Contents
- Overview
- Featured reports
- United States
- United Kingdom
- New Zealand
Overview
The concept of justice reinvestment first emerged in the US by Susan Tucker and Eric Cadora in their publication ‘Ideas for an Open Society: Justice Reinvestment’. In the two decades since, quite different approaches have emerged in the US and UK compared with Australia. Primarily, this includes differences in the scale, power, governance and decision-making processes underpinning the work along with the progress towards achieving ‘reinvestment’.
In the United States and United Kingdom, for example, justice reinvestment is a government-led and primarily funded (with support from philanthropy) process. It operates on a large-scale under a clearly defined model that analyses data to improve the design of state policy and as a result aims to reduce incarceration rates and deliver better fiscal outcomes. This approach does not necessarily focus on or directly involve the leadership and participation of specific groups within the population, including those that are disproportionately represented and/or have lived experiences of the criminal justice system.
In comparison, Australia’s approach focuses on locally driven initiatives designed and led by First Nations communities. It operates on a smaller-scale and builds bespoke solutions to meet the unique needs of the community it aims to support. Whilst still relying on data and evidence to inform solutions it has historically been difficult for community members leading the work to access administrative data from government and service providers, contributing to a greater emphasis being placed on community data such as surveys and interviews. Until recently the work has been completely funded by philanthropy with government funding and support still growing. As a result of historically lower levels of government buy-in, progress towards ‘reinvestment’ has also been less significant to demonstrate than in the United States.
Featured reports
Justice reinvestment in Australia: A review of the literature
Matthew Willis and Madeleine Kaprira, Australian Institute of Criminology (2018)
This report provides a comprehensive analysis of international and domestic examples of justice reinvestment to highlight the differences and similarities in how it is approached. It includes case studies from Texas, North Carolina and New Orleans in the United States, along with various examples from across the United Kingdom and similar initiatives in European countries. It also provides an analysis of how different jurisdictions within Australia have approached justice reinvestment.
Justice Reinvestment
Melanie Schwartz, David Brown and Chris Cunneen, Indigenous Justice Clearing House (2017)
This research brief examines the concept of Justice Reinvestment as it was developed and is currently understood in Australia, the United States of America, the United Kingdom and New Zealand. It highlights examples of Justice Reinvestment frameworks and programs which have been implemented in selected jurisdictions, and the views of policy makers and the community views about the benefits of adopting Justice Reinvestment measures to reduce crime and Indigenous overrepresentation in the criminal justice system.
United States
In the US, JR implementation is led by government according to a strongly defined and supported model. It is backed by federal legislation under the Criminal Justice Reinvestment Act 2009. The Act provides grants to state and local governments to identify the causes of growth in local prison populations and to develop and implement initiatives for reinvestment of funds to target the causes identified, and subsequently evaluate the effectiveness of the initiatives introduced.
This process is summarised below:
Further resources detailing the approach taken in the United States, along with case studies from various states can be found using the links below:
Key sources and coordinating bodies
The United States Bureau of Justice Assistance
Overview of justice reinvestment
As the federal justice agency leading JR, they produce numerous publications detailing the key elements of the United States approach to justice reinvestment, including fact sheets, evaluations and case studies.
Some key documents within this webpage include:
The Council of State Governments Justice Centre
Case studies of justice reinvestment locations
A national not for profit organisation which serves policymakers through data driven and evidence based practices they have played a key role in coordinating JR work in the United State, sharing case studies detailing the unique approaches taken by different states in the United States.
Some key documents within this webpage include:
The Urban Institute Justice Policy Centre
Practical guides, toolkits, research, evaluation and recommendations for justice reinvestment
They provide independent information, data-analysis, research and evaluation on the work of JR and they key issues that are seeking to be addressed through the United States JR approach.
Some key documents within this webpage include:
Research papers and reports
Ending Mass Incarceration Charting a New Justice Reinvestment
James Austin et al (2013)
This report found that by focusing on State-level political and administrative policymakers, the JRI process has too often marginalized well-established local advocates and justice reformers who have a vested interest in promoting long-term implementation oversight that will ensure the sustainability of reforms.
(open access) via US Department of Justice
The Justice Reinvestment Initiative: Experiences from the States
Nancy La Vigne et al (2013)
This brief summarizes the efforts of states involved in the Justice Reinvestment Initiative (JRI), a program designed to identify and implement cost-efficient, evidence-based criminal justice reforms.
(open access) via Urban Istitute
A Critical Analysis of Justice Reinvestment in the United States and Australia
James Austin and Gary Coventry (2014)
This article explores the differences between the US and Australian JR strategies and implementation efforts, concluding that Australia should not be directed by the JR experience of the US.
(pay-walled access) via Taylor and Francis
Reinvigorating Justice Reinvestment
James Austin and Gary Coventry (2016)
In this essay, they re-visit the original idea of justice reinvestment to assess its relevance to today’s policy reform environment in the US penal system.
(pay-walled access) via JSTOR
Encouraging Innovation on the Foundation of Evidence
James Burch (2011)
This brief summarizes the efforts of states involved in the Justice Reinvestment Initiative (JRI), a program designed to identify and implement cost-efficient, evidence-based criminal justice reforms.
(pay-walled access) via Wiley
‘The better way to fight crime’: Why fiscal arguments do not restrain the carceral state
Sarah Cate and Daniel HoSang (2017)
As most prisoners in the USA continue to be confined in state institutions, the analysis of state-level policy development in this article offers important insights into ongoing political debates over decarceration.
(pay-walled access) via Sage Publications
A Private-Sector, Incentives-based Model for Justice Reinvestment
Todd Clear (2011)
This article explores the benefits of an incentives-based approach to justice reinvestment.
(pay-walled access) via Wiley
Texas Justice Reinvestment: Be More Like Texas?
Tony Fabelo (2010)
This article attests that the actions of Texas policy makers has maintained the prison system operating within capacity, and, more importantly, has led to major strengthening in the treatment and community corrections system that should serve the state well in the future in terms of reducing correctional costs and improving public safety outcomes.
(pay-walled access) via Sage Publications
Justice Reinvestment: Can it deliver more for less?
Chris Fox et al (2011)
This article makes comparisons between the US and UK approaches to justice reinvestment, identifying a number of issues and attempting to set out an agenda for academic discourse on justice reinvestment.
(pay-walled access) via Wiley
Critical Analysis of Justice Reinvestment in the United States and Australia
James Austin and Garry Coventry (2014)
The U.S. and Australia are in different phases with regard to justice re-investment (JRI) strategies and implementation efforts. The results from the U.S. appear equivocal and disappointing with regard to reducing the numbers of the incarcerated population. With no significant decline in prison numbers there are no savings in prison budgets to invest funds in targeted communities, from which many prisoners are drawn. Australia should not be directed by the JRI experience of the U.S. The primary problem for Australia is not so much its incarceration numbers. Compared to the U.S., the prison as a punishment appears to be a more of a sentence of last resort. The key problem for JRI advocates, however, is that Indigenous Australians are grossly over-represented in prison populations and disadvantage in communities from where they reside requires national attention. Both countries require a clear conceptualization of JRI. Without a critical rethink, JRI might have a legacy as yet another “reform” that has failed to reduce mass incarceration.
(pay-walled) via Taylor & Francis Online
Justice Reinvestment as a Global Phenomenon
Ross Homel (2014)
Justice Reinvestment (JR) is an international movement that had its origins in the early 2000s in the United States (Tucker& Cadora, 2003). From the beginning proponents were animated by data showing that incarcerated individuals come overwhelmingly from the poorest and most marginalized sectors of society, and that there is a remarkable concentration of serious offenders growing up in a relatively small number of communities across the country. Indeed Tucker and Cadora (2003) coined the phrase “million dollar blocks,” referring to some small areas in Brooklyn where so many people were in prison that it cost a million dollars a year to incarcerate them. Would it not, these authors opined, make more sense economically and socially to invest directly in these communities to improve living conditions and reduce the risk factors for crime than to continue to pursue a ‘fundamentalist’ policy of reliance on mass incarceration to improve public safety?
(open access) via Research Gate
United Kingdom
The proposal for JR in the United Kingdom was first made in 2010 by the Justice Committee of the House of Common’s in their report ‘Cutting Crime: the case for Justice Reinvestment.’
Cutting Crime: the case for Justice Reinvestment
House of Commons Justice Committee (2010)
Our report is divided into two main parts. Chapters 1-5 set out the financial, policy and political context in which the criminal justice system is currently operating and the problems that the Government and society face in terms of controlling its expansion. The remainder of the report sets out how we believe these problems might be overcome to begin to transform the criminal justice landscape and create a sustainable and evidence based response to crime for the future.
Following the report, six pilot programs were established around the UK from 2011-2013. Similar to the United States, JR in the United Kingdom has adopted state-led approach. The federal justice agency, the Ministry of Justice set ‘reduction targets’ for all JR pilot sites. At first instance four areas were engaged in the pilot programs which operated by incentivising local statutory partners from those areas to reduce demand on the criminal justice system in their area through working in collaboration across different local services. Pilots were funded upfront, to provide flexibility to each authority in how it would reach its targets. However, the inclusion of a clawback provision means that if targets are not met, funds must be paid back. The approaches taken by each pilot ranged from the use of community packages, custody case reviews, intensive supervision and diversion from arrest with many sites exceeding their targets.
‘The Development and Year One Implementation of the Local Justice Reinvestment Pilot’ report discusses the strengths and weaknesses of the 2011 Local Justice Reinvestment pilots. Key lessons included that strong leadership was one of the critical enablers of the program and that further adoption of a local justice reinvestment approach is recommended.
The Development and Year One Implementation of the Local Justice Reinvestment Pilot
UK Ministry of Justice (2013)
This report focuses on the initial findings from a process evaluation of the LJR pilot (commissioned by the MoJ) and examines the early development and implementation of the pilot in the first test year. The methodology was primarily qualitative and included: interviews with strategic and operational managers; interviews and focus groups with front line staff; workshops to map partnership and criminal justice system (CJS) changes and a focus on exemplar interventions at three sites.
Further pilot initiatives have since been developed with a secondary evaluation entitled ‘Local justice reinvestment pilot: process evaluation report’ completed in 2015. Key lessons from this evaluation included the need to better incentivise key agencies to work in partnership with the local statutory partners, the benefits of flexible funding and the need for quality evaluation and measurement frameworks from the inception of the initiatives.
Local justice reinvestment pilot: process evaluation report
UK Ministry of Justice (2015)
A process evaluation was commissioned to identify: what actions were taken by the sites; their effect on the CJS metrics indicated above, including how this affected the overall cost of demand on the CJS; perceived strengths and weaknesses in implementation; any unintended consequences on the CJS; and implications for policy and practice. This final report draws together the findings from all the phases of the evaluation. An interim report focusing on the development and implementation of the pilot in year one, including details of interventions was published in 2013.
Further resources detailing the approach taken in the United Kingdom, along with case studies from various areas can be found using the links below:
Research papers and reports
Justice Reinvestment – A New Approach to Crime and Justice
Rob Allen and Vivien Stern (2007)
This paper explores the relevance of the ideas underlying justice reinvestment in the US, that is, a more local approach to justice decision-making, and applies it in in the UK context.
(open access) via Prison Studies
Redesigning Justice: Reducing Crime through Justice Reinvestment
Tess Lanning, Ian Loader and Rick Muir (2007)
This report suggests that local authorities should be given a key role in the criminal justice system because they are best-placed to coordinate and manage correctional services in the community, along with outlining recommendations for a funding mechanism and incentive structure which could support the implementation of justice reinvestment in the UK.
(open access) via the Institute for Public Policy Research
Justice Reinvestment – thinking outside the cell
Kevin Albertson, Chris Fox and Kevin Wong (2013)
This report argues substituting imprisonment for social investment is expensive and not working and examines alternative applications of the ideas underpinning justice reinvestment.
(pay-walled access) via Taylor and Francis
New Zealand
Although New Zealand has not adopted a specific justice reinvestment approach, its 10 year Youth Crime Action Plan offers an aligned approach that aims to reduce youth offending rates, with a focus on the over-representation of Maoris in the justice system.
Youth Crime Action Plan
Ministry of Justice (2013)
The Youth Crime Action Plan sets out to make a difference to the lives of the children and young people behind the statistics. This is about stopping problems before they develop, dealing with them fairly but firmly when necessary, and putting systems in place to stop re-offending.
Responsiveness to rangatahi Māori and their whānau, focusing on their strengths, needs, and aspirations, is essential for the effectiveness of the Youth Crime Action Plan.
This document provides an overview of the key strategies of the Youth Crime Action Plan as well as ‘best practice’ guidelines for those working in the youth justice sector.
Similar to justice reinvestment, the program intends to have a ‘genuine partnership with communities’ by involving Maori communities, frontline practitioners and schools in the process to allow 20 communities across New Zealand to develop their own solutions to youth offending problems. With an innovation fund of $400,000 the program aims to reduce escalation by implementing informal interventions, warnings, family group conferences and diversion programs.
Te Kāhu Tiu also aspires to be a justice reinvestment initiative, aiming ‘to heal our rangatahi away from their propensity to offend, and redress their disproportionate incarceration.’ Te Kāhu Tiu works closely with the whānau and communities of the rangatahi in the programme to ensure transformative change can permeate every layer of their lives.
Te Kāhu Tiu
Community Organisation Initiative
We will heal our wounded rangatahi, engender their sense of self-worth, establish connections with their communities and whānau, equip them for and support their reintegration into continued education, or employment.
Justice Reinvestment Network Australia 