Justice Reinvestment Initiative in the United States

Definition

Justice reinvestment is a data-driven approach to improve public safety, reduce corrections and related criminal justice spending, and reinvest savings in strategies that can decrease crime and reduce recidivism.

Objetives

The goal of the Justice Reinvestment Initiative is to manage and allocate criminal justice populations and spending more cost-effectively, thereby generating cost-savings that can be reinvested in evidence-based strategies that increase public safety. Participating in this initiative means garnering commitment from legislative leadership and criminal justice authorities in the state, developing or improving information sharing capabilities, collecting and analyzing criminal justice data, developing policy options and strategies based on that data, and enacting evidence-based policies that increase public safety. Participating sites will receive targeted technical assistance on each of these components.

Funding

The Justice Reinvestment Initiative is funded by Congressional appropriations (Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-117) and Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2014 (P.L. 113-76)), BJA discretionary funding, and The Pew Charitable Trusts. States and local community sites are encouraged to invest some of their own resources and to work with the technical assistance provider for guidance on how to partner with other funders, including private foundations and the federal government.

The Pew Charitable Trusts and BJA are closely coordinating their efforts in this initiative and, in some cases, Pew may provide additional funding to selected state sites.

To Get Started

To get started, a state must establish a high-level group to work with nationally recognized criminal justice policy experts. A state selected to participate in JRI must give careful consideration to the composition of its working group to ensure representation of groups and perspectives that have a stake in the operation and success of the state’s criminal justice system and reflect a variety of interests and experiences. Based on more than a decade of experience, the JRI Steering Committee, comprising the funders and TA providers of the initiative, recommends that due weight be given to professional and life experience, collaboration, and diversity when selecting working group members.

• First, individuals with direct experience with the system, such as practitioners, justice-involved individuals, and victims and/or survivors of crime, bring valuable context and knowledge that a state’s JRI effort can build on. A JRI working group should represent those who will be responsible for carrying out reforms to the criminal justice system and those who are most directly impacted by the criminal justice system.
• Second, cross-disciplinary collaboration can improve the quality of deliberations, particularly when members are informed by data, are afforded the opportunity to voice their perspectives, have a clearly defined role, and are respected.
• Third, the group should represent a variety and diversity of perspectives. This includes individuals representing racial and ethnic groups that are overrepresented in the justice system.

With those values in mind, and although a particular state’s context may vary, it is important for the working group to be manageable in size so as to promote the active participation of members, high-level, interbranch, bicameral, and bipartisan. State JRI efforts have typically benefited from including elected officials, appointed officials, and community members, including representatives from the following groups:

• Legislators
• Members of the Judiciary, including judges and court administrators
• Governor’s executive staff
• State administering agency staff (state entities charged with systemic criminal justice planning)
• Sentencing commission member or staff
• Community and institutional corrections
• Community-based organizations that provide services relevant to justice-involved individuals, e.g., reentry programs, educational programs, economic development
• Individuals who have been involved in the justice system and/or their family members
• Crime survivors and/or victims’ support organizations
• Law Enforcement
• Prosecutors
• Defense Counsel
• Behavioral health services
• County representatives

In consultation with the working group, the criminal justice policy experts then seek input from a broad range of stakeholders in the jurisdiction, which may include prosecutors; public defenders; judges; corrections and law enforcement officials; service providers and community leaders; victims and their advocates; people who have been incarcerated; and health, housing, human service, education, and workforce professionals.

Together, the working group members, technical assistance providers, and stakeholders work intensively to achieve several goals.

Resources

Further Reading

• Clear, T. R. (2011). A private-sector, incentives-based model for justice reinvestment. Criminology & Public Policy, 10(3), 585–608.
• Council of State Governments. (2010a). About the project. Council of State Governments Justice Center. Lexington, Kentucky.
• Council of State Governments. (2010b). Connecticut overview. Council of State Governments Justice Center. Lexington, Kentucky..
• Council of State Governments. (2010c). Texas justice reinvestment. Council of State Governments Justice Center. Lexington, Kentucky.
• Cullen, F. T., Jonson, C. L., & Nagin, D. S. (2011). Prisons do not reduce recidivism: The high cost of ignoring science. The Prison Journal 1, 48S–65S.
• Friedmann, P. D., Taxman, F. S., & Henderson, C. (2007). Evidence-based treatment practices for drug-involved adults in the criminal justice system. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 32(3), 267–277.
• Henggeler, S. W., & Schoenwald, S. K. (1994). Boot camps for juvenile offenders: Just say no. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 3(3), 243–248.
• Latessa, E., & Allen, H. E. (1982). Halfway houses and parole: A national assessment. Journal of Criminal Justice, 10(2), 153–163.
• Lipsey, M. W., & Cullen, F. T. (2007). The effectiveness of correctional rehabilitation: A review of systematic reviews. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 3, 297–320.
• Ohio Department of Youth Services. (2010). RECLAIM Ohio. Ohio Department of Youth Services. Colombus, Ohio..
• Petersilia, J., & Turner, S. (1990). Comparing intensive and regular supervision for high-risk probationers: Early results from an experiment in California. Crime & Delinquency, 36(1), 87–111.
• Renzema, M., & Mayo-Wilson, E. (2005). Can electronic monitoring reduce crime for moderate to high-risk offenders? Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1(2), 215–237.
• Taxman, F. S., & Pattavina, A. (2013). Simulation strategies to reduce recidivism: Risk need responsivity (RNR) modeling in the criminal justice system. New York: Springer.
• Taxman, F. S., Perdoni, M., & Harrison, L. (2007). Drug treatment services for adult offenders: The state of the state. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 32(3), 239–254.
• Wilson, D. B., MacKenzie, D. L., & Mitchell, F. N. (2005). Effects of correctional boot camps on offending. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 1(6). Oslo, Norway.
• Alper, M. E., & Ruhland, E. L. (2016). Probation revocation and its causes: Profiles of state and local jurisdictions. Minneapolis, MN: Robina Institute of Criminal Law & Criminal Justice.
• Bird, M., & Grattet, R. (2016). Realignment and recidivism. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 664(1), 176–195.
• Bonta, J., & Motiuk, L. L. (1987). The diversion of incarcerated offenders to correctional halfway houses. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 24(4), 302–323.
• Bonta, J., & Motiuk, L. L. (1990). Classification to halfway houses: A quasi-experimental evaluation. Criminology, 28(3), 497–506.
• Bonta, J., Wallace-Capretta, S., & Rooney, J. (2000). Can electronic monitoring make a difference? An evaluation of three Canadian programs. Crime & Delinquency, 46(1), 61–75.
• Bottcher, J., & Ezell, M. E. (2005). Examining the effectiveness of boot camps: A randomized experiment with a long-term follow up. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 42(3), 309–332.
• Byrne, J. M. (1990). The future of intensive probation supervision and the new intermediate sanctions. Crime & Delinquency, 36(1), 6–41.
• Corbett, R. (2016). The Burdens of Leniency: The Changing Face of Probation. Minnesota Law Review, 99, 697–1733.
• Council of State Governments Justice Center. (2010) Work in the states: Kansas. Council of State Governments Justice Center. Lexington, Kentucky.
• Council of State Governments Justice Center. (2016). States receiving technical assistance from the CSG Justice Center. Council of State Governments Justice Center. Lexington, Kentucky..
• United States Department of Justice. (2016). Justice reinvestment initiative. Office of Justice Programs: Bureau of Justice Assistance..
• Fabelo, T. (2010). Texas justice reinvestment: Be more like Texas? Justice Research and Policy, 12(1), 113–131.
• Finckenauer, J., Gavin, P. W., Hovland, A., & Storvoll, E. (2012). Scared straight: The panacea phenomenon revisited. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.
• Finn, M. A., & Muirhead-Steves, S. (2002). The effectiveness of electronic monitoring with violent male parolees. Justice Quarterly, 19(2), 293–312.
• Fox, C., Albertson, K., & Warburton, F. (2011). Justice reinvestment: Can it deliver more for less? The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 50(2), 119–136.
• Franke, D., Bierie, D., & MacKenzie, D. L. (2009). Legitimacy in Corrections. Criminology & Public Policy, 9(1), 89–117.
• Freeman, B., & Frierson, R. L. (2009). Court-mandated, long acting psychotropic medication as a condition of supervised release. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 37(2), 268–270.
• Gainey, R. R., Payne, B. K., & O’Toole, M. (2000). The relationships between time in jail, time on electronic monitoring, and recidivism: An event history analysis of a jail-based program. Justice Quarterly, 17(4), 733–752.
• Gendreau, P., Goggin, C., Cullen, F. T., & Andrews, D. A. (2000). The effects of community sanctions and incarceration on recidivism. Forum on Corrections Research, 12(2), 10–13. Correctional Service of Canada.
• Greene, J., & Mauer, M. (2010). Downscaling prisons: Lessons from four states. Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project.
• Hartman, D. J., Friday, P. C., & Minor, K. I. (1994). Residential probation: A seven-year follow-up study of halfway house discharges. Journal of Criminal Justice, 22(6), 503–515.
• Bonta, J., & Motiuk, L. L. (1985). Utilization of an interview-based classification instrument: A study of correctional halfway houses. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 12(3), 333–352.
• Human Rights Watch. (2014). Profiting from probation. “Offender-funded” probation industry. New York: Human Rights Watch. Available at https://www.hrw.org/report/2014/02/05/profiting-probation/americas-offender-funded-probation-industry.James, J., & Agha, S. (2013). Justice reinvestment in action: the Delaware model. New York: Vera Institute of Justice.
• LaVigne, N., Bieler, S., Cramer, L., Ho, H., Kotonias, C., Mayer, D., . . . Samuels, J. (2014). Justice reinvestment initiative state assessment report. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
• Lowenkamp, C., Latessa, E. J., & Holsinger, A. M. (2006). The risk principle in action: What have we learned from 13,676 offenders and 97 correctional programs. Crime & Delinquency, 52(1), 77–93.
• MacKenzie, D. L. (2006). What Works in Corrections: Reducing the Criminal Activities of Offenders and Delinquents? New York: Cambridge University Press.
• MacKenzie, D. L., Wilson, D. B., Armstrong, G. S., & Gover, A. R. (2001). The impact of boot camps and traditional institutions on juvenile residents: Perceptions, adjustment, and change. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 38(3), 279–313.
• MacKenzie, D. L., Wilson, D. B., & Kider, S. B. (2001). Effects of correctional boot camps on offending. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 578(1), 126–143.
• Marciniak, L. M. (2000). Addition of day reporting to intensive supervision probation: A comparison of recidivism rates. Federal Probation, 64, 34.
• Mears, D. P., & Bales, W. D. (2009). Supermax incarceration and recidivism. Criminology, 47(4), 1131–1166.
• Mitchell, O. J., Wilson, D. B., Eggers, A., & MacKenzie, D. L. (2012). Assessing the effectiveness of drug courts on recidivism: A meta-analytic review of traditional and non-traditional drug courts. Journal of Criminal Justice, 40, 60–71.
• Morris, N., & Tonry, M. (1991). Between prison and probation: Intermediate punishments in a rational sentencing system. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Nagin, D. S., Cullen, F. T., & Jonson, C. L. (2009). Imprisonment and Reoffending. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and Justice: An Annual Review of Research (Vol. 38). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Padgett, K. G., Bales, W. D., & Blomberg, T. G. (2006). Under surveillance: An empirical test of the effectiveness and consequences of electronic monitoring. Criminology & Public Policy, 5(1), 61–91.
• Petersilia, J., & Deschenes, E. (1994). Perceptions of punishment: Inmates and staff rank the severity of prison versus intermediate sanctions. The Prison Journal, 74(3), 306–328.
• Petersilia, J., & Turner, S. (1991). An evaluation of intensive probation in California. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1973–), 82(3), 610–658.
• Petersilia, J., & Turner, S. (1993). Evaluating intensive supervision probation/parole: Results of a nationwide experiment. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
• Petersilia, J., & Turner, S. (1993). Intensive probation and parole. Crime and Justice, 17, 281–335.
• Schwartz, M. (2010). Building communities, not prisons: Justice reinvestment and indigenous over-representation. AILR, 14(1).
• Sechrest, D. K. (1989). Prison boot camps do not measure up. Federal Probation, 53, 15.
• Sundt, J., Salisbury, E. J., & Harmon, M. G. (2016). The effect of California’s realignment act on public safety. Criminology and Public Policy, 15(2), 1–27.
• Sung, L., & Lieb, R. (1993). Recidivism: The effect of incarceration and length of time served. Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.
• Taxman, F. S., Pattavina, A., & Caudy, M. (2014). Justice reinvestment in the United States: An empirical assessment of the potential impact of increased correctional programming on recidivism. Victims & Offenders, 9(1), 50–75.
• Taxman, F. S. (2012). Probation, intermediate sanctions, and community-based corrections. In J. Petersilia & K. Reitz (Eds.), Oxford handbook on sentencing and corrections (pp. 363–388). New York: Oxford University Press.
• Di Tella, R., & Schargrodsky, E. (2013). Criminal recidivism after prison and electronic monitoring. Journal of Political Economy, 121(1), 28–73.
• Tucker, S., & Cadora, E. (2003). From prisons to parks in Oregon. Open Society Institute Occasional Papers, 3(3), 6.
• Turner, S., Fain, T., & Hunt, S. (2015). Public safety realignment in twelve California counties. Santa Monica, California: Rand Corporation.
• Turner, S., Petersilia, J., & Deschenes, E. P. (1992). Evaluating intensive supervision probation/parole (ISP) for drug offenders. Crime & Delinquency, 38(4), 539–556.
• Watts, A. L. (2016). Probation in-depth: The length of probation sentences. Minneapolis, MN: Robina Institute of Criminal Law & Criminal Justice.
• Wong, K., Meadows, L., Warburton, F., Webb, S., Young, H., & Barraclough, N. (2013). The development and year one implementation of the local justice reinvestment pilot. Project report. Ministry of Justice.