Justice Reinvestment: a new
paradigm for criminal justice?
“justice reinvestment is a thing of
beauty …. an aesthetically compelling
idea” (Maruna, 2011)
Prisons or education?
• Senator Penny Wright (Greens), 14 March
2012
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVLynow
8xow
A brief history of Justice Reinvestment
• 2002-3 Open Society Institute promotes the idea of Justice
Reinvestment
• Early practice models/methodology developed by state-based
agencies (Washington State Institute for Public Policy) and first trial
schemes established in 2006-7
• 2009 Michigan plans to redirect $300M in prison funding to
community improvement programs. Other “early adopters” include
Texas, North Carolina.
• 2009 UK House of Commons releases JR policy white paper
• 2011 Council of State Governments identifies 17 state jurisdictions
with current or planned JR programs
• 2012 Australian Senate releases JR report recommending that
“the Commonwealth take a leading role in identifying the data required to
implement a justice reinvestment approach and establish a national approach to
the data collection of justice indicators “
Justice Reinvestment
Principles
1. Existing investment models for justice services are a failure
2. Crime and incarceration rates can be reduced by investment
in evidence-based treatment and support programs
3. JR requires an integrated approach by government and
community based agencies
4. The success of the JR approach can be demonstrated by
rigorous evaluation and cost-benefit analysis
Justice Reinvestment
Principles
1. Existing investment models for justice services are a failure
–
–
–
–
Increasing expenditure, especially on prison facilities
Static or increasing failure rates (recidivism), especially for those
released from custody or under a court order
Declining public confidence in the system
Collateral problems in disadvantaged communities
Justice Reinvestment
Principles
2. Crime and incarceration rates can be reduced by investment
in evidence-based treatment and support programs
–
–
–
There are programs that can reliably reduce rates of reoffending
(“evidence-based” outcomes) and produce positive cost-benefit
outcomes
These programs also produce other “social goods” (education,
employment, housing, health)
Effective implementation requires additional investment of public
funds either directly or via the diversion of funds from existing
justice programs
Justice Reinvestment
Principles
3. JR requires an integrated approach by government and
community based agencies
–
–
–
Effective programs need to be delivered to specific groups within the
community (often within defined geographic areas)
Community agencies are better prepared and able to deliver these
programs
Engagement with community agencies also helps to generate the
political capital necessary to make JR work
Justice Reinvestment
Principles
4. The success of the JR approach can be demonstrated by
rigorous evaluation and cost-benefit analysis
–
–
–
JR program investment needs to be supported by investment in
evaluation and CBA
Outcomes are reliably measurable and monetary value can be
assigned to these outcomes
The demonstrated effectiveness of JR projects will build support for
more projects
JR methods
• Washington State Institute for Public Policy methodology
1. ‘Justice mapping’: Analysis of the prison population and of relevant public spending
in the communities to which people return from prison.
2. Provision of options to policy makers for the generation of savings and increases in
public safety.
3. Implementation of options, quantification of savings and reinvestment in targeted
high-risk communities.
4. Measurement of impacts, evaluation and assurance of effective implementation.
JR antecedents and variants
Punishment
Rehabilitation (1960s)
Incapacitation
Cognitive skills (1980s)
“Truth in
sentencing”
(1980s)
Evidence-based
interventions
Risk/Need/
Responsivity (1990s)
Indeterminate
detention
(2000s)
Justice Reinvestment
(2010s)
JR variants
• Payment by Results (PbR): program payments to
delivery agencies are contingent on the independent
verification of results
• Social Impact Bonds: expected public sector savings
are used to raise investment for services that
improve social outcomes
– repayment to investors is contingent upon specified social
outcomes being achieved
– NSW Social Impact Bond pilot in 2011
– Policy areas included juvenile justice, parenting support for
vulnerable families, disability, homelessness and mental
health
Issues for the NJC
• JR requires that the key elements of the
“method” (costs, interventions and outcomes)
can be isolated at a local level
• CJS policy is driven as much by political priorities
as it is by evidence-based logic
• Current justice funding models already
incorporate some of the outcome measurement
processes required by the JR approach
• Strong outcome evidence typically requires largescale programs