Council of State Governments (CSG). Justice Center (New York NY)
"If implemented, the package of policies outlined in the framework has the potential to generate significant savings in Idaho and estimates a 15-percent reduction in recidivism. By slowing the growth in the state prison population between 2015 and 2019, these policies will help the state avoid at least $288 million in construction and operating costs that would otherwise be needed to accommodate the forecasted growth. To achieve these outcomes, a portion of the expected savings must be reinvested in funding for training probation and parole officers, providing community-based treatment services to people on probation and parole supervision who are at a higher risk of reoffending, and implementing quality assurance measures." Sections of this report cover: overview of the data-driven justice reinvestment approach; summary of three challenges and related strategic policy solutions; justice reinvestment policy framework; projected impact of justice reinvestment policy framework on Idaho's prison population; reinvestment; Challenge 1—A Revolving Door and five related policy strategies to "strengthen supervision practices and programs to reduce recidivism"; Challenge 2—Insufficient Use of Prison Space and four related policy strategies to "tailor sanctions for supervision violations, provide recidivism outcomes at sentencing, and structure parole to make more productive use of prison space"; and Challenge 3—Insufficient Oversight and four related policy strategies to "access, track, and ensure impact of recidivism-reduction strategies".
Kansas policymakers "sought to employ a data-driven “justice reinvestment” approach to develop a statewide policy framework that would reduce spending on corrections and reinvest resulting savings in strategies that increase public safety" (p. 1). This report explains how three key issues and their related challenges can be addressed. Sections comprising this report include: background; summary of challenges; justice reinvestment policy framework; projected impact of policy framework—savings and reinvestment; Objective 1—Stronger Probation Supervision and four policy options; Objective 2—Successful Reentry and four policy options; and Objective 3—Safer Communities and two policy options.
"Three years after North Carolina enacted justice reinvestment legislation, this report reviews the policies the state enacted and their impact on North Carolina’s correctional and criminal justice system. Through transforming the state’s probation system, reinventing how treatment is delivered, and expanding supervision, the state has seen declines in its prison population, the number of probation revocations, and releases from prison without supervision." Sections of this report include: background; transforming probation supervision; reinventing how treatment is funded and delivered; reserving prison space for the most serious offenders; crafting a win-win for counties and the state; supervising the reentry process; impact on the prison population, public safety, and costs; and summary of North Carolina's Justice Reinvestment Act.
"This report summarizes comprehensive analyses of sentencing, corrections, and arrests data presented to the Washington State Justice Reinvestment Taskforce. It outlines strategies and policy options to avert prison population growth by reducing property crime, holding offenders accountable with supervision, reinvesting to strengthen supervision policies and practices to reduce recidivism, and supporting victims of property crime. If implemented, the package of policies outlined in the framework has the potential to avert up to $291 million in prison construction and operating costs and reinvest $90 million by FY2021." Sections of this report cover: overview of the evidence-based, data-driven justice reinvestment approach; projected 6-year outcomes of justice reinvestment policy framework; a summary of the three challenges and strategic policy solutions; Washington State justice reinvestment policy framework; three goals; projected impact of justice reinvestment policy framework on Washington's prison population; reinvestment; Challenge One—High Property Crime and three related policy strategies to reduce property crime and support victims of property crime; Challenge 2—Limited Accountability and two related policy strategies to hold people convicted of property offenses accountable with supervision and, if needed, treatment; Challenge 3—Recidivism and two related policy strategies to reinvest savings from reduced corrections spending to strengthen supervision policies and practices to reduce recidivism; and sustainability.
“Declining state revenues and other fiscal factors are putting a serious strain on many states’ criminal justice systems, often putting concerns about the bottom line in competition with public safety. Strategies tested in numerous states and local jurisdictions, however, show that there are effective ways to address the challenge of containing rising corrections costs while also increasing public safety” (p. 1). Any agency looking for ways to reduce costs while maintaining public safety should look at this report. These strategies are: conduct a comprehensive data analysis; engage diverse constituencies; focus on the people most likely to reoffend; reinvest in high-performing programs; strengthen community supervision; and incentivize performance.
Recommendations are given on how states "can improve reentry, reduce recidivism, and build or improve collaborations with community-based service providers" (p. 3). Goals and recommendations explain how to: build and sustain comprehensive networks with faith-based and community organizations; simplify pathways to funding for reentry initiatives; tailor responses to the population that will be served by a reentry initiative; and how to ensure accountability for efficient use of funds and gather critical data.
This is an excellent introduction for anyone looking for information about social impact bonds (SIBs). “As publicly-funded programs and services across the country are experiencing budgetary constraints, many are beginning to look to social impact bonds (SIBs), also known as pay-for-success bonds or social innovation financing, as a possible solution. Under the SIB model, public, private, and nonprofit sectors collaborate to achieve cost savings and improve social outcomes in areas such as criminal justice, juvenile justice, education, foster care, and homelessness. In this innovative model, four entities—a government agency, a private investor, a public or nonprofit service provider, and an intermediary organization—work closely together to implement an SIB bond project, and to support the development, implementation, or enhancement of a social program. Private investors provide funding in the form of a bond to a service provider that delivers social services to the targeted population” (p. 1). This article covers: how a SIB pays for itself; SIB history; U.S. federal support for SIBs; success of SIBs in the United Kingdom; and SIB pros and cons. Included is a great set of links to additional resources about SIBs.
“The purpose of this document is to provide readers with a description of how statewide efforts can be organized and play a role in supporting SPRs [specialized policing responses] within their borders” (p. viii). The two prevalent SPRs being Crisis Intervention Teams (CITs) and police-mental health co-responder teams. The information provided is important for anyone dealing with mentally ill offenders in the community. This report is divided into three main sections: the structure of statewide efforts—lead agency type, and staffing and resources; the objectives of statewide efforts—supporting local agencies to develop a SPR, encouraging local agencies to adhere to key SPR elements, and sustaining efforts statewide; and the future of statewide efforts. Appendixes include a CIT policy from the Hartford (CT) Police Department, and a chart and short case studies on how eight states (CO, CT, FL, GE, IL, ME, OH, and UT) coordinate SPRs.
“This brief provides an overview of the implications of the ACA [Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act] for adults involved with the criminal justice system, as well as information about how professionals in the criminal justice field can help this population access the services now available to them” (p. 1). Sections of this publication cover: the opportunity to increase access to community health for offenders by removing financial barriers to obtaining health insurance; what ACA means to people involved with the criminal justice system—the range of provisions relevant for offenders; the “individual mandate” of ACA—the prescribed minimum level of health insurance; and the role of criminal justice agencies—determine eligibility, facilitate enrollment, and collaboration. The preparation of Illinois for the newly eligible correctional population for Medicaid is also highlighted.
This webinar “discussed the current research and best practices related to the successful management and treatment of women in the criminal justice system … with a particular focus on behavioral health. The webinar also included a discussion about gender-specific criminogenic risk and need assessment tools, as well as the importance of responsivity for females." This website provides access to the presentation slides.