"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.
This report describes efforts of Kansas to implement justice reinvestment—"a data-driven approach designed to reduce corrections spending and reinvest savings in strategies that can reduce recidivism and improve public safety". Kansas's justice reinvestment policy framework "designed to strengthen community-based supervision, promote successful reentry, and target scare resources more effectively" and legislation created to support this framework are reviewed (p. 1). Sections contained in this brief include: background; key public safety provisions in HB 2170; developing policy solutions—legislation (HB2170) and its projected impact; looking ahead—addressing expected prison overcrowding; "Actual and Estimated Impact of HB 2170 on Kansas's Prison Population" graph; and "Summary of Full Projected Impact, Savings, and Recommended Reinvestment" table. HB2170 is projected to reduce prison operating costs by $56 million and construction costs by $25 million for the period of FY2014 through FY2018.
"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.
Efforts in West Virginia "to employ a data-driven "justice reinvestment" approach to develop a statewide policy framework that would reduce spending on corrections and would reinvest savings in strategies to increase public safety and reduce recidivism" are described (p. 1). Sections of this report cover: background; summary of challenges; Justice Reinvestment Policy Framework; projected impacts of policy framework on savings, reinvestment, and assumptions; Goal 1--Strengthen-Community-Based Supervision, types of community-based supervision in West Virginia, understanding risk assessment, and three policy options; Goal 2—Improve Accountability—three policy options; Goal 3—Reduce Substance Use—three policy options. Net savings is estimated to be $116.3 million over the next five years.
“States across the country are increasingly seeking cost-effective and evidence-based strategies to enhance public safety and manage their corrections and supervision populations. One such effort emerged in the mid-2000s, when several states experimented with a criminal justice reform effort built on a foundation of bipartisan collaboration and data-driven policy development. This model—justice reinvest-ment—yielded promising results, supporting cost-effective, evidence-based policies projected to generate meaningful savings for states while maintaining a focus on public safety. In response to these early successes, Congress appropriated funds to the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) to launch the Justice Reinvestment Initiative (JRI) in 2010 in partnership with the Pew Charitable Trusts (Pew). The initiative formalized the process and provided both financial support and in-kind technical assistance for states to engage in this work. This report describes the JRI model and the experiences and interim outcomes in 17 participating JRI states: Arkansas, Delaware, Geor¬gia, Hawaii, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Caro¬lina, South Dakota, and West Virginia” (p. 1). Sections following an executive summary include: introduction; the JRI Model described; population and cost drivers and responses; projected and preliminary outcomes; reinvestment; challenges; and concluding remarks and implications. The appendix provides case studies of the 17 participating states.
“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.
"Faced with a prison system at 159 percent of capacity and expected to grow to 170 percent of capacity by FY2020, state leaders in Nebraska pursued justice reinvestment. After extensive analyses identified key challenges in the state’s criminal justice system, policymakers developed a policy framework designed to reduce prison overcrowding and expand the use of probation and parole supervision. Justice reinvestment legislation was enacted in May 2015 and is projected to avert $306 million in construction and operations costs by FY2020." Sections of this brief include: overview; summary of the justice reinvestment process—challenge, findings, and solutions; summary of LB 605policies to use probation rather than incarceration for people convicted of low-level offenses, and increase penalty thresholds for property offenses, enhance felony classifications, ensure post-release supervision for most people upon release from prison, and address victims' needs, and improve parole supervision to reduce recidivism; looking ahead; sustainability policies in LB 605; and "Projected Impact of LB 605 on Nebraska's Prison Population" chart.
“This report lays out ways that departments of corrections can consider to reduce inmate medical costs without affecting high standards for inmate medical services. Strategies for cost savings are presented that might be used by a department of corrections directly or included in contracts for outsourcing inmate health care. One or more prisons or jails across the nation use each strategy identified” (p. 4). This report is divided into two sections. Section 1—Summary: the issue of why so much money is spent on inmate health care; and the most promising cost-reduction approaches. Section 2—Detailed Analysis: reduce demand/need for medical care (i.e., improve the health of the inmate population, reduce unnecessary consumption of medical services, and divert/release sick individuals; reduce the cost for treating an inmate (i.e., reduce cost of pharmaceuticals, reduce cost of using outside medical care, use in-house medical services when less expensive, and tighten contracting and auditing); and synergistic approaches to health care cost reduction.