspended sentence orders; 'other convictions'; and probation requirements. Four sites in year 1 and five sites in year 2 achieved the targets and received reward payments based on savings which were shared between the sites and MO. A process evaluation was commissioned to identify: what actions were taken by the sites; their effect on the CJS metrics indicated above, including how this affected the overall cost of demand on the CJS; perceived strengths and weaknesses in implementation; any unintended consequences on the CJS; and implications for policy and practice. This final report draws together the findings from all the phases of the evaluation. An interim report focusing on the development and implementation of the pilot in year one, including details of interventions was published in 2013. Details: London: Ministry of Justice, 2015. 66p. Source: Internet Resource: Ministry of Justice Analytical Series: Accessed July 30, 2015 at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/449630/local-justice-reinvestment-pilot-process-evaluation-report.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/449630/local-justice-reinvestment-pilot-process-evaluation-report.pdf Shelf Number: 136272 Keywords: Costs of Criminal JusticeCriminal Justice ReformJustice ReinvestmentRehabilitation |
Author: Oregon. Criminal Justice Commission Title: Justice Reinvestment Implementation in Oregon: August 2013 to April 2015 Summary: In July 2013 the Oregon Legislature passed House Bill 3194, known as the Justice Reinvestment Act1. This report summarizes the implementation of several key areas in the bill, including sentencing reforms and the Justice Reinvestment Grant Program. As stakeholders in Oregon prepare for the 2015-2017 biennium, the Justice Reinvestment Grant Program will substantially change. Counties must apply for the grant funds and meet performance outcomes to show the programs implemented have been successful. Many of the sentencing reforms in the bill have reached the point where the majority of the prison bed savings have already been achieved. In order to continue to see success in terms of the goals of the Justice Reinvestment Grant Program, counties will need to reduce recidivism rates by implementing successful programs. The sentencing reforms will no longer be enough to control Oregon's prison population. The final section in this report displays how prison use by county will be tracked in the 2015-2017 biennium, and proposes a "stop light" display for county level prison use. Details: Salem, OR: Oregon Criminal Justice Commission, 2015. 35p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 14, 2015 at: http://www.oregon.gov/cjc/justicereinvestment/Documents/Justice%20Reinvestment%20Implementation%20in%20Oregon.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.oregon.gov/cjc/justicereinvestment/Documents/Justice%20Reinvestment%20Implementation%20in%20Oregon.pdf Shelf Number: 136416 Keywords: Costs of CorrectionsCosts of Criminal JusticeCriminal Justice ReformJustice ReinvestmentSentencing |
Author: Council of State Governments Justice Center Title: Justice Reinvestment in Kansas: Strengthening Probation Supervision and Promoting Successful Reentry Summary: Facing a projected 23-percent growth in the state prison population by FY2021, policymakers from across the political spectrum in Kansas enacted House Bill (HB) 2170 in April 2013. The law implements policy recommendations developed through "justice reinvestment," a data-driven approach designed to reduce corrections spending and reinvest savings in strategies that can reduce recidivism and improve public safety. Throughout the process, the state received intensive technical assistance from the Council of State Governments (CSG) Justice Center, in partnership with The Pew Charitable Trusts and the U.S. Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA). With continued support, Kansas leaders have been working to implement this legislation and track the impact of the new policies. This report reflects on the progress Kansas has made to date and the continued efforts that are necessary to meet the state's goals. Details: New York: Council of State Governments Justice Center, 2015. 4p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 25, 2015 at: https://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/JusticeReinvestmentInKansas.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: https://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/JusticeReinvestmentInKansas.pdf Shelf Number: 136877 Keywords: Criminal Justice PolicyCriminal Justice ReformJustice ReinvestmentOffender SupervisionPrisoner ReentryProbationProbationers |
Author: Jones, Alexander Title: Exploring the Potential for Pretrial Innovation in Massachusetts Summary: Reducing the number of inmates awaiting trial in jail through data-informed decision-making is one of the most promising innovations that Justice Reinvestment presents. Housing, feeding, and providing security for detainees is expensive, and there are also large collateral consequences. The defendant will likely lose their job, their housing, and perhaps even their children if a jail stay is required. While incarcerated awaiting trial, few detainees receive services they may urgently need to address underlying problems. Recognizing that resources can be better spent elsewhere, a number of states are moving aggressively to keep low-risk defendants out of jail. States in the lead on adopting new pretrial procedures have been able to reduce their jail populations because they were holding a large number of defendants who did not present a danger or flight risk; these detainees were simply too poor to afford bail. In addition to lowering jail populations, improvements to the pretrial process have the potential to reduce racial and ethnic disparities in incarceration. Research has shown that pretrial detention is harmful to mounting a defense, and that more low-income and minority defendants are forced to await trial in jail because they cannot post the money required for their release. While data limitations make it difficult to determine how many low-risk defendants are awaiting trial in Massachusetts jails, the growth of the state's pretrial population at a time when arrest rates are falling is an indicator that the pretrial process may be operating inefficiently. Between 2008 and 2013, the number of arrests in Massachusetts fell by 10 percent; in contrast, the state's pretrial jail population rose by nearly 13 percent. The disparity is even larger when contrasted with the drop in the number of defendants sentenced annually to serve terms in state prisons and county Houses of Correction, which has fallen by 22 percent since 2008. This policy brief provides a short primer on the pretrial process in Massachusetts, highlights critical issues that suggest there are opportunities to improve the system, and offers an action plan for pretrial innovation in Massachusetts. Details: Boston: Massachusetts Institute for a New Commonwealth 2015. 12p. Source: Internet Resource: Policy Brief: Accessed September 30, 2015 at: http://massinc.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/bail.brief_.3.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://massinc.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/bail.brief_.3.pdf Shelf Number: 136925 Keywords: BailJailsJustice ReinvestmentPretrial DetentionRisk Assessment |
Author: Ball, W. David Title: The New Normal? Prosecutorial Charging in California After Public Safety Realignment Summary: On April 4, 2011, Governor Jerry Brown signed Assembly Bill 109, the 2011 Public Safety Realignment Act ("Realignment" or "AB 109"), into law. AB 109 was one response to the 2009 Three-Judge Court Order for California to significantly reduce its prison population to 110,000 people, or 137.5% of design capacity, by year-end 2013. Affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2011 in Brown v. Plata, the Three-Judge Court Order determined prison overcrowding to be "the primary cause of the state's unconstitutional failure to provide adequate medical and mental health care to California prisoners," concluding that population reduction was the most narrowly drawn, least intrusive remedy. Realignment shifts the responsibility of supervising, tracking and imprisoning specified non-serious, non-violent, non-sexual ("triple-nons" or "N3 felonies" or "non-non-nons") offenders previously bound for state prison to county jails and probation (see Overview of Public Safety Realignment. The law states that "the purpose of justice reinvestment is to manage and allocate criminal justice populations more cost-effectively, generating savings that can be reinvested in evidence-based strategies that increase public safety while holding offenders accountable." The implementation of Realignment in California is the largest correctional experiment of its kind. Through AB 109, the Legislature has allocated over $2 billion in the first two years of implementation to assist California's 58 counties in carrying out the legislation's provisions. In addition, more than 100,000 offenders have had their sentences altered through mid-2013. The advent of Realignment, of course, affected the decision-making of all the official actors in the criminal justice system. But the prosecutor's role is unique in one clear sense: Prosecutors have, in formal legal terms, virtually un-reviewable autonomy in the choice to charge or not charge an offender (so long as any charge matches provable facts with statutory elements). Traditionally, in deciding whether to charge as high as the provable facts allow, they consider contextual aspects of the commission of the offense itself but also any relevant background aspects and criminal record of the offender. How does this power operate in the wake of AB 109? On the one hand, AB 109 simply classified a large number of pre-existing felonies under California Penal Code S1170(h) because they were deemed "triple-nons." In that sense, prosecutors in theory might be indifferent to the change; they would continue to charge these felonies according to the same factors as they always had, and the changes in site of incarceration and possible change in de facto length of sentences would happen of their own accord. In a sense, the only mandated change in prosecutorial choice here had to do with sentence recommendation: Because judges now have the power to impose a split sentence for an AB 109 conviction - fractioning the sentence between jail time and community supervision - when prosecutors exercise their usual function of recommending sentences, they now have to build the matter of split versus straight sentences into that responsibility. Prosecutors have also always been free to consider such resource factors as their own and other agencies' budgets and crowding in jails and prisons. But many aspects of AB 109 were likely from the start to weigh significantly on the decisions made by prosecutors as they exercise their traditional charging and recommendation choices after October 2011. The most salient aspects were the change in site and de facto length of incarceration, as well as the secondary effects of new county responsibilities for post-release supervision of many prisoners returning home. In particular, in exercising discretion, prosecutors might be influenced by their views on the differences in the severity of experience of incarceration in jail as opposed to prison, or by their concerns about jail crowding or the extra costs that county jails and other county agencies might have to absorb under AB 109. Details: Stanford, CA: Stanford Criminal Justice Center, Stanford Law School, 2014. 187p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 28, 2015 at: http://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/default/files/publication/513777/doc/slspublic/DA%20report%20Feb%202014.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/default/files/publication/513777/doc/slspublic/DA%20report%20Feb%202014.pdf Shelf Number: 137169 Keywords: CorrectionsCriminal Justice ReformJustice ReinvestmentPrison OvercrowdingPrison ReformPrisonsProsecutionProsecutorial DiscretionProsecutorsPublic Safety Realignment |
Author: Alaska Criminal Justice Commission Title: Justice Reinvestment Report Summary: Alaska's prison population has grown by 27 percent in the last decade, almost three times faster than the resident population. This rapid growth spurred the opening of the state's newest correctional facility - Goose Creek Correctional Center - in 2012, costing the state $240 million in construction funds. On July 1, 2014, Alaska's correctional facilities housed 5,267 inmates, and the Department of Corrections ("DOC") had a fiscal year operating budget of $327 million. Absent reform, these trends are projected to continue: Alaska will need to house an additional 1,416 inmates by 2024, surpassing the state's current prison bed capacity by 2017. This growth is estimated to cost the state at least $169 million in new corrections spending over the next 10 years. The rising cost of Alaska's prison population coupled with the state's high recidivism rate - almost two-thirds of inmates released from the state's facilities return within three years - have led policymakers to consider whether the state is achieving the best public safety return on its corrections spending. Seeking a comprehensive review of the state's corrections and criminal justice systems, the 2014 Alaska Legislature established the bi-partisan, interbranch Alaska Criminal Justice Commission ("Commission"). In April of the following year, state leaders from all three branches of government joined together to request technical assistance from the Public Safety Performance Project of The Pew Charitable Trusts and the U.S. Department of Justice as part of the Justice Reinvestment Initiative. Governor Bill Walker, former Chief Justice Dana Fabe, Senate President Kevin Meyer, House Speaker Mike Chenault, Attorney General Craig Richards, former Commissioner of the Alaska DOC Ron Taylor, and former Chair of the Commission Alexander O. Bryner tasked the Commission with "develop[ing] recommendations aimed at safely controlling prison and jail growth and recalibrating our correctional investments to ensure that we are achieving the best possible public safety return on our state dollars." In addition, Senate President Meyer and Speaker Chenault requested that, because the state's difficult budget situation rendered reinvestment in evidence-based programs and treatment possible only with significant reforms, the Commission forward policy options that would not only avert future prison growth, but would also reduce the prison population between 15 and 25 percent below current levels. Over a seven-month period, the Commission analyzed the state's criminal justice system, including a comprehensive review of sentencing, corrections, and community supervision data. Key findings include: - Alaska's pretrial population has grown by 81 percent over the past decade, driven primarily by longer lengths of stay for both felony and misdemeanor defendants. - Three-quarters of offenders entering prison post-conviction in 2014 were convicted of a nonviolent offense. - Length of stay for sentenced felony offenders is up 31 percent over the past decade. - In 2014, 47 percent of post-revocation supervision violators - who are incarcerated primarily for non-criminal violations of probation and parole conditions - stayed more than 30 days, and 28 percent stayed longer than 3 months behind bars. Based on this analysis, and the directive from legislative leadership, the Commission developed a comprehensive, evidence-based package of 21 consensus policy recommendations that would protect public safety, hold offenders accountable, and reduce the state's average daily prison population by 21 percent, netting estimated savings of $424 million over the next decade. Details: Juneau: Alaska Criminal Justice Commission, 2015. 38p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 8, 2016 at: http://www.ajc.state.ak.us/sites/default/files/imported/acjc/AJRI/ak_jri_report_final12-15.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.ajc.state.ak.us/sites/default/files/imported/acjc/AJRI/ak_jri_report_final12-15.pdf Shelf Number: 137792 Keywords: Costs of CorrectionsCriminal Justice ReformCriminal Justice SystemsJustice ReinvestmentPrison PopulationPrisons |
Author: Wong, Kevin Title: Youth Justice Reinvestment Custody Pathfinder: final process evaluation report Summary: The Youth Justice Reinvestment Custody Pathfinder, commissioned by the Youth Justice Board (YJB), aimed to test how local authorities could be incentivised to reduce the use of youth custody for 10 to 17 years olds. The pilot ran for 2 years from October 2011 to September 2013. This second and final process evaluation report mainly covers the implementation of Pathfinder during the final year of the pilot in the 2 Pathfinder sites. Individual end of pilot targets were set, as measured by the number of custody bed nights. At the end of the pilot, sites 1 and 2 exceeded their targets, as well as exceeding reductions seen in the rest of England and Wales. The report identifies a number of factors which appeared to have facilitated implementation in the second year. Both sites adopted a 'systems approach' that required detailed data analysis, to identify key entry points and stages in the criminal justice system where improvements in practice, processes or interventions can have the potential to deliver reductions in the use of youth custody. Details: London: Ministry of Justice, 2015. 48p. Source: Internet Resource: Ministry of Justice Analytical Series: Accessed February 10, 2016 at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/414123/youth-justice-reinvestment-custody-pathfinder-final-evaluation-report.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/414123/youth-justice-reinvestment-custody-pathfinder-final-evaluation-report.pdf Shelf Number: 137837 Keywords: Justice ReinvestmentJuvenile Detention Juvenile Inmates Juvenile Justice Reform Juvenile Offenders |
Author: Kentucky. Legislative Research Commission Title: Report of the 2013 Task Force on the Unified Juvenile Code . (2013 Senate Concurrent Resolution 35) Summary: In 2013, Senate Concurrent Resolution 35 extended the Task Force on the Unified Juvenile Code, which had been created the year before. The task force was directed to continue its review of the juvenile justice system to develop recommendations for reform. The task force was a bipartisan, inter-branch group with diverse representation from juvenile justice stakeholders. It conducted a detailed analysis of Kentucky's juvenile justice system and, based on this work, developed recommendations to protect public safety, hold offenders accountable, improve outcomes for children and families, and control costs in the juvenile justice system. Seeking to improve public safety and achieve better outcomes for youth and their families, the task force studied Kentucky data, reviewed research on proven juvenile practices, and looked to other states to identify solutions. The task force analysis led to findings in four areas of Kentucky's juvenile justice system: - Kentucky is spending significant resources on out-of-home residential placement for lowlevel status and public offenders.b The Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) spends more than half of its $102 million annual budget on secure and nonsecure residential facilities that cost an average of $87,000 per bed per year. In addition, the Department for Community Based Services (DCBS) spent an estimated $6 million in fiscal year 2012 for out-of-home placement of status offenders. - Lower-level offenses make up a significant share of the juvenile justice system. Misdemeanants and violators make up the majority (ranging from 55 percent to 87 percent) of youth in of each type of out-of-home placement. - The length of time probation/court order violators and misdemeanor offenders spend in outof- home facilities has increased 31 percent and 21 percent, respectively, over the past decade. The amount of time these offenders spend out of home differed by less than 1 month from those adjudicated on felony offenses. Hundreds of status offenders are spending time out of home through commitments to DCBS or in detention. - A lack of funding for and access to services and alternatives in the community has contributed to more expensive commitments to DJJ and DCBS and more youth being placed out of home. Recommendations And Impact The task force recommendations are grouped into four categories: - Reinvest savings to provide for sustained funding, expand community services, and improve supervision. - Focus resources, particularly expensive out-of-home facilities, on higher-level offenders, and reinvest savings into strengthening early intervention and prevention programs. - Increase effectiveness of juvenile justice programs and services. - Improve government performance by providing oversight of reform implementation, tracking performance measures, and maximizing federal resources. Details: Frankfort, KY: Legislative Research Commission, 2013. 20p. Source: Internet Resource: Research Memorandum No. 514: Accessed February 24, 2016 at: http://www.lrc.ky.gov/lrcpubs/rm514.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.lrc.ky.gov/lrcpubs/rm514.pdf Shelf Number: 137950 Keywords: Justice ReinvestmentJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Mizell, Jill Title: An Overview of Public Opinion and Discourse on Criminal Justice Issues Summary: This series of reports from The Opportunity Agenda describes the American public discourse on crime, the criminal justice system, and criminal justice reform. It examines years of public opinion research, mainstream media coverage, and social media content. And it incorporates the input of leaders working in the field of criminal justice reform. Taken together, this body of work is intended to help reform leaders, organizations, and allies to build public support for effective solutions. It also provides useful insights for journalists, news outlets, and commentators who cover-or could cover-this important subject. Involvement in the criminal justice system can be an opportunity-ending event in people's lives. The "tough on crime" policies of the past generation-the "war on drugs," mandatory minimum sentences, "three-strikes laws" and the like-have negatively affected millions of people. In addition to the individuals who are arrested, prosecuted, and incarcerated for long periods under harsh sentencing laws, families and whole communities face racial profiling, mass incarceration, and barriers to re-entry after release from prison. These impediments to opportunity are not spread evenly across the U.S. population. Racial and class bias infects the criminal justice system at every point, from arrest, through prosecution, sentencing, incarceration, and release. Today, the nation's experiment with mass incarceration is being scrutinized and critiqued as never before, and criminal justice reform is on the public policy agenda. Our scan of legislative activity across the country indicates that reforms are taking place in red and blue states alike. As one reform leader put it: The fiscal crisis that so many states find themselves in has created a space for dialogue about reducing the use of incarceration to solve social issues...This is a very conservative city in a conservative state, and I'm seeing opportunity after opportunity to work across the political spectrum to get criminal justice reform done. States are rethinking "zero tolerance" school discipline policies, which often are responsible for racially discriminatory suspensions and "the school to prison pipeline." Municipalities are adopting "ban the box" policies to remove barriers to the hiring and licensing of people with criminal records. States are adopting "Justice Reinvestment" strategies to reduce corrections costs and reinvest the savings in programs that improve public safety, such as education, public health and job training. At the federal level, the Justice Department has launched its "Smart on Crime" review to bring more fairness to the federal criminal justice system. And the trend towards treating drug use as a public health, rather than a criminal matter is accelerating throughout the country. Whether based on fiscal concerns about the vast public resources devoted to arresting, prosecuting, and locking up so many people or on concerns about fairness and racial equity, more and more members of the public and their political representatives are questioning whether the harsh penalties adopted at both the state and federal levels over the past 40 years are accomplishing what they were intended to accomplish: protecting the public. A growing number of Americans is realizing that the vast majority of people in prison will be released back into the community with few, if any, opportunities to change their lives for the better and that this does not bode well for the nation as a whole. In spite of these advances, however, the United States has a long way to go before its criminal justice system lives up to constitutional and human rights norms, and creating the political will to bring about real reform is a heavy lift. Elected leaders still fear being labeled "soft on crime," and the organized opposition, led by district attorney associations and the private corrections industry, is working hard to block sentencing and other reforms, arguing that public safety is at risk. Most Americans hear about crime through their local television stations, where "if it bleeds, it leads" is still the rule. Increased fear of crime can derail any progress made by the criminal justice reform movement unless the public is "inoculated" with a deeper understanding of the causes of and solutions to crime. Details: New York: The Opportunity Agenda, 2014. 124p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 24, 2016 at: http://opportunityagenda.org/files/field_file/2014.08.23-CriminalJusticeReport-FINAL_0.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://opportunityagenda.org/files/field_file/2014.08.23-CriminalJusticeReport-FINAL_0.pdf Shelf Number: 137956 Keywords: Costs of criminal JusticeCriminal Justice PolicyCriminal Justice ReformJustice ReinvestmentMedia Public AttitudesPublic Opinion |
Author: Rios, Nestor Title: Reducing Recidivism: A Review of Effective State Initiatives Summary: The Colorado Criminal Justice Reform Coalition commissioned this report that documents how retraining staff in behavioral intervention methods, implementing system-wide organizational improvements, and restructuring probation and parole supervision around the crime related behaviors allowed Maryland's PCS program to achieve an amazing 42 percent lower rate of re-arrests for people under supervision. Crime related behaviors were described under Maryland's PCS program as violence, drug entrepreneurship, drug abuse, domestic abuse, etc. In addition, the report introduces the concept of Justice Reinvestment to Colorado policymakers, profiling efforts in Arizona, Connecticut and Kansas to improve parole and probation supervision outcomes while reducing state correctional costs. Details: New York: Justice Strategies, 2009. 52p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 23, 2016 at: http://www.justicestrategies.org/sites/default/files/publications/CO_Reducing_Recidivism_Report.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: http://www.justicestrategies.org/sites/default/files/publications/CO_Reducing_Recidivism_Report.pdf Shelf Number: 130061 Keywords: Community SupervisionCosts of CorrectionsJustice ReinvestmentParole SupervisionProbation SupervisionRecidivism |
Author: Council of State Governments Justice Center Title: Justice Reinvestment in Montana: Overview Summary: June 2015, Montana Governor Steve Bullock, Chief Justice Mike McGrath, Attorney General Tim Fox, Senate President Debby Barrett, Speaker of the House Austin Knudsen, House Minority Leader and Legislative Council President Chuck Hunter, Senate Minority Leader Jon Sesso, and Montana Department of Corrections (DOC) Director Mike Batista requested support from The Pew Charitable Trusts (Pew) and the U.S. Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) to explore a 'justice reinvestment' approach to reduce corrections spending and reinvest savings in strategies that can reduce recidivism and improve public safety. Despite declining crime in recent years, court cases involving felony offenses in Montana have increased significantly, and Montana's prison population is on the rise. The prison population currently exceeds capacity and is projected to continue to grow to 119 percent of capacity by FY2025. In partnership with Pew and BJA, The Council of State Governments (CSG) Justice Center will provide intensive technical assistance to help collect and analyze data and develop appropriate policy options for the state. The Montana legislature had enacted Senate Bill 224 in April 2015 to establish the state's bipartisan, inter-branch Commission on Sentencing, which calls upon designees from all three branches of government, as well as state and local criminal justice system stakeholders, to study the state's criminal justice system, including the impact of existing sentencing policies and practices on the state's system. Senator Cynthia Wolken (D) chairs the commission, and Senator Kristen Hansen (R) serves as vice-chair of the commission. Under the direction of the 15-member commission, CSG Justice Center staff will conduct a comprehensive analysis of extensive data collected from various state agencies. To help build a broad picture of statewide criminal justice trends, additional data from local governments on county jails and county probation will be collected and analyzed where possible. CSG Justice Center staff also will convene focus groups and lead interviews with people working on the front lines of Montana's criminal justice system. Based on these exhaustive quantitative and qualitative analyses, the commission will develop policy options for the 2017 legislature's consideration. This overview highlights some recent criminal justice trends in Montana that the commission and CSG Justice Center staff will explore in the coming months. Details: New York: Council of State Governments Justice Center, 2016. 4p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 28, 2016 at: https://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Justice_Reinvestment_in_Montana_Overview.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: https://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Justice_Reinvestment_in_Montana_Overview.pdf Shelf Number: 138436 Keywords: Costs of CorrectionsCosts of Criminal JusticeCriminal Justice ReformCriminal Justice SystemsJustice Reinvestment |
Author: W. Haywood Burns Institute Title: San Francisco Justice Reinvestment Initiative: Racial and Ethnic Disparities Analysis for the Re-Entry Council Summary: In February 2011, the Reentry Council of The City and County of San Francisco (Reentry Council) submitted a letter of interest to the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) to participate in the local Justice Reinvestment Initiative (JRI). In May 2011, following BJA's selection of San Francisco as a JRI site, the Crime and Justice Institute (CJI) at Community Resources for Justice (CRJ) began working with and providing technical assistance to the Reentry Council. From CJI's presentations to the Reentry Council, and based on these preliminary findings, the Reentry Council identified three policy areas with potential for achieving cost savings and reinvestment opportunities: 1. Eliminate disproportionality in San Francisco's criminal justice system 2. Create a uniform early termination protocol for probation 3. Maintain and expand pretrial alternatives to detention Reducing the disproportionate representation of people of color in San Francisco's criminal justice system remains a priority in JRI activities. Learning more about these disparities was a priority for Phase II. In November 2014, CJI contracted BI to provide an analysis of whether and to what extent racial and ethnic disparities exist at the five following key decision making points: - Arrest - Bail and Pretrial Jail - Pretrial Release - Sentencing - Motion to Revoke Probation (MTR) The analysis in this report describes the nature and extent of racial and ethnic disparities in the decision making points above. The analysis does not explore the causes of disparities. BI did not perform statistical analyses to isolate the extent to which race/ethnicity - rather than a variety of other factors - predicts justice system involvement. Additionally, the analysis does not explore the extent to which individual bias impacts the disproportionate representation of people of color in the justice system. Details: Oakland, CA: The Institute, 2015. 49p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed march 30, 2016 at: https://www.burnsinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/SF_JRI_Full_Report_FINAL_7-21.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: https://www.burnsinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/SF_JRI_Full_Report_FINAL_7-21.pdf Shelf Number: 138477 Keywords: African AmericansEthnic DisparitiesJustice ReinvestmentPrisoner ReentryRacial Disparities |
Author: Elderbroom, Brian Title: Assessing the Impact of South Dakota's Sentencing Reforms: Justice Reinvestment Initiative Summary: South Dakota made significant reforms to its justice system with the 2013 enactment of the Public Safety Improvement Act. This brief summarizes findings on the preliminary impact of two of these reforms: presumptive probation and felony reclassifications of drug possession and ingestion. These policies have produced positive results, but new developments threaten that success. While prison admissions and sentence lengths for affected offenses declined, the number of convictions for eligible offenses increased. These increases challenge the state's progress toward its reform goals. This brief offers policy recommendations South Dakota should consider to build on the success of SB 70. Details: Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 2016. 15p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 18, 2016 at: http://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/alfresco/publication-pdfs/2000762-Assessing-the-Impact-of-South-Dakota%27s-Sentencing-Reforms-Justice-Reinvestment-Initiative.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/alfresco/publication-pdfs/2000762-Assessing-the-Impact-of-South-Dakota%27s-Sentencing-Reforms-Justice-Reinvestment-Initiative.pdf Shelf Number: 139658 Keywords: Criminal Justice PoliciesCriminal Justice ReformJustice ReinvestmentSentencingSentencing Reform |
Author: Forman, Benjamin Title: Viewing Justice Reinvestment Through a Developmental Lens: New approaches to reducing young adult recidivism in Massachusetts Summary: Residents ages 18 to 24 are the most likely demographic to find their way into Massachusetts prisons and the quickest to return to them upon release. Innovative models to serve justice-involved young adults have enormous potential to reduce recidivism. These new approaches are also central to increasing public safety in high-crime neighborhoods, where young adults are generally responsible for the most destructive violence. The second installment in our Justice Reinvestment Policy Brief Series, this paper contrasts the sharp drop in juvenile offending in Massachusetts- driven in part by the adoption of an intervention model informed by the latest developmental science - with the more moderate decline in young adult offending over the past decade. The brief concludes with a series of recommendations to reduce recidivism among justice-involved young adults through evidence-based policy and practice. Details: Boston: MassINC, 2015. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: Policy Brief: Accessed July 25, 2016 at: http://massinc.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/young.offenders.brief_.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://massinc.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/young.offenders.brief_.pdf Shelf Number: 139832 Keywords: Evidence-Based PoliciesJustice ReinvestmentRecidivismYoung Adult Offenders |
Author: Oregon. Task Force on Public Safety Title: Justice Reinvestment Report to the Legislature Summary: In July 2013, the Oregon Legislature passed House Bill 3194, known as the Justice Reinvestment Act, in response to a nearly 50% increase in Oregon's rate of incarceration between 2000 and 2010. Justice Reinvestment is an approach to spending resources more effectively with the goals of decreasing prison use, reducing recidivism, increasing public safety and holding offenders accountable. This approach can only continue to work as long as it is fully funded. The program depends on certainty of funds for county Justice Reinvestment programs to continue to operate. If Justice Reinvestment is not adequately funded there will be immediate prison bed costs far in excess of the cost of funding the program. HB 3194 created the Justice Reinvestment Grant Programs and included several sentencing changes. This bill also created the Task Force on Public Safety with the purpose of reviewing the implementation of the bill. The Task Force must submit a report to the Legislative Assembly by October 1, 2016 that describes their findings. The Criminal Justice Commission (CJC) staffs the Task Force and tracks prison bed savings from the sentencing changes in HB 3194, county prison use for related Property, Drug and Driving crimes, recidivism and the male and female prison forecasts. This report includes legislative recommendations and topics for further consideration by the Task Force and summarizes the implementation of several key areas in the bill, including sentencing changes, the Justice Reinvestment Grant Program and the Center for Policing Excellence. Details: Salem, OR: The Task Force, 2016. 56p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 14, 2016 at: http://www.oregon.gov/cjc/Documents/TaskForceonPublicSafetyJusticeReinvestmentReporttotheLegislature.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.oregon.gov/cjc/Documents/TaskForceonPublicSafetyJusticeReinvestmentReporttotheLegislature.pdf Shelf Number: 144884 Keywords: Costs of CorrectionsCosts of Criminal JusticeJustice ReinvestmentSentencing Reform |
Author: Roth, Lenny Title: Justice reinvestment Summary: Justice reinvestment is based on the premise that imprisonment is an expensive and largely ineffective way of reducing crime. Different versions of the concept have emerged but the original idea in the United States was that funding for prisons should be reduced and redirected towards addressing the underlying causes of crime in communities with high levels of incarceration. Over the last decade, many State governments in the United States have introduced a justice reinvestment policy. The United Kingdom Government has also conducted some pilot justice reinvestment projects at the local council level. This paper outlines the development and experience of justice reinvestment in those countries, summarises key reports and commentary in Australia, and refers to local trials in NSW, South Australia and the ACT. Details: Sydney: NSW Parliamentary Research Service, 2016. 16p. Source: Internet Resource: e-brief: Accessed December 20, 2016 at: https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/researchpapers/Documents/Justice%20reinvestment.pdf Year: 2016 Country: Australia URL: https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/researchpapers/Documents/Justice%20reinvestment.pdf Shelf Number: 147305 Keywords: Costs of CorrectionsCosts of Criminal JusticeCosts of PrisonsJustice Reinvestment |
Author: Council of State Governments Justice Center Title: Justice Reinvestment in North Dakota: Policy Framework Summary: Over the past decade, the number of people in North Dakota’s prisons and jails, on probation, and on parole has increased, and the state and county governments have spent tens of millions of dollars expanding the capacity of existing correctional facilities and building new facilities to accommodate this growth. Unless action is taken, the prison population is projected to grow by 36 percent by FY2022 at a cost of $115 million to accommodate the projected growth. To address these challenges, Governor Jack Dalrymple, Chief Justice Gerald VandeWalle, Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem, Senate Majority Leader Rich Wardner, House Majority Leader Al Carlson, Senate Minority Leader Mac Schneider, House Minority Leader Kenton Onstad, and Legislative Management Chairman Raymond Holmberg requested intensive technical assistance from The Council of State Governments (CSG) Justice Center with support from The Pew Charitable Trusts and the U.S. Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Assistance to use a data-driven justice reinvestment approach to help the state reduce the corrections population, contain corrections spending, and reinvest a portion of the savings in strategies that can reduce recidivism and increase public safety. The Incarceration Issues Committee—which included stakeholders from all three branches of government—worked with CSG Justice Center staff to review analyses and develop policy options that will curb prison population growth by reducing the number of people in prison who have committed lower-level felony offenses and who have violated the conditions of their supervision. These policies will also ensure that people with serious behavioral health needs and those assessed as being at a high risk of reoffending receive effective post-release supervision programming, and treatment as necessary. By implementing these proposed policies, the state will avert a minimum of $63.8 million by 2022 in costs for the contract beds that would be necessary to accommodate the projected prison population growth, and will be able to reinvest those savings in strategies that can reduce recidivism and increase public safety. In September 2016, the Incarceration Issues Committee approved a policy draft containing components of the justice reinvestment policy framework, and in November 2016, the Legislative Management committee voted the bill to the legislative assembly for introduction in the House. Details: New York: Council of State Government Justice Center, 2017. 16p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 10, 2017 at: https://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/JR-in-ND_Policy-Framework_2.7.17.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/JR-in-ND_Policy-Framework_2.7.17.pdf Shelf Number: 147298 Keywords: Costs of CorrectionsCosts of Criminal JusticeCriminal Justice PolicyCriminal Justice ReformJustice Reinvestment |
Author: Allen, Rob Title: Rehabilitation Devolution - how localising justice can reduce crime and imprisonment Summary: The new Conservative Government provides a fresh and promising context in which to reform criminal justice, by devolving power and responsibility to a more local level and learning from American "Justice Reinvestment" (JR) initiatives. The term JR has come to cover a variety of programmes/approaches, both in the UK and the USA, which aim to shift resources away from the unnecessary use of criminal prosecution and imprisonment into more local, productive and cost effective ways of preventing crime and reducing reoffending. The last few years have seen important reforms at federal and state level in the USA. More than half of states have introduced JR laws or policies which have sought to reduce the severity of sentences for nonviolent offences, and to reduce breaches of parole and supervision, in order to avert unaffordable prison growth. The extent to which these have contributed to the stabilisation or reduction in prison numbers is contested in some states, but the overall trends have changed - 2014 was the first time in 38 years that both federal and state prison populations fell in tandem. Many states have used some of the spending earmarked for new prisons to strengthen alternatives. There are four main areas for learning; first about how a much more locally based approach to criminal justice has enabled experimentation and reform, which has involved a wide range of stakeholders from different levels and branches of government, and from outside it. Second, how the politics of criminal justice has become more moderate with much of the leadership coming from conservatives who previously took a hard line, and with almost all of the JR measures enjoying bipartisan support. Third, the measures introduced to moderate prison growth have been based on comprehensive data collection and analysis which has enabled the costs, benefits and impacts to be carefully evaluated. Finally, some states embracing JR have required a proportion of the savings to be reinvested in programmes to reduce re-offending. They have also created incentives to manage low risk and low level offenders at the county rather than state level by strengthening probation supervision. JR initiatives in England and Wales have sought to test whether financial incentives can reduce the use of imprisonment for under 18’s, and encourage agencies at a local level to lower demand on the criminal justice system. Consortia of local authorities have shown that they can use financial incentives to stimulate measures to reduce the numbers of under 18s imprisoned; and localising financial responsibility for the cost of remanding under 18 year olds has coincided with falls in numbers in custody. There is enough promise in the results to warrant an expansion of JR. Details: London: Transform Justice, 2016. 31p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 11, 2017 at: http://www.transformjustice.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/TRANSFORM-JUSTICE-REHABILITATION-DEVOLUTION.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.transformjustice.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/TRANSFORM-JUSTICE-REHABILITATION-DEVOLUTION.pdf Shelf Number: 144829 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCosts of CorrectionsCosts of Criminal JusticeCriminal Justice ReformJustice ReinvestmentOffender Rehabilitation |
Author: Communities United Title: The $3.4 Trillion Mistake: The Cost of Mass Incarceration and Criminalization, and How Justice Reinvestment Can Build a Better Future for All Summary: Imagine if, back in 1982, our federal, state, and local policymakers had assembled the U.S. public and offered us a choice between two paths that we could take over the next 30 years. Path One would involve using our tax dollars to invest in the massive expansion of our justice system and a tripling of our incarcerated population, but would not substantially improve public safety. Path Two would make the same level of investment in providing tens of millions of youth with higher-quality educational and developmental opportunities, creating millions of living-wage jobs, dramatically expanding the availability of affordable housing and first-rate healthcare, and making meaningful advances in addressing the effects of environmental degradation, while keeping the justice system at the same size. Would anyone have chosen Path One? Nevertheless, that is effectively what we did. Over the last 30+ years, the U.S. has invested heavily in police, prosecutors, courts, jails, and prisons to address not only public safety issues but also public health concerns such as the effects of poverty, mental illness, and drug use. As a result, the justice system now intersects with our lives far more often, and far more harshly, than ever before, and there are many millions more people that are either under the control of, or employed by, that system. For example, in 1982, the U.S. already had an expansive justice system, totaling $90 billion in justice spending, including police, corrections, judicial/legal, and immigration enforcement expenditures. Indeed, our incarcerated population then – 621,885 – would still rank as third-highest in the world today, behind only China and Russia. Nevertheless, we continued to aggressively expand both the size and role of our justice system, particularly as a result of the escalation of the “War on Drugs” and the increased use of the "tough on crime" approach. Thus, by 2012, total justice spending had increased by 229% to nearly $297 billion. Even more staggering is the cumulative impact of those shifts in resources. Over the 30-year period from 1983 to 2012, we spent $3.4 trillion more on the justice system than we would have if it had stayed the same size as it was in 1982. This "surplus justice spending" turned our already-huge justice system into the one we have today, in which there are nearly eight million adults and youth behind bars or within the probation and parole systems in the U.S. In other words, 1 in 40 U.S. residents is either in prison, in jail, on probation or parole, or otherwise under control of the justice system. For communities of color that have been devastated by decades of over-investment in flawed and ineffective criminal justice strategies and racially discriminatory policing – and under-investment in meeting critical community needs – the impact has been particularly severe. For example, approximately 1 in 18 Black residents, and 1 in 34 Latino residents, were under the control of the justice system in 2013 (compared to 1 in 55 White residents). However, despite the massive investment in the expansion of our justice system, it is not at all clear that this approach has been effective at promoting public safety. On the contrary, the evidence suggests that it has been far less effective than other public safety strategies available to us. Moreover, there is an enormous amount of research demonstrating that the harms caused by this approach far exceeded whatever benefits have been realized, particularly with regard to the low-income communities of color that have been suffocating under extreme versions of these mass incarceration and criminalization approaches. Details: s.l.: Communities United, Make the Road New York, Padres & Jóvenes Unidos, and the Right on Justice Alliance , 2016. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 22, 2017 at: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/57dadad0e58c62763389db93/t/57fe699c440243a439dcc3d6/1476290979801/FINAL+Report+-+hi+res.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/57dadad0e58c62763389db93/t/57fe699c440243a439dcc3d6/1476290979801/FINAL+Report+-+hi+res.pdf Shelf Number: 141175 Keywords: Costs of CorrectionsCosts of Criminal JusticeJustice ExpendituresJustice ReinvestmentMass Incarceration |
Author: Council of State Governments Justice Center Title: Examining the Changing Racial Composition of Three States' Prison Populations Summary: A review of the composition of prison populations in three states found that drops in prison admissions, prison populations, or both, in recent years have been especially pronounced among nonwhites according to a brief released today by the Council of State Governments (CSG) Justice Center. This brief focuses on three states—Georgia, Connecticut and North Carolina—where bipartisan groups of state leaders enacted major criminal justice reforms and subsequently saw the number of people incarcerated markedly decline in their states. A closer look showed that these three states experienced significant reductions in the number of people admitted to prison, with the steepest declines among blacks and Hispanics. Among the brief's highlights: Georgia: Since 2012, prison admissions have dropped by 8 percent. While admissions for whites remained unchanged, admissions among blacks dropped by 11 percent. Connecticut: The total number of people in Connecticut prisons declined by almost 17 percent between 2008 and 2015. Meanwhile, the drop in the number of blacks and Hispanics during the same period—21 percent and 23 percent, respectively—was three times as steep as the decline in the number of whites. North Carolina: Total admissions to prison in the state dropped by 21 percent between 2011 and 2014, and the declines were even larger for blacks and Hispanics, with drops of 26 percent and 37 percent, respectively. Declines for these groups in the prison population were also substantial, with blacks and Hispanics dropping by 12 percent and 16 percent, respectively, while whites fell a little more than 1 percent. Although these trends coincide with reforms enacted in each of the three states, the brief is careful to qualify that any finding of a causal relationship between the reforms and the changes in the states’ prison populations is premature. Determining to what extent, if any, the reforms are driving these trends requires additional research. The brief also notes that state policymakers designed their respective reforms in these three states to increase public safety and to reduce spending on corrections. The developments highlighted in this brief, however, do offer evidence of significant progress in reversing a trend that has generated widespread attention and concern throughout the country. According to a report from the National Academy of Sciences released last year, six out of 10 people in U.S. prisons in 2011 were black or Hispanic, up from four out of 10 people in 1970. Meanwhile, only 3 out of 10 people in the general population in the U.S. in 2011 were black or Hispanic. While this brief does not present new research, it does underscore the need for additional research that addresses some key questions: Have these (and other) states' policy reforms contributed to the decline in admissions of black and Hispanic adults? To what extent have certain changes to sentencing policy, responses to violations of conditions of release, and investments in community-based treatment especially benefited nonwhite adults? How do states everywhere monitor these trends, and the reasons behind them, more closely? Details: New York: The Justice Center, 2015. 8p. Source: Internet Resource: In Brief: Accessed March 27, 2017 at: https://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/ExaminingtheChangingRacialCompositionofThreeStatesPrisonPopulations.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: https://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/ExaminingtheChangingRacialCompositionofThreeStatesPrisonPopulations.pdf Shelf Number: 144596 Keywords: Criminal Justice Policy Criminal Justice Reform Justice ReinvestmentPrisoners Prisons Racial Disparities |
Author: Council of State Governments Justice Center Title: Montana's Justice Reinvestment Approach: Curbing State Prison Population Growth and Reinvesting in Local Public Safety Strategies Summary: Montana's prisons are at capacity due to an 11-percent increase in the prison population between FY2008 and FY2015. Without action, the prison population was projected to continue to grow 13 percent by FY2023, requiring at least $51 million in new spending for contract prison beds and hiring additional supervision offcers. Across the state, the total county jail population rose 69 percent between 2011 and 2013, and many jails are currently overcrowded. To address these challenges, in the spring of 2017 state policymakers enacted nine pieces of legislation that contain policies designed to limit the period of incarceration for people sanctioned for low-level violations of the terms of their supervision, prioritize supervision resources for people who are most likely to reoffend, and help counties reduce local jail populations. By enacting all of these bills, the state expects to avert at least $69 million in spending on contract beds and supervision staff and hundreds of millions more that would have been necessary to build new correctional facilities between FY2018 and FY2023. Montana will reinvest a portion of those savings in strategies designed to reduce recidivism and increase public safety. Details: New York: Council of State Governments, 2017. 4p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 20, 2017 at: https://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/6.6.17_Montana_Justice-Reinvestment-Approach.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/6.6.17_Montana_Justice-Reinvestment-Approach.pdf Shelf Number: 148275 Keywords: Costs of CorrectionsCriminal Justice ReformJustice ReinvestmentPrison Population |
Author: Council of State Governments Justice Center Title: Arkansas's Justice Reinvestment Approach: Enhancing Local Mental Health Services for People in the Criminal Justice System Summary: Arkansas's criminal justice system faces serious challenges. As a result of a 21-percent growth in the state's prison population between 2012 and 2015 - the highest increase in the nation during that period - Arkansas's prisons are now at capacity, and county resources are strained due to a backlog of people who are held in jail while awaiting transfer to prison after sentencing. Without action, the state's prison population is projected to increase by nearly 20 percent by 2023. To address these issues, in March 2017, Arkansas policymakers passed Act 423, which contains policies designed to make better use of state and local resources in three key ways. First, it limits the period of incarceration for people sanctioned for low-level violations of the terms of their supervision. Second, it requires training for law enforcement offcers in how to respond to people experiencing a mental health crisis. Third, it creates local crisis stabilization units that enable law enforcement offcers to divert people with mental illnesses who commit low-level offenses away from county jails to receive mental health treatment in the community. By implementing these policies, the state estimates it will avert hundreds of millions of dollars in prison construction and operating costs and will be able to reinvest savings in areas critical to improving outcomes for people on supervision and increasing public safety. Act 423 is expected to reduce the projected growth in the prison population by nearly 10 percent. This fgure represents more than 1,650 fewer people in prison by FY2023, resulting in projected averted costs of more than $288 million. Details: New York: Council of State Governments, 2017. 4p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 20, 2017 at: https://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Arkansas-JR-Approach_MAY2017.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Arkansas-JR-Approach_MAY2017.pdf Shelf Number: 148276 Keywords: Costs of CorrectionsCriminal Justice ReformJustice ReinvestmentMental Health ServicesMentally Ill OffendersPrison Population |
Author: Chapman, Jason E. Title: Quasi-Experimental Evaluation of Reentry Programs in Washington and Linn Counties Summary: Justice reinvestment is a data-driven approach to improve public safety, examine corrections and related criminal justice spending, manage and allocate criminal justice populations in a more costeffective manner, and reinvest savings in strategies that can hold offenders accountable, decrease recidivism, and strengthen neighborhoods. In 2010, the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) launched the Justice Reinvestment Initiative (JRI), with funding appropriated by the U.S. Congress in recognition of earlier successes of justice reinvestment efforts. JRI provides technical assistance to states and localities as they collect and analyze data on drivers of criminal justice populations, identify and implement changes to increase efficiencies, and measure the fiscal and public safety impacts of those changes. Oregon is one of several JRI-involved states. In Oregon, JRI-related activities were formalized in 2013 with the passage of HB 3194. Among other things, this bill established a grant program to strengthen local public safety capacity, which is overseen by the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission (CJC). In the 2015 legislative session, the Oregon legislature approved 38.7 million dollars for the CJC to grant to counties for JRI-related programs. The law includes a provision that 3% of these monies be used for rigorous evaluations of the JRI programs that each county adopted. The CJC has identified three promising areas to target for JRI program evaluation efforts; Reentry programs represent one of those three targeted areas. Thus far, although considerable research exists on Reentry programs, a clear set of evidence-based best practices has yet to emerge due to the diversity of Reentry programming features. Reentry programs are widely considered to be effective at reducing recidivism and prison usage. Ndrecka conducted a meta-analysis of Reentry programs nationwide. The study synthesized results from 53 independent evaluations of Reentry programs and revealed an overall effect size of .06, meaning that on average, these programs reduce recidivism by 6%. Moderator analyses indicated that Reentry programs are more effective when services begin while offenders are still incarcerated and continue through their release to the community, versus being limited to just pre- or post-prison release. Considering these findings, the CJC sought to determine the effectiveness of Reentry programs funded by Justice Reinvestment in Oregon, to inform future funding decisions and to further the body of criminal justice knowledge. Researchers at the Oregon Social Learning Center (OSLC) submitted a proposal and were selected to conduct this research on Reentry programs. Specifically, OSLC Investigators conducted a quasi-experimental study of the Reentry programs in Washington and Linn Counties. These counties were chosen by the CJC for evaluation because they implement similar Reentry services and because they directed their JRI dollars toward funding their Reentry programs. Further, and as described next, their services span pre- and post-prison release, consistent with evidence on "what works" from the above-mentioned meta-analysis. In general, Reentry programs are designed to facilitate an offender's release from prison and successful integration back into the community. Neither Washington nor Linn County have a fully detailed manual for their Reentry programs, but they were able to describe the components they generally provide. Of note, the program provided in each county is structured such that every offender receives a few key components, but some components are provided on an as-needed basis. - Services begin with an in-person "Reach-In" meeting with offenders prior to their release from prison: -- The Reach-In is a 30-60 minute in-person visit with the offender that happens after Community Corrections receives a prison release plan. The Reach-In tends to happen 90 days prior to prison release. -- During this Reach-In, a Reentry specialist employed by Community Corrections assesses each offender's needs and develops an individualized post-release case plan. -- A key goal of the Reach-In is to help alleviate the offender's anxiety about being released and about working with their Community Corrections officer post-release.- Other targets of the Reach-In may include planning for housing, basic needs, treatment needs, employment/education, transportation, or other needs the offender anticipates facing post-release. - Mentoring services are frequently provided to the offender, although there are slight differences across Washington and Linn Counties. - In Washington, all offenders are provided mentoring services. In Linn, all female offenders are provided mentoring, while male offenders are provided mentoring services whenever mentors are available. - Mentoring begins with one to four mentoring sessions occurring prior to prison release and generally continues for at least three months post-release. - Mentors are sometimes contracted directly by Community Corrections and are sometimes provided by community organizations, treatment providers, or volunteer groups. - The mentor communicates directly with the Community Corrections officer, either through individual communication or at weekly "staffing" meetings between the officer, treatment provider, and mentor. - A Community Corrections officer provides enhanced supervision post-release. Both Washington and Linn Counties incorporate a Motivational Interviewing approach into their supervision. They also develop holistic supervision plans that aim to identify an offender's goals, address barriers to these goals, and facilitate prosocial thinking. The officer may provide assistance with housing, basic needs, treatment needs, employment/education, transportation, or other needs that arise for the offender, in an effort to help the offender avoid re-engaging in criminal activity. - Offenders may receive a range of supportive services for several months following release from prison: -- When needed, offenders receive rapid access to comprehensive substance abuse and/or mental health treatment. Treatment providers meet regularly with the offender's Community Corrections officer to coordinate services. -- When needed, offenders receive access to short-term housing services, including sober living homes (i.e., group homes for people who are recovering from addiction). -- Offenders may receive assistance from an employment specialist who works directly with Community Corrections and is specialized in assisting offenders to find employment. A quasi-experimental study was conducted to evaluate the impact of the Reentry programs in Washington and Linn Counties. The primary outcome for this analysis was recidivism as defined in Oregon (i.e., arrest, conviction, or incarceration for a new crime within 3 years of prison release). Reentry services have been provided in Washington and Linn Counties since approximately 2007, but when JRI funding became available, Washington and Linn Counties decided to use the JRI funding to pay for the costs of their Reentry programs. Thus, although the JRI funding was not available until later, the data since 2007 could be included in the evaluation to help expand the number of years with eligible data (i.e., offenders who had 3 years post-release data). In addition, data prior to 2007 were utilized as a comparison window, or "baseline phase" that was the time period prior to the Counties' Reentry programs beginning. The CJC provided OSLC investigators with the recidivism data, and the current report summarizes the results of the Reentry program evaluation. Details: Eugene, OR: Oregon Social Learning Center, 2017. 59p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 8, 2018 at: http://www.oslcdevelopments.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Quasi-Experimental-Evaluation-of-Reentry-Programs-in-Washington-and-Linn-Counties-Final-Report.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://www.oslcdevelopments.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Quasi-Experimental-Evaluation-of-Reentry-Programs-in-Washington-and-Linn-Counties-Final-Report.pdf Shelf Number: 149396 Keywords: Costs of Criminal JusticeJustice ReinvestmentMentoring ProgramsPrisoner ReentryReentry Programs |
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: Council of Economic Advisors Title: Returns on Investments in Recidivism-reducing Programs Summary: Crime imposes a significant burden on Americans' well-being and tax-financed resources. These costs are amplified by a cycle of crime that results in re-arrest rates for released American prisoners in excess of 50 percent. Rigorous and evidence-based prison reforms are proposed to break the crime cycle, thereby reducing future crime and lowering incarceration expenditures by facilitating more successful re-entry to the workforce upon prison release. In this policy brief, CEA reviews the evidence on the underlying factors that determine the value of such prison programs and provides estimates on their rates of return. There are numerous programs that have been tried in one form or another over many decades. We do not aim to cover the entire scope of prison reform programs but focus instead on three main categories: programs that address mental health, substance abuse, or education and that are delivered inside correctional facilities. 2 We find that there is great variation in the effectiveness across programs such that reallocation of budgets from poorly to well performing programs may both lower spending and improve results. In addition, CEA finds evidence that certain individual programs can reduce crime as well as reduce spending by lowering long-run incarceration costs. Programs that save at least one dollar in crime and incarceration costs for every dollar spent are deemed cost effective. More specifically, with a focus on rigorous studies of the programs that have been previously implemented, CEA finds that, on average, programs that address the prisoner's mental health or substance abuse problems may reduce the cost of crime by about $0.92 to $3.31 per taxpayer dollar spent on prison reform and long-run incarceration costs by $0.55 to $1.96, for a total return of $1.47 to $5.27 per taxpayer dollar. Despite these positive returns, there are many programs-such as those in which the primary focus is education-for which the evidence base is inconsistent and rates of return more uncertain. Given this uncertainty, CEA estimates by how much rates of recidivism would have to be reduced in order for the programs to break even given their costs. We calculate that educational programming needs only to achieve a modest impact on recidivism rates (about a 2 percent reduction) in order to be cost effective. Overall, increased investment in better evidence is needed to guide future investments into programs to reduce recidivism. Many programs, even if they are found to be cost effective may have small sample sizes or unique characteristics that may be difficult to replicate or scale up, and some studies with high-quality research designs are too dated to provide needed insight. Carefully designed, broad-based national programs that target a wide variety of offenders in conjunction with carefully designed empirical evaluations would improve the ability of policymakers to allocate criminal justice funds to achieve the greatest possible social benefits. Details: Washington, DC: The Council, 2018. 30p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 23, 2018 at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Returns-on-Investments-in-Recidivism-Reducing-Programs.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Returns-on-Investments-in-Recidivism-Reducing-Programs.pdf Shelf Number: 150338 Keywords: Correctional EducationCost-Benefit AnalysisEvidence-Based PracticesJustice ReinvestmentOffender RehabilitationRecidivism |
Author: Nevada Advisory Commission on the Administration of Justice Title: Nevada Advisory Commission on the Administration of Justice - Justice Reinvestment Initiative. Final report Summary: Over the past decade Nevada's prison population has grown significantly, resulting in higher spending on prisons and fewer resources available for recidivism reduction measures. Since 2009, Nevada's prison population has grown by seven percent, and the state's female prison population has grown at four times the pace of the overall prison population. The state currently has an imprisonment rate that is 15 percent higher than the national average. Over the same period Nevada's crime rate has fluctuated, with violent crime climbing from a 10-year low in 2011 to 2015 before experiencing a major drop in 2017. The state has the third highest murder rate and the third highest robbery rate in the nation. While many states across the nation have seen significant declines in both crime rates and prison populations, Nevada has not. Moreover, the growing population of people with behavioral health problems continues to challenge the system. Nearly 30 percent of the state's inmate population require treatment or medication for a mental health need. Growing prison costs have burdened taxpayers while gaps remain in treatment and interventions that reduce recidivism, increase public safety, and address critical behavioral health challenges. Nevada is spending over $347 million on corrections in fiscal year 2019, which has crowded out the state's ability to fund treatment and services. The prison population is projected to continue to grow, and by 2028, will increase by 1,197 beds. Fifteen percent of this overall growth will be driven by an increase in the female prison population, which is projected to grow by 14 percent over the next 10 years. The projected prison population growth is estimated to cost the state an additional $770 million in capital expenditures to build or lease new prisons and added operating costs over 10 years. In May 2018, state leaders from all three branches of government joined to request technical assistance through the Justice Reinvestment Initiative (JRI). As part of the JRI effort, state leaders charged the Advisory Commission on the Administration of Justice (ACAJ) with conducting a review of the state's criminal justice system and "us[ing] criminological research and [Nevada's] own criminal justice data to inform and motivate the development of comprehensive crime- and recidivism-reduction strategies, while shifting resources toward more cost-effective public safety strategies." Beginning in July 2018 and extending through the end of the calendar year, the ACAJ analyzed the state's sentencing, corrections, and community supervision data, and reviewed the latest research on reducing recidivism and improving public safety. The ACAJ found that, in Nevada: - Sixty-six percent of people admitted to prison in 2017 were sentenced for nonviolent crimes and four out of 10 offenders had no prior felony convictions. - Thirty-nine percent of prison admissions were the result of revocations of individuals on probation and parole supervision. Analysis of violation reports revealed that 34 percent of these violators were returned to prison for technical violations of supervision, meaning they failed to comply with a condition of supervision such as failing a drug test or not going to treatment. - The amount of time individuals spend incarcerated has increased 20 percent since 2008, and recidivism rates have increased for nearly all offense types. - The number of women admitted to prison increased 39 percent between 2008 and 2017 and the female imprisonment rate per 100,000 is now 43 percent higher than the national average. - The number of people admitted to prison with an identified mental health need has increased 35 percent over the last decade and the number of women entering prison with a mental health need has grown by 47 percent. Based on this data analysis and the directive from state leadership, the ACAJ developed a comprehensive package of 25 policy recommendations supported by a majority of ACAJ members. The recommendations are specifically designed to improve public safety by holding offenders accountable, reducing recidivism, and increasing the resources available to combat the state's behavioral health crisis. These policies, if signed into law, would avert 89 percent of the projected prison population growth, and ultimately reduce the projected 2028 prison population by more than 1,000 beds, averting $640 million in additional prison costs over the next 10 years. The money that would have been spent on new prison beds can be redirected to effective policies and practices that reduce recidivism and increase public safety including interventions to address a growing population with behavioral health needs. Details: Carson City: The Author, 2019. 41p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 14, 2019 at: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/InterimCommittee/REL/Document/13671 Year: 2019 Country: United States URL: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/InterimCommittee/REL/Document/13671 Shelf Number: 154594 Keywords: Costs of CorrectionsInmate PopulationJustice ReinvestmentPrison ReformPrisonersPrisons |