“The program interviews Dr. Nancy G. La Vigne Director, Justice Policy Center, The Urban Institute regarding Justice Reinvestment. With state and local governments grappling with growing corrections costs and budget shortfalls, they are asking how they can reduce costs and get a better return on criminal justice investments while maintaining public safety. One answer is Justice Reinvestment, a collaborative, data-driven approach to criminal justice planning that yields savings that can be invested in evidence-based, prevention-oriented activities. Dr. La Vigne describes this complex but compelling model highlighting the experiences of 17 states and 16 localities.”
These presentation slides show the efficacy of using quick dips, 2-3 day confinement in jail, a swift and certain response to non-compliance, for those probationers who violate probation conditions for the first time. Topics discussed include: quick dips overview; analytical framework; sample; matching—variables likely to predict non-compliance or selection for a quick dip; propensity score matching (PSM); intermediate outcomes; supervision outcomes; and conclusions. "Offenders that received a quick dip [77.2%] had greater supervision compliance than offenders in the comparison group [45.9%]."
"Under the landmark 1976 Estelle v. Gamble decision, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that prisoners have a constitutional right to adequate medical attention and concluded that the Eighth Amendment is violated when corrections officials display “deliberate indifference” to an inmate’s medical needs. The manner in which states manage prison health care services that meet these legal requirements affects not only inmates’ health, but also the public’s health and safety and taxpayers’ total corrections bill. Effectively treating inmates’ physical and mental illnesses, including substance use disorders, improves their well-being and can reduce the likelihood that they will commit new crimes or violate probation once released" (p. 1). Sections included in this report are: overview; spending trends; distribution of spending; spending drivers; cost-containment strategies; and conclusion. Also provided are the following report charts: Total Prison Health Care Spending Grew; Peaked in 34 States Before 2011; Components of Prison Health Care Spending; State and Federal Prisoners 55 and Older Increased by 204%; Share of Older Inmates in State Prisons Varied; Per-inmate Spending Higher in States with Older Inmate Populations. Correctional health care spending rose 13%. Due to the decrease in prison populations, per-inmate costs increased 10%. The statewide growth in the elderly inmate population caused those states with more senior inmates (per total inmate population) to have higher per-inmate costs.
This article describes a innovative partnership between local and state agencies that can be used by other states to reduce costs associated with justice-involved juveniles. “Beginning in 1994, Ohio implemented RECLAIM Ohio, a performance-based funding partnership between the state and local governments that expanded counties' use of effective, cost-efficient community-based options for lower-risk juvenile offenders. The program has helped cut recidivism rates and saved the state millions of dollars.” Sections of this brief cover: program background; reforms enacted—authorizing legislation, incentive funding, program support, standardized tools, focused expansion, and evidence-based programs; program impacts- commitments down, costs reduced by $11 to $45 depending on placement type, public safety improved, and lower recidivism rates.
“The federal prison population has risen dramatically over the past few decades, as more people are sentenced to prison and for longer terms. The result? Dangerously overcrowded facilities and an increasing expense to taxpayers. In [this] new Urban Institute report, the authors project the population and cost savings impact of a variety of strategies designed to reduce the inmate population without compromising public safety. They find that the most effective approach is a combination of strategies, including early release for current prisoners and reducing the length of stay for future offenders, particularly those convicted of drug trafficking.” Sections of this publication following an executive summary include: introduction to the impact of federal prison growth; understanding the federal prison population and drivers of growth—the main drivers being who goes to prison and for how long; policy options to ease growth and reduce costs—front-end changes and back-end changes; and conclusion.
"Thirty-three U.S. states and jurisdictions spend $100,000 or more annually to incarcerate a young person, and continue to generate outcomes that result in even greater costs … [this report] provides estimates of the overall costs resulting from the negative outcomes associated with incarceration. The report finds that these long-term consequences of incarcerating young people could cost taxpayers $8 billion to $21 billion each year." This report is divided into eight parts: the costs we bear for overreliance on youth confinement—progress in reducing confinement, without compromising public safety; the tip of the iceberg—what taxpayers pay too incarcerate youth—cost in context and whether the price is too high; estimating the total long-term costs of youth confinement; reoffending and recidivism—studies used to estimate the impact of youth confinement on recidivism, and estimating the costs of youth confinement on recidivism; education, employment, and wages—studies used to estimate the impact of youth confinement on educational attainment; victimization of youth—estimating the impact of youth confinement on facility-based sexual assault, and estimating the cost of impact of sexual assaults on confined youth; the final tally and what we potentially save when we make better choices—a modest silver lining—what the youth deincarceration trend means for the collateral costs; and recommendations.
This "series of briefs which explore the costs of pretrial justice and how those costs can be effectively mitigated through risk-based decision making." "The Cost of Pretrial Justice: This brief highlights costs that local stakeholders should consider when developing pretrial policies and programs, outlines some of the trade-offs policy makers face when allocating scarce resources, and points to the need to apply cost-benefit analysis to pretrial decision making." "Pretrial Justice: Costs and Benefits for Local Government: This brief explains how cost-benefit analysis can be applied to the pretrial justice system and describes the process through which CJI and its partners identified the key components of a pretrial cost-benefit model for use by local jurisdictions." "A Cost-Benefit Model for Pretrial Justice: This brief describes the local data and collaboration that are required for pretrial cost-benefit analysis, highlights its benefits for policy and planning, and suggests questions that local jurisdictions should ask if they are considering undertaking pretrial cost-benefit analysis."
"The release-and-detention decision takes into account a number of different concerns, including protecting the community, the need for defendants to appear in court, and upholding the legal and constitutional rights afforded to accused persons awaiting trial. It carries enormous consequences not only for the defendant but also for the safety of the community … Using data from the Commonwealth of Kentucky, this research investigates the impact of pretrial detention on 1) pretrial outcomes (failure to appear and arrest for new criminal activity); and 2) post-disposition recidivism" (p. 3). Sections following an executive summary include: introduction; sample description; research objective one—investigate the relationship between length of pretrial detention and pretrial outcome; and research objective two—investigate the relationship between pretrial detention, as well as the length of pretrial detention, and new criminal activity post-disposition (NCA-PD). There appears to a direct link between how long low- and moderate-risk defendants are in pretrial detention and the chances that they will commit new crimes.
Wondering what is costs to house an inmate in solitary confinement? Then you want to read this article. Topics discussed include: costs in California at the Pelican Bay State Prison for the Security Housing Unit (SHU) and Administrative Segregation Unit (ASU); costs at Illinois’ Tamms Correctional Center; cost for Colorado; costs in Ohio, Texas, and Maryland; costs for the Federal Bureau of Prisons; construction costs; and reforms that lead to cost savings.
“This brief summarizes the efforts of states involved in the Justice Reinvestment Initiative (JRI), a program designed to identify and implement cost-efficient, evidence-based criminal justice reforms. To do so, jurisdictions use data analysis to identify criminal justice population and cost drivers and then develop policy options to reduce those drivers.” Correctional population and cost drivers include: parole and probation revocations; sentencing policies and practices; insufficient and ineffective community supervision and support; and parole system processing delays and denials. Strategies for reducing the costs related to these challenges include: risk and needs assessment; expansion or improvement of problem-solving courts; intermediate and graduated sanctions; increased use of evidence-based practices; expanded incentives, such as good time and earned credits; penalty changes; streamlines parole processes and expanded parole eligibility; expansion and increase in community-based treatment programs; mandatory supervision requirements; and accountability measures. The principle ways cost savings, resulting from improved justice systems, are reinvested are: reinvestment of tangible savings—funding based on the amount of costs that have been saved; up-front reinvestment--funding based on projected future savings; and reallocation—funding based on redirecting existing monies.