JUSTICE REINVESTMENT:

PITFALLS AND POSSIBILITIES

Is Justice Reinvestment Needed in Australia?

2 August 2012

Todd R. Clear

Rutgers University

Justice Reinvestment

Treat all correctional costs as “pubic safety investments”

Deemphasize confinement Effectiveness literature (high and low risk) Deterrence studies (length of stay)

Invest savings in high-incarceration places Public safety Infrastructure Community quality of life

Three Kinds of Justice Reinvestment

Justice Reinvestment through Policy Analysis Justice reinvestment through local incentives Justice Reinvestment through private sector bonds

JR in Policy Analysis

Analyzes flow in and out of prison Identifies key decision points to be targeted

Front-end strategies (diversion) Back-end strategies (recidivism)

Develops plan to change flow rate Projects savings Reinvests savings

JR Through Local Incentives

Create fiscal incentive to keep cases locally Jail vs. Prison Use of cost “formula”

Directly fund local structures that keep people locally by attaching funds to people

Two types State-operated pay-through Private sector incentives

JR Through SIBs

Government offers “Social Investment Bonds” Bonds specify recidivism targets Bonds specify target populations

Private companies mount programs Program recidivism outcomes determine

bond payout

JR Focus on Reducing Recidivism

Risk: dealing with the top of the tail Less then one-third of the cases; maybe much less Making policies that “ignore” bottom of tail

Criminogenic needs: individual assessments Limited (or no) generic programming Purposeful program assignment

Evidence-based programs

JR Focused on Prevention

Community-based programs Strengthen social infrastructure Support families and children Create economic activity Promote health and safety

Evidence-based Target social capital rather than risky individuals

Example: Brooklyn

Neighbourhoods

Overarching Philosopy

Community Justice Partners

Pitfalls of JR

Recidivism oriented strategies have low ceiling Meta-analysis Risk level limitations Programs that “fit” (responsivity) Effect size: 20-40% reduction

Money savings get snatched up Police get in line Funding state services not local infrastructure Funding community surveillance strategies Not much political support for “doing nothing”

Possibilities of JR

Move money from prison system to community partners

Follow principles of Risk and Needs Build proven community prevention programs Implement policies that reflect public safety with

low risk cases Implement “effective programs” with high risk

cases