justice reinvestment

8/8/2019 Justice Reinvestment

1/46

Justice Reinvestment: A Framework forJustice Reinvestment: A Framework for

Reducing Spending on Corrections andReducing Spending on Corrections and

Increasing Public SafetyIncreasing Public Safety

April 22, 2009

Raleigh, North Carolina

Michael D. Thompson

Director

Justice Center

Council of State Governments


2/46

Non-profit, non-partisan membership association of state government officials

Represents all three branches of state government

Provides practical, nonpartisan advice informed by the best available evidence

Support from the U.S. Department of Justice and private grantmakers such as The

Pew Charitable Trusts

2


3/46

Overview

Justice Reinvestment: A framework to reduce spending on

corrections and increase public safety

Case studies illustrating the application of Justice

Reinvestment

Applying the framework to North Carolina


4/46

National Projects

4


5/46

Justice Reinvestment: Key Funders

5


6/46

Unprecedented Momentum in the States

Half the state supreme court chief justices seeking to establish

task forces regarding people with mental illness

Governors and legislatures in at least one dozen states have

established statewide councils to address prisoner reentry


7/46

LandmarkFederal Legislation:

Second Chance Act


8/46

Excitement and Energy

Slam into Reality

Fiscal picture in the states is bleak.

Prison populations are growing.

Crime rates are creeping upwards in some areas of the country

How do we use data to cut spending and increase public safety in those areas that are

driving crime and incarceration rates?


9/46

Justice Reinvestment Strategy

9

Step 1: Analyze the prison population and spending in thecommunities to which people in prison often return

Step 2: Provide policymakers with options to generate savings andincrease public safety

Step 3: Quantify savings and reinvest in select communities

Step 4: Measure the impact and enhance accountability


10/46

Incarceration Rates in 4 Large States

10

Sources: US Census 2005; BJS Probation and Parole in US, 2005; jail figures from BJS

Prison and Jail Inmates at Midyear 2005; prison figures from BJS, Prisoners in 2005,November 06 report

19.2 million14.6 adults



752,8172.8% of adults

767,7654.6% of adults

264,8361.8% of adults

State Population Probation, Jail, Prison andParole Population

17.1 million

13.6 adults

436,006

3.2% of adults

TX

CA

FL

NY


11/46

Changes in Crime Rates

11

Population

1980: 14,229,1912005: 22,859,968

+61%

Source: Population US Census Historical Report; Crime, FBI Crime in US; Incarceration, BJS,Prisoners in US

1980: 24,037,6262005: 36,132,147

+50%

1980: 17,558,0722005: 19,254,630

+10%

1980: 9,746,3242005: 17,789,864

+82%

Incarceration Rate*

1980: 2262005: 691

+206%

1980: 1622005: 466

+188%

1980: 2422005: 499

+106%

1980: 1872005: 326

+74%

Crime Rate*

1980: 6,0302005: 4,862

-19%

1980: 6,4682005: 3,849

-40%

1980: 6,8212005: 4,716

-31%

1980: 5,5772005: 2,554

-54%

Incarceration and Reported Index Crime Rate by FBI per 100,000 population

TX

CA

FL

NY


12/46

Overview




Reinvestment



13/46

Kansas

Prison Population Projection

7000

7500

8000

8500

9000

9500

10000

10500

11000

11500

13

Current Capacity (9397)

1834

bedshortfall

$500 m10 yr Costs

$180 mConstruction

$320mOperating

26%increase

20%increase


14/46

Kansas

Recidivism a Key Driver

14

65 %

35 %

65 % of admissions

27 % of prison population

Annual cost of $53 million

5 percent

29 percent

27percent

Prison AdmissionsFY2006

36 percentProbationViolations

ParoleViolations

Prob./Parole,New Sentence

New Court

Commitments


15/46

Kansas

Focus on Reducing Recidivism

Before & After Release

15


16/46

16

8000

8500

9000

9500

10000

10500

11000

11500

2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

Current Capacity: 9,397

Status Quo

Option 1Option 2

Option 3

Combined Impact

Kansas: Options for Policymakers

FY2008-2016 (9 years) Projected Prison Population


17/46

Kansas

Estimated Savings & Reinvestment

$80 million in projected savingsover the next 5 years

$4.5 million reinvested incommunity corrections grantprogram

$2.4 million reinvested inexpanding in-prison andcommunity-based program

capacity


18/46

Kansas

Prison Population Impact

Current Capacity: 9397

$80 m

5 Year Savings

2007 Projection

Impact of SB14


19/46

August 8, 2006 19

40 percent of prisonadmissions come fromtwo counties

Kansas

Identifying Reinvestment Opportunities


20/46

20

04


21/46

21

41


22/46

22

43


23/46


24/46

Crime

Despite declines in crime,

Arizona still #1

Homicide rate in Phoenix

is double New York Citys

rate

Prison Population

~40,000, projected to

increase 50% over next

10 years

$2-3 billion needed

$2 billion budget hole for

FY2009

$100 million spent on

probation revocations

Arizona

The Problem


25/46

Prison Admissions Hotspots

Arizona, 2004

60% of the States prison population comesfrom and returns to the Phoenix-Mesametropolitan area.

P i


26/46

Prisoners

Admissions, 2004

Maricopa County

1/2 Mile Grid Map

Ahwatukee Foothills

Population = 50,000

Prison Admissions = 1.1 per 1000 adults

South Mountain

Population = 55,000


A single neighborhood in Phoenix is hometo 1% of the states total population but6.5% of the states prison population

Further, in 2007 the state spent more than$70 million to incarcerate residents from asingle Phoenix zip code (85041).

P i


27/46

Prisoners

Admissions, 2006

Maricopa County

1/2 Mile Grid Map

South Mountain Zip Code 85041


Jail Bookings = 96.5 per 1000 adults

Probation = 25.1 per 1000 adults

P i E dit


28/46

Prison Expenditures

Dollars, 2004

Maricopa County

1/2 Mile Grid Map

South Mountain

Maryvale

Central City

Estrella

Laveen

Encanto

Alhambra

North Mountain

Paradise Valley

Camelback East

Deer Valley

GLENDALE

Within high expenditureneighborhoods there arenumerous, smaller area,million dollar block groups

$1.8 Million

$1.1 Million

$1.6 Million


29/46

High Density of Probationers in South Phoenix


30/46

Arizona

Performance Driven Funding Incentive

Legislative Budget StaffCalculates ProbationFailures by County

Crime Up?No Funding Incentive

Crime Down & Revocation RateDown? Legislature Provides theCounty with 40%of Averted Costs

Drug and MentalHealthTreatment &

Interventions

VictimServices


31/46


32/46

3.

Reduce spending

on corrections

2.

Lower recidivism

1.

Deter criminalactivity

32

Michigan

Analysis & Framework


33/46

33

Michigan hasthe highestviolent crimerate in the GreatLakes region

but the fewest

lawenforcementpersonnel percapita in the

regionSource: FBI UCR Crime in the United States, 2007. Great lakes region includes: Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio,

Michigan

Violent Crime & Police Per Capita


34/46

34Source: 2008 FBI UCR Crime Statistics.

Michigan NationalAverage

Violent IndexCrime

28 % 44 %

Murder 37 % 61 %

Michigan

Clearance Rates


35/46

35Source: CSG Analysis of 2007 parole e and probation populations matched to Michigan State Police arrest records.Note: MI UCR Estimated Arrests are using 2006 data, due to 2007 data not yet having been released by Michigan State Police.

Michigan

Re-Arrests of People on Felony

Probation & Parole, 2007


36/46

Spending on corrections increased 57percent over the past 10 years

One out of every three state workersis employed by the MichiganDepartment of Corrections

36Source: Data analyzed by Citizens Research Council.

As a share of general fundexpenditures, corrections grew from16.2 to 22.6 percent

Michigan

Unsustainable Spending on Corrections


37/46

37

Estimated

FY2011-2015Cumulative Savings:

$262

million

Michigan

Impact of Policy Options


38/46

38

1150,834

16

164,592

162,298

159,492157,029

153,849

140,000

145,000

150,000

155,000

160,000

165,000

170,000

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2Source: Legislative Budget Board, June 06 and January 07, Adult and Juvenile CorrectionalPopulation Projections

Population

OperationalCapacity

BedShortfall

3,015

17,332

Texas

Prison Population Projection


39/46

39

Expanding

Capacity of

Treatment &Diversion

Programs


40/46

40

1 5 3 , 8 4

1 5 5 , 6 1

1 5 1 , 8 11 5 3 , 8 4

1 6 8 , 1 6

1 6 4 , 5 9

1 6 2 , 2 9

1 5 9 , 4 9

1 5 7 , 0 2

1 5 3 , 8 4

1 4 5 , 0 0 0

1 4 7 , 5 0 0

1 5 0 , 0 0 0

1 5 2 , 5 0 0

1 5 5 , 0 0 0

1 5 7 , 5 0 0

1 6 0 , 0 0 0

1 6 2 , 5 0 0

1 6 5 , 0 0 0

1 6 7 , 5 0 0

1 7 0 , 0 0 0

2 0 0 7 2 0 0 8 2 0 0 9 2 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 2Source: Legislative Budget Board, January 07 Scenarios Impact Analysis

Parole Scenario

$543 million in probablesavings 08-12

Baseline

Probation/Treatment

75% Diversions$65.1 million in probable

net savings 08-12

Potential $377 millionin avoided prisonconstruction costs

Texas



41/46

41

Texas

Estimated Savings & Reinvestment

$451 million in projected savings over the next 2years

$241 million to expand in-prison and community-based treatment and diversion programs

Texas


42/46

Texas


Actual Population

$443 million insavings from 2008-2009

2007 BaselineProjection

$241 million to expandin-prison and community-based treatment anddiversion programs


43/46

Overview



Three case studies illustrating the application of Justice

Reinvestment



44/46

44

Next Steps

Demonstrate bipartisan, bicameral, and interbranchinterest

Commit to using analyses constructively

Provide access to data

Create a mechanism to guide and advise Justice Centeranalyses


45/46

Overview




Reinvestment



46/46

Thank you.

Michael Thompson

Council of State Governments Justice Center

100 Wall Street / 20th Floor

New York, NY 10005t. 212-482-2320

[email protected]

www.justicecenter.csg.org
http://www.justicecenter.csg.org/http://www.justicecenter.csg.org/

justice reinvestment

Documents