1 / 14

Justice Reinvestment: pitfalls and possibilities

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

nross
Télécharger la présentation

Justice Reinvestment: pitfalls and possibilities

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Justice Reinvestment: pitfalls and possibilities Is Justice Reinvestment Needed in Australia? 2 August 2012 Todd R. Clear Rutgers University

  2. 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

  3. Three Kinds of Justice Reinvestment • Justice Reinvestment through Policy Analysis • Justice reinvestment through local incentives • Justice Reinvestment through private sector bonds

  4. 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

  5. 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

  6. 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

  7. 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

  8. 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

  9. Example: Brooklyn

  10. Neighbourhoods

  11. Overarching Philosopy

  12. Community Justice Partners

  13. 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”

  14. 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

More Related