Download
1 / 19
190 likes | 196 Vues
This study examines the costs and benefits of providing reentry services to jail inmates. It analyzes the economic impact on reducing recidivism and the conditions under which reentry programming would be most cost-effective. The findings suggest that modest reductions in recidivism can offset the additional costs of jail-based programming, with 70% of the benefits accruing to the public and 30% to the criminal justice system. The study also highlights the need for government agencies to plan for the benefits in order to recoup gains.
E N D
Does it Pay to Invest in Reentry Programming for Jail Inmates? John Roman Aaron Chalfin Justice Policy Center The Urban Institute Presented at: The Urban Institute Jail Reentry Roundtable Washington, DC June 27th, 2006
Study Findings Under a variety of conditions, jail-based reentry programs would have to reduce recidivism by less than two percent to offset the additional cost of jail-based programming. • Estimate 70% of the benefit will accrue to the public, from reduced victimizations, and • 30% of the benefit will accrue to the criminal justice system. • However, for CJ systems to recoup gains, they must plan for benefits.
Study Design Our goal is to estimate the economic impact of providing jail-based reentry services to jail inmates. Standard cost-benefit analysis to determine: (a) the likely effects of providing reentry programming to jail inmates (b) the conditions under which reentry programming is most cost-beneficial
Study Design Study consists of the following steps: • Estimate the costs of providing reentry services (CRS) • Estimate costs of new crime from expected offending: • Develop estimates of the costs of processing offenders in the criminal justice system (CJS) • Develop estimates of the costs of new crimes to victims (CV) • Use 1 and 2 to estimate the amount of expected crime that would have to be prevented in order to make investment in jail-based reentry programming cost-neutral
Study Design Breakeven Recidivism Rate (r) = CRS/ (CV+CJS) where: • Thought experiment for ‘Capital City’ • Invests $200,000 in new reentry services • Costs of expected crime are $1,000,000 to crime victims • Costs of expected crime are $1,000,000 to CJS • r= $200,000/ ($1M+$1M) or 10% • So, Capital City would have to see a recidivism reduction of 10% to break even.
What are the costs of reentry programming? First, estimate the costs of providing reentry services (CRS) The costs of providing reentry services include: • Life skills counseling • Substance abuse counseling • Employment and education services • Healthcare • Other services
Expected costs of reentry services The cost of providing reentry services varies by jurisdiction due to differences in length of stay, service costs
What are the expected costs of new crimes? The benefits of providing reentry services include: • Averted costs to victims (CV) • Lost wages • Medical care • Pain and suffering • Averted costs to the criminal justice system (CJS) • Investigation • Arrest and Prosecution • Incarceration
What are the expected costs of new crimes? Steps to calculating expected costs: • Estimate expected costs to criminal justice system: • processing; • incarceration. • Estimate costs to victims; • Estimate distribution of new crimes; • Sum it up!
What are the costs of processing new offenders in the CJS? Cohen, Miller & Rossman (1994) estimate the cost of arrest and processing offenders for a variety of offense categories in Miami-Dade County:
What are the costs of processing new offenders in the CJS? Allen County, IN (2004) estimates costs of arrest and processing offenders in their county. Combined with Miami data yields:
What are the costs of new crimes for victims? • Based on estimates from McCollister (2004) the average cost to victims for each offense type are: • Violent offense: $145,332 • Property offense: $3,144 • Drug offense: $8,595 • Public order offense (includes DUI): $13,179
What are the total costs of new crimes? The total cost of a recidivism offense to society is summarized by the following chart:
What kinds of new crimes do we ‘expect’ released inmates to commit? Aos (2001) provides a portfolio of “expected” recidivism offenses for a given instant offense type:
Assessing Reentry: Four Hypothetical Jurisdictions Crime varies by jurisdiction deals. Construct four plausible scenarios.
How much of the benefit accrues to government agencies? Approximately 70% of the benefits of reentry services accrue to crime victims But modest reductions in recidivism from reentry services remain cost-effective for government agencies.
Will jails be able to demonstrate gains to policymakers? Tangible gains to jails can not be estimated. Since 1990, crime has declined almost 20%. At the same time, jail capacity has increased every year and total capacity has doubled. So if declining crimes leads to increases in jail inmates, how can any savings occur? Solution Resources will never remain on the table, they must be taken off the table before they are spent.
Can the system be incentivized to yield tangible gains? Inmates already have their behavior incentivized. At the CJS level, must adopt policies that determine who is responsible for certain behaviors. Individuals in the system must have incentives to engage in pro-reentry activities. Agencies in the system must ‘own’ inmate behaviors pre- and post-release and be accountable.
