April 2013

Lessons from the States:
Reducing Recidivism and Curbing Corrections
Costs Through Justice Reinvestment
Over the past 20 years, state spending on corrections has skyrocketed—from $12 billion in 1988 to more than
$52 billion in 2011.1 Declining state revenues and other fiscal factors are putting a serious strain on many
states’ criminal justice systems, often putting concerns about the bottom line in competition with public
safety. Strategies tested in numerous states and local jurisdictions, however, show that there are effective
ways to address the challenge of containing rising corrections costs while also increasing public safety.

Six Lessons
Many states under tight fiscal constraints face the challenge of growing corrections costs and increasing
inmate populations. A number of these states have responded with “justice reinvestment” strategies to
reduce corrections costs, revise sentencing policies, and increase public safety. Justice reinvestment is a datadriven approach that ensures that policymaking is based on a comprehensive analysis of criminal justice
data and the latest research about what works to reduce crime, and is tailored to the distinct public safety
needs of the jurisdiction. In the first phase, experts analyze a variety of state-specific data to develop practical,
consensus-based policies that reduce spending on corrections and generate savings that can be reinvested in
strategies to improve public safety. In the second phase, jurisdictions translate the new policies into practice
and monitor data to ensure that related programs and system investments achieve their projected outcomes.
Since 2007, with support from the U.S. Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Assistance and The
Pew Charitable Trusts, 17 states have worked with the Council of State Governments Justice Center to
develop justice reinvestment strategies. Of these
1 Conduct a Comprehensive Data Analysis
states, four have recently adopted policies that
are projected to generate more than $1 billion
2 Engage Diverse Constituencies
in savings over five years. Justice reinvestment
efforts in Texas alone resulted in $1.5 billion
3 Focus on the People Most Likely to Reoffend
in construction savings and $340 million in
4 Reinvest in High-Performing Programs
annual averted operations costs. Six lessons have
emerged from these experiences that inform the
5 Strengthen Community Supervision
work of other states tackling rising corrections
6 Incentivize Performance
costs and public safety challenges.

Lesson 1

Conduct a Comprehensive
Data Analysis

Policymakers often do not have information about what factors are driving crime, reoffense rates, and the
growth of correctional populations. Many state policymakers are forced to make decisions about prison and
public safety policies without comprehensive, independent analyses of their criminal justice data. State
agencies often also lack the capacity to conduct regular evaluations and audits of programs and systems to
determine if crime and recidivism are being reduced. Without comprehensive data and the ability to interpret
them, states are unable to develop policies that respond to the unique criminal justice challenges they face.
For example since 2011, Wisconsin’s Department of Corrections has maintained a reasonably modern
and effective research and data analysis unit. Previously, however, budget cuts had forced the department to
suspend research and data analysis for several years. This made it difficult to identify the root causes of the
state’s 14-percent prison growth from 2000 to 2007 and the 71-percent increase in corrections spending from
1999 to 2009.
Kansas Justice Reinvestment Process
States that have succeeded in
reducing or averting corrections
costs and improving public safety
1.2 million
75+
4
have analyzed a variety of statedata records analyzed
in-person meetings
2- to 3-hour meetings of
with stakeholders in the
the Justice Reinvestment
specific data. By examining crime,
criminal justice system
Working Group
arrest, conviction, sentencing, jail,
prison, and probation and parole
75
23
15
24
4
20+
supervision data, policymakers can
Police
Victims,
Community
Behavioral
Members of
Hours with
identify the key drivers of prison
Chiefs, Staff
Advocates
Corrections
Health
the Defense
Kansas
population growth and prioritize
& Officers
& Survivors
Officers
Care &
Bar
Sentencing
Treatment
Commission
investments in specific areas of the
54
22
4
Providers
Members &
system that need reinforcement.
Staff
Sheriffs
Court
District &
Additionally, analyzing the need
7
Services
County
Officers
Attorneys
for, and access to, various services
Judges
(including substance abuse and
mental health treatment programs)
Council of State Governments Justice Center
and resources critical to reducing
recidivism ensures that services are deployed where they are most needed. To have a comprehensive picture
of the drivers of prison growth, it is also important to examine sentencing practices and the subsequent
implications for lengths of stay in confinement. State leaders from all three branches of government can
work with experts to translate these data into practical policies that help save taxpayer dollars and enhance
public safety.
In Oklahoma, for example, a growing state prison population was projected to cost an estimated $249
million in additional spending by 2021. Facing these rising costs, state policymakers asked experts to
collect and analyze vast amounts of state criminal justice, mental health, and substance abuse data. The
data highlighted three challenges: high rates of violent crime, a high number of individuals released
from incarceration without supervision, and growth in key segments of the prison population. By better
understanding these issues, leaders in Oklahoma were able to develop and adopt policies that would slow the
projected growth in the state prison population while reinvesting in strategic law enforcement initiatives to
reduce violent crime.
Data analysis is not comprehensive unless it is put into context through dialogue with justice system
stakeholders. In Kansas, for example, conversations with police, sheriffs, and other law enforcement officials
helped determine the most relevant areas for policy development.

2

Lessons from the States: Reducing Recidivism and Curbing Corrections Costs

Lesson 2

Engage Diverse Constituencies

Policymakers faced with high recidivism rates and increasing corrections costs must confront a complicated
set of issues. The justice reinvestment process calls for states to establish a high-level, bipartisan, interbranch team of elected and appointed state and local officials to work with researchers and criminal justice
policy experts. This working group then consults with a broad range of stakeholders in the jurisdiction,
which may include prosecutors, public defenders, judges, corrections and law enforcement officials, service
providers, community leaders, victims and their advocates, and people who have been incarcerated. Bringing
this diverse group of experts, officials, and stakeholders to the table increases buy-in from those involved in
the process and is essential to accurately diagnosing systemic issues and effectively responding to them.
Engaging county and city officials and criminal justice stakeholders such as sheriffs, police chiefs, county
commissioners, and local probation and treatment providers is critical to ensuring that policies developed
help reduce costs, improve outcomes across the system, and do not shift risks or costs to other parts of the
system.
County officials played a significant
role in shaping the reforms that were
enacted in Kentucky in 2011. Because
Kentucky holds approximately onethird of the people for whom the state is
responsible in local jails, the state’s rising
prison population and the associated costs
had a significant impact on counties.
Guided by The Pew Charitable Trusts, the
Kentucky working group, which included
a county executive, worked closely with
counties to identify challenges and develop
solutions that would benefit corrections
systems at both the state and county levels.
Then North Carolina Governor Beverly Perdue signs the Justice
The resulting legislation assists counties
Reinvestment Act into law in 2011.
in several ways. It improves the bail and
pretrial release and supervision systems,
allows a peace officer to issue a citation instead of making an arrest for minor misdemeanor offenses,
and allows for the placement of people in local jails closer to their communities for the last part of their
sentences.
District attorneys and victim advocates are particularly helpful in assessing issues at the local level,
in part because they see the impact when individuals are released from incarceration without effective
community supervision and reentry services. Moreover, their connection to victims is a constant reminder of
a fundamental goal of the criminal justice system, which is to reduce victimization.
Victim advocates in Hawaii, for example, were quick to point out the deficiency in how victim restitution
was collected in the state-run facilities. Because restitution is intended to assist in repaying victims for
expenses related to the crime they suffered and to hold individuals accountable for their actions, the insight
of victim advocates helped to focus policymakers’ efforts. As a result, Hawaii is recasting its restitution
collection infrastructure to improve the collection practices in state facilities and increase the percentage of
monies repaid to victims.

Lessons from the States: Reducing Recidivism and Curbing Corrections Costs

3

Lesson 3

Focus on the People
Most Likely to Reoffend

As growing prison and jail populations increasingly strain states’ corrections budgets, policymakers must
focus scarce resources where they can have the biggest return on investment for public safety. In spite of this,
many states fail to focus their incarceration, treatment programs, and supervision priorities on the people
most likely to commit future crimes. Research emphasizes the need to focus supervision services on
individuals at high risk of reoffense, and the importance of using scientifically validated risk-assessment tools
to identify these individuals.2
Historically, identifying individuals most likely to reoffend was mostly educated guesswork, but recent
research has shown that modern assessment tools are very effective at objectively predicting an individual’s
risk of reoffending. A risk assessment tool developed for Ohio found that the percentage of males who were
rearrested within one year varied dramatically by risk level. Only 17 percent of those in the low-risk group
were rearrested, while 71 percent of those in the
very high-risk group were rearrested.3 Because of
Predictive Validity of the Ohio
the disproportionately higher risk of rearrest among
Prison Intake Tool for Males
a subsection of the population, spreading criminal
justice resources equally across all risk levels does not
Rearrest Rate by Risk Level
maximize their impact. Research shows that low-risk
individuals have an increased likelihood of recidivism
71%
when they are over-supervised or receive treatment or
services in the same programs as medium- and high58%
risk individuals. There is a danger that scarce criminal
justice resources may actually increase recidivism
32%
and victimization, if focused on the wrong people.
Instead, resources should be targeted towards those
17%
individuals who are the most likely to reoffend.
In 2011, for instance, North Carolina and Ohio
both passed comprehensive legislation emphasizing
this principle. In North Carolina, new legislation
High
Low
Very High
Medium
requires supervision agencies to concentrate
Risk Level
resources on high-risk individuals and empowers
probation officers to employ immediate sanctions
Figures represent the percentage of males within each risk category
rearrested within a one-year follow-up period after assessment.
to increase accountability in a manner that is both
cost effective and proven to have a greater impact
Council of State Governments Justice Center
on reducing recidivism. In addition, the law ensures
that treatment programs are targeted to people who have the greatest treatment needs and are most likely
to reoffend. Finally, the legislation strengthens and expands an existing felony drug diversion program.
Meanwhile, Ohio has embraced a similar approach by adopting criteria that instruct all of the state’s
community corrections agencies to prioritize placement for people who would benefit most from intensive
supervision and treatment. Moreover, first-time property and drug offenders now face mandatory probation
sentences and treatment attendance requirements. These requirements hold these individuals accountable
in more meaningful ways and conserve prison space for the most serious and violent offenders.
Using supervision and treatment resources more efficiently, along with other strategies, is expected to pay
dividends in both North Carolina and Ohio. State leaders in North Carolina project $560 million in averted
costs and cumulative savings by 2017, and experts in Ohio estimate savings of $78 million by 2015.

4

Lessons from the States: Reducing Recidivism and Curbing Corrections Costs

Lesson 4

Reinvest in High-Performing
Programs

Continuing state and local budget crises across the country require policymakers to be more focused than
ever on smart spending. A key component of the justice reinvestment approach is the redirection of the
savings and averted spending generated by new policies into strategies that reduce recidivism and improve
public safety. The justice reinvestment process helps states and counties apply those resources to efforts that
bring the most “bang for the buck” in a particular jurisdiction. Careful analysis of data helps to identify areas
for investment in evidence-based policies and practices that are most effective and impactful.
While there are some trends in reinvestment strategies among various jurisdictions—such as expanding
behavioral health care capacity or improving supervision—because each state is different and has its own
distinct circumstances and characteristics, justice reinvestment does not result in the adoption of one-sizefits-all policies. Every state’s challenges are unique, as are its reinvestment priorities.
Reinvestment strategies must respond to those
Justice Reinvestment States
unique challenges and take an approach that reflects
the range of needs and gaps identified by the
CSG JUHlCe Center
The Pew Chantable Trusts
Vera InHltute of Jusnce
comprehensive data analysis.
Additionally, it’s critical for each state to
carefully attend to the quality of programs. While
many well-intentioned criminal justice programs
have been designed over the years, not all of
them have met their goal of reducing recidivism
and protecting communities. Programs are often
maintained because of a mistaken assumption
about effectiveness or evidence of impact that is
solely anecdotal. At best, ineffective programs waste
limited resources. At worst, they may do harm by
making participants more likely to reoffend. The
need for better results coupled with a scarcity of
Since 2005, The Pew Charitable Trusts, the Vera Institute of Justice, and the
Council of State Governments Justice Center have provided expert assistance
resources has pushed states to invest in programs
to 27 states interested in the justice reinvestment approach.
that can be assessed according to their impact.
Council of State Governments Justice Center
Researchers have made great strides in
identifying the best practices and components shared by successful programs. Many states are using this research
to guide their investments in high-performing programs. The Washington State Institute of Public Policy
estimated the costs and benefits of 545 adult corrections, juvenile corrections, and prevention programs.4 The
study found that some of the state’s programs produce more favorable returns on investment. For example,
supervision using best practices focused on higher-risk individuals was found to yield a 31-percent reduction in
recidivism, while supervision without treatment led to no decrease. The study was used by state policymakers
to prioritize investment in the programs and approaches with demonstrated track records of success.
This research has caused states to reexamine all aspects of programming decisions, including who is
prioritized for enrollment, what types of programs are prioritized for funding, and how closely programs
adhere to principles of risk reduction. For example, in Kentucky, legislation passed in 2011 requires that by
2016, 75 percent of state expenditures on supervision and intervention programs for pretrial defendants,
inmates, and individuals on parole and probation must be evidence based. In North Carolina, state leaders
redirected funding for community-based interventions and treatment services for individuals on supervision
from programs operating under an outdated formula-based grant system to performance-driven contracts
for services. This approach helps ensure programs apply evidence-based practices, better serve the intended
target populations, and reduce recidivism.

-

Lessons from the States: Reducing Recidivism and Curbing Corrections Costs

5

Lesson 5

Strengthen Community Supervision

Over the last 25 years, the rate of growth of community supervision populations has exceeded that of prison
and jail populations. Despite this trend, community corrections agency budgets have typically failed to
increase in proportion to this population growth. Today, 4.8 million people—1 in 50 adults—are on probation
or parole in the United States. This is more than twice the population of prisons and jails in this country.5
The research and development of supervision strategies in recent years has led to a more concrete
understanding of the elements that make community supervision effective at reducing recidivism. Current
research points to the “Risk-Need-Responsivity” model as the most effective way for corrections authorities to
identify and prioritize individuals to receive appropriate interventions.
•	

Risk: Research shows that prioritizing supervision resources for individuals at moderate or high risk of
reoffending can lead to a significant reduction in recidivism among this group. Conversely, intensive
supervision interventions for individuals who are at low risk for recidivism will have little impact on
those individuals’ likelihood of committing future criminal acts.

•	

Need: The need principle states that individuals have two types of needs: criminogenic needs, or those
that contribute to the likelihood of reoffending; and noncriminogenic needs, or those with no statistical
relationship to criminal behavior. Treatment and case planning should prioritize the core criminogenic
needs that can be changed through treatment, supervision, or other services and supports. Research
indicates that the greater the number of criminogenic needs addressed through interventions, the greater
positive impact the interventions will have on the likelihood of recidivism.

•	

Responsivity: The responsivity principle highlights the importance of reducing barriers to learning by
addressing learning styles, reading abilities, cognitive impairments, and motivation when designing
supervision and service strategies.

Swift and Certain Responses
The Urban Institute released a report in 2008 that identified 13 ways for parole agencies and line officers
to incorporate the Risk-Need-Responsivity model into community supervision strategies.6 The report
highlighted the need to focus resources on moderate- and high-risk parolees because this population is
more likely to benefit from treatment and supervision, resulting in a decreased threat to public safety. The
report also discussed the importance of concentrating supervision resources and programming in the initial
months of the period of supervision. Parolees’ substance abuse, mental health, unemployment, and other
service needs are especially high in the first days, weeks, and months after release from prison. Supervision
strategies should address the early risk of recidivism and better align resources during the period
immediately after release, when individuals are most likely to commit new crimes or violate the conditions of
their supervision.
Officers need access to a range of options for administering appropriate sanctions and incentives to
individuals who violate or comply with conditions of supervision and these responses must occur swiftly and
with a consistency that lets them know with certainty that they are being held accountable for their behavior.
Many parolees and probationers are sent to prison for technical violations of their supervision conditions
(such as missing an appointment or failing to attend drug treatment) rather than for committing a new
criminal offense. A significant number of states have tested strategies that hold these violators accountable in
the community without compromising public safety. This has helped to conserve prison beds for higher-risk
offenders.
States that have implemented swift, certain, and graduated sanctions for certain violators have found
more success at preventing future offenses, while also delivering a greater return on investment. Research
shows that providing immediate consequences when a person does not comply with conditions of release

6

Lessons from the States: Reducing Recidivism and Curbing Corrections Costs

has a measurably greater impact on preventing future criminal behavior than the degree of punishment that
is applied.7
Several states allow supervising officers to respond to noncompliance by utilizing a designated range of
graduated sanctions (such as required community service, increased reporting to supervising officers, or
short jail stays) without initiating a revocation process through the courts. This enhances the timeliness and
effectiveness of the sanction while reducing the burden on the rest of the criminal justice system.
For example, a 2011 North Carolina law authorized community corrections staff to impose intermediate
responses to violation behavior, including two- to three-day jail sanctions. The new approach is intended to
reduce the number of minor violations brought to court. The law also reduced to 90 days the length of time
that someone on felony supervision could be sanctioned for technical violations, thereafter requiring the
person to return to supervision for the remainder of his sentence. This shift has led to shorter lengths of stay,
increased accountability for people under supervision, and reduced costs.

Applying Evidence-Based Practices
Supervision agencies must commit to
implementing evidence-based policies and
practices that researchers and practitioners
have proven to be effective.
For example, in Ohio there are more than
250,000 people on probation supervision
who are supervised by one or more of the
187 different probation agencies in the
state. Without any statewide probation
standards, policies and practices varied
substantially. Many departments did not
use evidence-based practices such as risk
assessment and no data were collected
statewide about who was on probation or
how well they did. In 2011, the state adopted
a series of policies to strengthen probation
supervision by establishing the first set of
statewide standards for probation agencies,
Ohio Governor John Kasich signs the state’s justice reinvestment legislation
and an incentive grant program to spur
performance among probation departments into law in 2011.
to bolster training and improve supervision
outcomes.
In Pennsylvania, the Board of Probation and Parole (PBPP) has established a Violation and Sanctions
Grid that outlines how supervision officers are to respond to technical violations of supervision conditions.
Decades of research have shown that behavior—including criminal behavior—is learned as a result of the
consequences of one’s actions,8 and that behavior can be changed by controlling those consequences through
the use of incentives and punishments.9 As part of the state’s justice reinvestment efforts, PBPP will be
examining ways to incorporate incentives into their Grid in order to apply research on behavior change.

Lessons from the States: Reducing Recidivism and Curbing Corrections Costs

7

Lesson 6

Incentivize Performance

A number of states are realigning their fiscal relationships with municipalities and counties, as well as with
criminal justice agencies, in ways that reward performance. By working closely with key entities to develop
cost-effective policies and practices and then sharing some of the savings generated with the successful
agencies, states can help build more effective criminal justice systems without necessarily appropriating new
funds.
Incentive funding is most commonly used to encourage local authorities to utilize and improve
community-based sanctions for individuals under supervision who might otherwise be returned to prison for
violations of the conditions of their release.10
If state agencies save money by
lowering the number of prison admissions
while protecting public safety, then some
of those cost savings can be channeled
back to those agencies that produced the
savings so they can continue to cut crime
and reduce recidivism. This mechanism
can be used to implement evidence-based
practices, support victim services, and
provide effective substance abuse treatment
and other risk-reduction programs. In
2011, The Pew Charitable Trusts partnered
with the Vera Institute of Justice to
bring together states that have enacted
legislation creating performance incentive
funding for supervision agencies. The
subsequent report, Performance Incentive
Funding,11 highlighted the challenges and
opportunities for successfully using this
approach to improve agency outcomes.
Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett signs the state’s justice reinvestment
Several states have applied this approach
legislation into law in 2012.
to funding as part of their justice
reinvestment efforts.
For example, in 2012 Pennsylvania policymakers established a performance-incentive funding system
to divert offenders who received short sentences for misdemeanors and felonies from being sentenced to
prison. The state has committed to providing new funding to those counties that in turn voluntarily expand
their local capacity to reduce the risk of recidivism among these offenders.

8

Lessons from the States: Reducing Recidivism and Curbing Corrections Costs

Conclusion
As states work to reduce rising
corrections costs and growing prison
and supervision populations, they
must also balance these challenges
with the need to maintain or increase
public safety. The six key lessons
highlighted here have been used by
states to achieve this balance. While
many states have implemented
research, policy, and practices along
these lines, other states and local
jurisdictions are just beginning to do
so and are utilizing these lessons as
guidance in the process.
The justice reinvestment approach
has yielded results in public safety
and cost savings in states across
the country since 2005. States can
address both public safety and fiscal
challenges with evidence-based,
data-driven, non-partisan guidance
on the most effective policies
and programmatic investments for
corrections systems.

Savings & Reinvestment
state

projected savings*
(time period)

reinvestment
(time period)

Hawaii

$130 M (6 years)

$3.4 M (1 year) reinvested in
victim services, treatment,
parole supervision, and
research and planning

Kentucky

$ 422 M (10 years)

$30 M (3 years) reinvested
to expand interventions in
the community, treatment
programs, probation and
parole services, and provide for
additional pretrial services and
drug court case specialists

North
Carolina

$560 M (6 years)

$8 M redirected to existing
community-based programs

Ohio

Pennsylvania

Figures in millions (M)

$78 M (4 years)

$253 M (5 years)

$10 M (2 years) reinvested
in strengthening probation
supervision
$21 M reinvested in law
enforcement, victim services,
and probation
Council of State Governments Justice Center

* Projected savings estimate includes both averted costs and reductions in state
spending on corrections.

Notes
1. National Association of State Budget Officers, State Expenditure
Report 1988 (Washington: National Association of State Budget
Officers, 1989), 71. National Association of State Budget Officers, State
Expenditure Report 2010 (Washington: National Association of State
Budget Officers, 2011), 54.
2. Christopher Lowenkamp and Edward Latessa, “Understanding the
Risk Principle: How and Why Correctional Interventions Can Harm LowRisk Offenders,” Topics in Community Corrections (Washington: National
Institute of Corrections, 2004).
3. Edward Latessa, Paula Smith, Richard Lemke, Matthew Makarios,
and Christopher Lowenkamp, Creation and Validation of the Ohio Risk
Assessment System: Final Report (Cincinnati: University of Cincinnati
Center for Criminal Justice Research, 2009), 36.
4. Stephanie Lee, Steve Aos, Elizabeth Drake, Annie Pennucci, Marna
Miller, and Laurie Anderson, Return on Investment: Evidence-Based Options
to Improve Statewide Outcomes April 2012 Update (Olympia: Washington
State Institute for Public Policy, April 2012).
5. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Probation and Parole in the United States, 2011
(Washington: Bureau of Justice Statistics, November 2012).
6. Amy Solomon, Jenny Osborne, Laura Winterfield, Brian Elderbroom,
Peggy Burke et al., Putting Public Safety First: 13 Parole Supervision Strategies
to Enhance Reentry Outcomes (Washington: The Urban Institute, December
2008). Although the report didn’t look at probation agencies and
populations, many of the same principles apply. The Urban Institute
and the Pew Center on the States also issued a complementary policy
brief addressing improved supervision generally. Putting Public Safety
First: 13 Strategies for Successful Supervision and Reentry (Washington: The
Pew Charitable Trusts, 2008).

7. E.J. Wodahl, B. Garland, S.E. Culhane and W.P. McCarty, “Utilizing
Behavioral Interventions to Improve Supervision Outcomes in Community-Based Corrections,” Criminal Justice and Behavior 38 (2011): 386405; Hawken and Kleiman, Managing Drug Involved Probationers with Swift
and Certain Sanctions: Evaluating Hawaii’s HOPE (Washington: National
Institute of Justice, 2009); Michael Spiegler and David Guevrermont,
Contemporary Behavior Therapy (Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing, 2009).
8. Two main types of consequences can be used to change behavior—
positive reinforcements (incentives) and punishments. Incentives
increase the probability that behavior will be repeated and punishments
decrease the likelihood a behavior will be repeated. Michael Spiegler
and David Guevrermont, Contemporary Behavior Therapy (Belmont:
Wadsworth Publishing, 2009).
9. While both punishments and incentives should be used to promote
behavioral change, the most effective application of these consequences
is for incentives to outweigh punishments by a ratio of at least 4:1;
behavior change is more likely to occur if a person is rewarded for
positive behavior four times as often as they are punished for a negative
behavior. P. Gendreau, “The Principles of Effective Intervention with
Offenders,” Choosing Correctional Options that Work (Thousand Oaks: Sage,
1996), 117-130.
10. Pew Center on the States, Policy Framework to Strengthen Community
Corrections (Washington: The Pew Charitable Trusts, December 2008).
11. Vera Institute of Justice, Performance Incentive Funding: Aligning Fiscal
and Operational Responsibility to Produce More Safety at Less Cost (New York:
Vera Institute of Justice, 2012).

Lessons from the States: Reducing Recidivism and Curbing Corrections Costs

9

To learn more about the justice reinvestment strategy, please visit:
www.justicereinvestment.org

This project was supported by Grant No. 2010-RR-BX-K071 awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance. The Bureau of Justice Assistance is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National
Institute of Justice, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and the Office for Victims of Crime. Points of view or
opinions in this document are those of the author and do not represent the official position or policies of the United States
Department of Justice. To learn more about the Bureau of Justice Assistance, please visit: www.bja.gov.

The Pew Charitable Trusts is a nonprofit organization that applies a rigorous, analytical approach to improve public policy,
inform the public and stimulate civic life. Launched in 2006, Pew’s Public Safety Performance Project helps states advance fiscally
sound, data-driven policies and practices in sentencing and corrections that protect public safety, hold offenders accountable, and
control corrections costs. More information is available at: www.pewstates.org.

Council of State Governments Justice Center
The Council of State Governments Justice Center is a national nonprofit organization that serves policymakers at the local, state,
and federal levels from all branches of government. It provides practical, nonpartisan advice and evidence-based, consensus-driven
strategies to increase public safety and strengthen communities.

Points of view, recommendations, or findings stated in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the
official position or policies of the Council of State Governments Justice Center or the Council of State Governments’ members.
Suggested citation: Council of State Governments Justice Center, Lessons from the States: Reducing Recidivism and Curbing Corrections
Costs Through Justice Reinvestment (New York: Council of State Governments Justice Center, 2013).

www.csgjusticecenter.org