Justice Reinvestment Initiative: Sources and Notes

Updated July 2020

 

Alabama

Alabama’s introduction, key accomplishments, and “lasting impact” narrative are drawn from the Council of State Government’s Justice Reinvestment in Alabama: Analysis and Policy Framework (March 2015) and internal initiative memoranda. Savings/averted costs were documented in an April 2018 report from the Council of State Governments Justice Center (not available online). The reinvestment total is from the Council of State Governments’ Alabama Allocates $26.5 Million for Justice Reinvestment in FY2019 (April 2018). Data on crime rates are from the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program (2007–17). Recidivism data for people released from prison and prison population counts are from the Alabama Department of Corrections’ Annual Report Series (2010–2018). The baseline prison projection was calculated by the Council of State Governments Justice Center (not available online). Prison composition percentages are from the Alabama Sentencing Commissions’ Annual Reports Series (2013–2019; the FY 2017 rate was provided by the Alabama DOC).

Alaska

Alaska’s introduction, key accomplishments, and “lasting impact” narrative are drawn from six sources: The Pew Charitable Trusts’ presentation to the Alaska Criminal Justice Commission (July 2015) and Alaska’s Criminal Justice Reforms (December 2016); Crime and Justice Initiative’s Justice Reinvestment Phase II: Implementation (June 2016) and Justice Reinvestment: Alaska (June 2018); Alaska Criminal Justice Commission’s 2018 Annual Report (November 2018); and the Urban Institute’s Justice Reinvestment Data Snapshot (May 2018). Savings/averted costs and reinvestment total were documented in the Alaska Criminal Justice Commission’s 2018 Annual Report (November 2018). Data on crime rates are from the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program (2007–2017). Recidivism data for people released from prison are from the Alaska Department of Corrections’ presentation to the Alaska Criminal Justice Commission (March 2019). The prison population and the baseline prison projection were provided by the Alaska Criminal Justice Commission (not available online). Prison composition percentages are from Alaska Criminal Justice Commission’s 2018 Annual Report (November 2018).

Arkansas

Arkansas’s problem statement, key accomplishments, and “lasting impact” narrative are drawn from six sources: the Arkansas Legislative Criminal Justice Oversight Task Force’s Report and Recommendations (December 2016); the Council of State Governments’ Justice Reinvestment in Arkansas: Policy Options and Projected Impacts (August 2016), “Spotlight: How Justice Reinvestment Helps Law Enforcement in Arkansas” (October 2019), “Justice Reinvestment in Arkansas: Progress and Outcomes” (September 2018, not available online), “Arkansas Crisis Stabilization Units Are Keeping People Out of Jail” (September 2019), and “Justice Reinvestment in Arkansas”; and Governor Asa Hutchinson’s “Now Open: All 4 Arkansas CSUs” (September 2019). The reinvestment total was provided by the office of Governor Asa Hutchinson and is an undercount of total reinvestment because it only captures investment in crisis stabilization unit operating expenses and crisis intervention training. Data on crime rates are from the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program (2008–18). Recidivism data are from the Arkansas Department of Corrections’ Recidivism Report: Findings From The 2015 Release Cohorts (June 2020)The actual sentenced population numbers are from the Arkansas Department of Corrections’ Annual Report FY 2018 (March 2019), and the baseline projection from was provided by the Urban Institute’s Justice Reinvestment Initiative State Data Tracker and JFA Institute’s 2016 Arkansas Prison Projections and Historical Corrections Trends (June 2016). Prison composition percentages are from the Arkansas Department of Corrections’ Annual Report FY 2018 (March 2019).

Delaware

Delaware’s introduction, key accomplishments, and “lasting impact” narrative are drawn from four sources: Vera Institute of Justice’s “Justice Reinvestment in Action: The Delaware Model” (April 2013) and “Delaware Governor Recognizes Benefits of JRI in State of the State, Pushes for More Reform” (February 2014); an internal Vera Institute of Justice memo (February 2015, not available online); and The News Journal’s “AG Denn: Delaware Has Made Progress, but Criminal Justice Reform Is Still Needed” (September 2018). Delaware has not yet identified any savings or made any JRI investments. Data on crime rates are from the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program (2008–2018). Recidivism data for people released from prison are from the State of Delaware Statistical Analysis Center’s Recidivism in Delaware Series (2013–18). Data on the prison population are from the Delaware Department of Correction’s annual reports (2014–19). The baseline prison projection was calculated by the JFA Institute (not available online). Prison composition percentages were provided by the Delaware Department of Correction (not available online).

Georgia

Georgia’s introduction, key accomplishments, and lasting impact narrative are drawn from the following six reports: The Pew Charitable Trusts’ 2012 Georgia Public Safety Reform: Legislation to Reduce Recidivism and Cut Corrections Costs (2012); The Council of State Governments Justice Center’s Georgia’s Justice Reinvestment Approach: Strengthening Probation and Increasing Public Safety (2017) and Reducing Recidivism: States Deliver Results (2017); Georgia’s 2018 Report of the Georgia Council on Criminal Justice Reform (February 2018); the Carl Vinson Institute of Government at the University of Georgia’s Council of Accountability Court Judges: Processes and Outcomes (2018); and the Urban Institute’s Assessing the Impact of Georgia’s Sentencing Reforms: Justice Reinvestment Initiative (2017). The Georgia Office of Planning and Budget reported total savings to the Urban Institute on September 9, 2016, and stakeholders in Georgia reported an updated reinvestment total on March 15, 2019. Data on crime rates are from the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program (2007–17) and recidivism data are from Georgia Department of Corrections 3-Year Felony Reconviction Rates for Calendar Years CY 2005 to CY 2015 (January 2019). Prison population counts and prison composition percentages are from the Georgia Department of Corrections’ “Profiles of All Inmates” and prison population numbers reflect the count on July 1 of each year. Applied Research Services calculated the baseline prison population projection (not available online).

Hawaii

Hawaii’s introduction, key accomplishments, and “lasting impact” narrative are drawn from seven sources: CSG’s Justice Reinvestment in Hawaii: Improving Public Safety by Expanding Treatment Programs and Strengthening Victim Services (September 2012), Justice Reinvestment in Hawaii: Analyses & Policy Options (August 2014),  Justice Reinvestment in Hawaii: Pretrial, and Phase II Implementation & Capacity Building Plan (April 2013), the State of Hawaii Department of Public Safety’s Crime Victim Compensation Commission: Fiftieth Annual Report (December 2018), and the Honolulu Civil Beat’s What’s Happening to Hawaii’s Push for Criminal Justice Reform? (August 2015). Savings/averted cost totals were reported in “Building a Better Prison” in the Honolulu Star-Advertiser. Total investment figures are from the Council of State Governments Justice Center’s internal January 2016 memorandum (not available online). Data on crime rates are from the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program (2007–2017). Recidivism data for people released from prison are from the Hawaii Department of Health’s 2017 Recidivism Update (July 2018)The prison population from 2009-2013 were provided by Hawaii Department of Public Safety (not available online) and 2014-2018 are from Hawaii Department of Public Safety’s End of Month Population Reports. The baseline prison projection was calculated by the Council of State Governments Justice Center (not available online). Prison composition percentages were provided by Hawaii Department of Public Safety in October 2019.

Idaho

Idaho’s introduction, key accomplishments, and “lasting impact” narrative are drawn from five sources: CSG’s Justice Reinvestment in Idaho: Analyses and Policy Framework (January 2014), Idaho Department of Corrections’ Justice Reinvestment Impact in Idaho: Report to the Legislature 2019 (February 2019), Justice Reinvestment in Idaho: Impact on the State (February 2018), and Annual Community Gap Analysis (2016-2019), and Urban Institute’s Assessing the Impact of Idaho’s Parole Reforms (November 2018). Savings/averted costs,  reinvestment totals, and recidivism rates for people released from prison were documented in Idaho Department of Corrections’ Justice Reinvestment Impact in Idaho: Report to the Legislature 2019 (February 2019). Data on crime rates are from the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program (2007–2017). The prison population data are from the Idaho Department of Corrections’ Population Snapshot (2013-2019). The baseline prison projection was calculated by the Idaho Department of Corrections (not available online).

Kansas

Kansas’s introduction, key accomplishments, and “lasting impact” narrative are drawn from five sources: the Council of State Governments Justice Center’s (CSG’s) Justice Reinvestment in Kansas: Analyses & Policy Options to Reduce Spending on Corrections & Reinvest in Strategies to Increase Public Safety (August 2013, no longer available online), “Justice Reinvestment in Kansas: Strengthening Probation Supervision and Promoting Successful Reentry” (April 2015), “Turning Policy into Practice: One State’s Approach to Providing Behavioral Health Treatment for People on Supervision in the Community” (July 2015); an internal CSG memo (August 2016, not available online); and the Urban Institute’s “Justice Reinvestment Initiative Data Snapshot: Unpacking Reinvestment” (May 2018). Information on savings and averted costs were provided to the Urban Institute by the Kansas Department of Corrections, and the investment total is from an internal CSG report (not available online). Data on crime rates are from the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program (2008–18). Recidivism and prison population data are from the Kansas Department of Corrections’ annual report series (2012–19). The baseline prison population projection is from the Kansas Sentencing Commission’s 2012 annual report. Data on prison composition were provided by the Kansas Department of Corrections (February 2019, not available online).

Kentucky

Kentucky’s introduction, key accomplishments, and “lasting impact” narrative are drawn from the following five sources: the Pew Charitable Trusts’ Kentucky: A Data-Driven Effort to Protect Public Safety and Control Corrections Costs (October 2010) and 2011 Kentucky Reforms Cut Recidivism, Costs: Broad Bill Enacts Evidence-Based Strategies (July 2011); the Kentucky Center for Economic Policy’s Corrections Data Shows Positive Impact of HB 463 That Additional Criminal Justice Reforms Can Build On (September 2016); the University of Kentucky Center on Drug and Alcohol Research’s Criminal Justice Kentucky Treatment Outcome Study (February 2018); and the Kentucky Department of Corrections’ (DOC) HB43 Annual Reports 2012–18. Savings and reinvestment totals were provided by the Kentucky DOC in July 2019 and include figures through FY 2019. Data on crime rates are from the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program (2007–17) and recidivism data for releases from 2007to 2016 are from the Kentucky DOC’s HB43 Annual Reports 2012–18. Kentucky’s prison population counts for 2012 to 2018 and prison composition data are from the Kentucky DOC’s monthly inmate profiles. Prison population counts for 2009 to 2011 were provided to the Urban Institute by the Kentucky DOC. The JFA Institute calculated the baseline prison population projection (not available online).

Louisiana

Louisiana’s problem statement, key accomplishments, and “lasting impact” narrative are drawn from six sources: the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections’ Louisiana’s Justice Reinvestment Reforms: 2019 Annual Performance Report (June 2019); the Louisiana Justice Reinvestment Task Force’s Louisiana Justice Reinvestment Task Force Report and Recommendations (March 2017); the Crime and Justice Institute’s “Louisiana’s Reinvestment into Recidivism Reduction and Victim Services” (February 2019); the Vera Institute of Justice’s “Louisiana’s Prison Population: Revised Data Analysis & Trends” presentation (March 2011; not available online); the Louisiana Commission on Law Enforcement’s “Improving Public Safety, Controlling Corrections Costs: Legislation for the 2011 Regular Session” (2011, not available online); and an internal Urban Institute memo (July 2013, not available online). The 2017 savings, averted costs, and reinvestment total are from the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections’ Louisiana’s Justice Reinvestment Reforms: 2019 Annual Performance Report (June 2019), and the 2011 savings, averted costs, and reinvestment total are from Urban’s “Justice Reinvestment Initiative State Data Tracker” (July 2017). Data on crime rates are from the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program (2008–18). Recidivism data for people released from prison are from the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections’ Recidivism in Adult Corrections (June 2019). The prison population is from the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections’ population trends (June 2019). The baseline prison population projection was calculated by the JFA Institute and is not available online. Prison composition percentages are from the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections’ Briefing Book (June 2019).

Maryland

Maryland’s problem statement, key accomplishments, and “innovation through JRI” narrative are drawn from five sources: the Pew Charitable Trusts’ “Maryland’s 2016 Criminal Justice Reform” (November 2017); the Justice Policy Institute’s “Maryland Justice Reinvestment Act: One Year Later” (October 2018); the Governor’s Office of Crime Control and Prevention’s “Justice Reinvestment Act Year 1 Spotlight” (October 2018) and “FY20 Performance Incentive Grant Fund” (July 2019); and the Maryland Alliance for Justice Reform’s “Justice Reinvestment: Maryland Justice Reinvestment Act” (n.d.). Savings and reinvestment totals were also drawn from the Governor’s Office of Crime Control and Prevention’s FY20 Performance Incentive Grant Fund. Data on crime rates are from the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program (2008–18). Data on recidivism, the prison population, and prison composition were all provided by the Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services (not available online). The Pew Charitable trusts calculated the baseline prison projection (not available online).

Massachusetts

Massachusetts’s problem statement, key accomplishments, and “innovative JRI solutions” narrative are drawn from six sources: American Youth Policy Forum’s “Transitional Youth Early Intervention Probation Strategy Summary” (August 2019); the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Conference Committee’s Conference Report H.4000 (July 2019); and the Council of State Governments’ Justice Reinvestment in Massachusetts: Reducing Recidivism and Strengthening Public Safety (November 2018), internal report (September 2019, not available online), “Massachusetts Expands Investments to Reduce Recidivism” (September 2019), and Justice Reinvestment in Massachusetts: A Policy Framework (February 2017). Data on crime rates are from the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program (2008–18). Recidivism data for people released from prison are from the Massachusetts Department of Corrections’ MA DOC Three-Year Recidivism Rates: 2015 Release Cohort (2020)The prison population, baseline projections, and prison composition are from the Massachusetts Department of Corrections’ “January 1 Snapshot 2010-2019.”

Mississippi

Mississippi’s introduction, key accomplishments, and “lasting impact” narrative are drawn from six sources: The Pew Charitable Trusts’ Mississippi’s 2014 Corrections and Criminal Justice Reform (May 2014), Mississippi Enacts Round 2 of Criminal Justice Reform (May 2018), and Public Safety in Mississippi (June 2017); Vera Institute of Justice’s Aging Out: Using Compassionate Release to Address the Growth of Aging and Infirm Prison Populations (December 2017); the Mississippi Legislature’s House Bill 387 (March 2018); and the Urban Institute’s Assessing the Impact of Mississippi’s Technical Violation Centers (forthcoming). Savings/averted costs were provided by the Mississippi’s Department of Corrections (MDOC) on October 2, 2019 (not available online). MDOC reduced its expenditures by approximately $40 million three years after passage, due in part to initiatives implemented under House Bill 585. Justice reform measures have been instrumental in curtailing population growth. The reinvestment total is from the Pew Charitable Trusts’ Mississippi’s 2014 Corrections and Criminal Justice Reform (May 2014). Data on crime rates are from the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program (2007–2017). Recidivism data for people released from prison are from the Mississippi Department of Corrections’ Recidivism Report (FY 2012)The actual prison population is from Mississippi Department of Corrections’ Daily Inmate Population (2013-2019) and the baseline prison projection is from the Mississippi Department of Corrections July 2013 10-year adult prison population projection (not available online). Prison composition percentages are from the Mississippi Department of Corrections’ Monthly Fact Sheets (2007-2018).

Missouri

Missouri’s introduction, key accomplishments, and “lasting impact” narrative are drawn from seven sources: CSG’s Task Force Delves into Missouri Prison Data (July 2017),  Justice Reinvestment in Missouri: Policy Framework (May 2018), Justice Reinvestment in Missouri: Lowering Recidivism by Improving Supervision, Enhancing Connections to Services, and Addressing Violent Crime (November 2018) and internal initiative memoranda between February and August 2019 (not available online), Pew Charitable Trusts’ Missouri Policy Shortens Probation and Parole Terms, Protects Public Safety (August 2016), Missouri Department of Corrections’ Justice Reinvestment page, and Missouri Working Group on Sentencing and Corrections’ Consensus Report (December 2011). The reinvestment total is from CSG’s Justice Reinvestment in Missouri: Lowering Recidivism by Improving Supervision, Enhancing Connections to Services, and Addressing Violent Crime (November 2018) and an internal memorandum on May 2019 (not available online). Data on crime rates are from the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program (2007–2017). Recidivism data for people released from prison and prison population totals are from the Missouri Department of Corrections’ 2018 Offender Profile (June 2018) The baseline prison projection was calculated by Applied Research Services and is not available online. Prison composition percentages are from the Missouri Department of Corrections’ Profile of the Institutional and Supervised Offender Population (2007-2018).

Montana

Montana’s problem statement, key accomplishments, and “lasting impact” narrative are drawn from four sources: CSG’s Justice Reinvestment in Montana: Report to the Montana Commission on Sentencing (January 2017) and Criminal Justice Oversight Council presentation (October 2018); Montana Public Radio’s “Changes Coming to Housing Program for Former Inmates” (April 2019); and the Montana Legislative Services Division’s “2019 Legislative Summary State-Tribal Relations” (June 2019). Reinvestment totals were documented in CSG’s Criminal Justice Oversight Council presentation (March 2018). Data on crime rates are from the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program (2008–18). Recidivism data for people released from prison are from the Montana Department of Corrections’ 2019 Biennial Report (December 2018). The prison population and baseline projections are from the Montana Department of Corrections’ monthly JRI tracking spreadsheet (December 2019, not available online). Data on prison composition were provided by the Montana Department of Corrections (not available online).

Nebraska

Nebraska’s introduction, key accomplishments, and “lasting impact” narrative are drawn from four sources: the Council of State Government’s Nebraska’s Justice Reinvestment Approach: Reducing Prison Overcrowding and Expanding Probation and Parole Supervision (May 2015) and internal project memoranda; Nebraska Legislature’s Legislative Bill 605 (May 2015); and the State of Nebraska Judicial Branch’s Quick Look: Nebraska Probation – Transitional Living Initiative (July 2019). Savings/averted costs and reinvestment totals were documented in an April 2018 report from the Council of State Governments Justice Center (not available online). Data on crime rates are from the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program (2007–2017). Recidivism data are from the Nebraska Department of Correctional Services’ Quarterly Population Summary, (January-March 2019)The prison population is from Nebraska Department of Correctional Services’ Average Daily Population (FY1982-2020). The baseline prison projection is from the Nebraska Department of Correctional Services Daily Director’s Report (not available online). Prison composition percentages are from the Nebraska Department of Correctional Services’ Annual Reports (2011-2018) with rates for 2015 and 2016 provided by email (not available online).

New Hampshire

New Hampshire’s introduction, key accomplishments, and “lasting impact” narrative are drawn from three sources: CSG’s “Justice Reinvestment in New Hampshire: Analyses & Policy Options to Reduce Spending on Corrections & Increase Public Safety” (January 2010) and an internal CSG memo (June 2015, not available online); and the New Hampshire Center for Public Policy Studies’ monthly report package (February 2018, not available online). Data on crime rates are from the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program (2007–17). Recidivism data for people released from prison are from the New Hampshire Department of Corrections’ recidivism studies (2006–14), except data for 2015 and 2016, which are unavailable online and were provided directly by the New Hampshire Department of Corrections. Prison population data are from the New Hampshire Department of Corrections’ annual reports (2007–16), except data for 2017 (not available online), which were also provided directly by the New Hampshire Department of Corrections. The New Hampshire Center for Public Policy Studies calculated the baseline prison population projection (not available online). Data on prison composition are from the New Hampshire Department of Corrections’ annual reports (2008–15); data for 2016 through 2018 are not available online and were provided directly by the New Hampshire Department of Corrections.

North Carolina

North Carolina’s introduction, key accomplishments, and lasting impact narrative are drawn from the following five reports: The Council of State Governments Justice Center’s Justice Reinvestment in North Carolina: Analysis and Policy Framework to Reduce Spending on Corrections and Reinvest in Strategies to Increase Public Safety (April 2011) and Justice Reinvestment in North Carolina: Three Years Later (November 2014); the North Carolina Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission’s Justice Reinvestment Act Implementation Evaluation Report (April 2018); the North Carolina Department of Public Safety’s Justice Reinvestment Performance Measures: North Carolina Fiscal Year 2015-2016 (March 2017; not available online); and the North Carolina Sheriffs’ Association’s Statewide Misdemeanant Confinement Program Annual Report Fiscal Year 2017–18 (October 2018; not available online). Savings and reinvestment totals are from the Justice Reinvestment Act Implementation Evaluation Report (April 2018). Data on crime rates are from the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program (2007–17). Recidivism data are from the North Carolina Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission’s Adult Recidivism/Correctional Program Evaluation Reports (2009; 2010–11; 2012–13; 2014–15). Prison population counts and prison composition percentages are from the North Carolina Department of Public Safety’s Annual Statistical Reports and prison population numbers reflect the count on June 30 of each year. The baseline prison population projection is from the North Carolina Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission’s Current Population Projections Fiscal Year 2010/11 to Fiscal Year 2019/20.

North Dakota

North Dakota’s introduction, key accomplishments, and “lasting impact” narrative are drawn from six sources: CSG’s Justice Reinvestment in North Dakota: Policy Framework (January 2017) and North Dakota’s Justice Reinvestment Approach: Investing in Community-Based Behavioral Health Services Instead of Prisons (June 2017), the Sixty-fifth Legislative Assembly of North Dakota’s House Bill No. 1041 (January 2017) and Senate Bill No. 2015 (January 2017), and North Dakota’s Behavioral Health Human Services’ Free Through Recovery. The reinvestment total is from Urban Institute’s Justice Reinvestment Initiative Data Snapshot (May 2018). Data on crime rates are from the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program (2007–2017). Recidivism data for people released from prison were provided by the North Dakota Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation in November 2019. The prison population and baseline prison projection were provided by North Dakota Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s DOCR Fact Sheets (2012-2018). Prison composition percentages were provided by North Dakota Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s DOCR Fact Sheets (2012 and 2018).

Oklahoma

Oklahoma’s problem statement, key accomplishments, and “lasting impact” narrative are drawn from six sources: the Council of State Governments’ “Justice Reinvestment in Oklahoma: Overview” (June 2011), the “Justice Reinvestment in Oklahoma” homepage, and “JRI: Helping Law Enforcement Keep Communities Safe” (October 2019); the Crime and Justice Institute’s “Oklahoma’s 2018 Criminal Justice Policy Solutions” (October 2018); the Oklahoma Justice Reform Task Force’s final report (February 2017); and the Urban Institute’s “How Have States Addressed Behavioral Health Needs through the Justice Reinvestment Initiative?” (January 2020). The reinvestment total is from the Crime and Justice Institute’s “Oklahoma’s 2018 Criminal Justice Policy Solutions” (October 2018). Data on crime rates are from the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program (2008–18). Recidivism data for people released from prison are from the Oklahoma Department of Corrections’ “Facts About Oklahoma Prison Recidivism” (February 2014).The prison population is from Oklahoma Department of Corrections’ annual reports (2010–15) and Incarcerated Inmates and Community Supervision Offenders Daily Count Sheet (July 2019). The baseline prison projections were calculated by the Council of State Governments and the Crime and Justice Institute (not available online). Prison composition percentages are from the Oklahoma Department of Corrections’ annual reports (2010–15).

Rhode Island

Rhode Island’s problem statement, key accomplishments, and “innovative JRI solutions” narrative are drawn from six sources: CSG’s “Justice Reinvestment in Rhode Island: Analysis and Policy Framework” (June 2016), “Justice Reinvestment in Rhode Island: Modernizing Supervision Practices” (December 2018), “Rhode Island Governor Signs Bill to Increase Public Safety, Promote Rehabilitation and Treatment” (October 2017), “RI Supreme Court Approves Probation Sentencing Overhaul” (June 2016), and two internal CSG reports (June 2016 and April 2019, not available online). Information on savings and reinvestment were provided by the Rhode Island Department of Corrections (February 2020, not available online). Data on crime rates are from the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program (2008–18). Recidivism data are from the Rhode Island Department of Corrections’ “Annual Recidivism Brief” (August 2019). The actual sentenced population and the baseline population projection were provided by the Rhode Island Department of Corrections (not available online). Prison composition data were from the Rhode Island Department of Corrections’ population update reports from 2012 to 2019.

South Carolina

South Carolina’s introduction, key accomplishments, and “lasting impact” narrative are drawn from the following five sources: the Pew Charitable Trusts’ South Carolina’s Public Safety Reform: Legislation Enacts Research-based Strategies to Cut Prison Growth and Costs (June 2010) and Data Trends: South Carolina Criminal Justice Reform (September 2017); South Carolina Department of Probation, Parole, and Pardon Services’ Report to the Sentencing Reform Oversight Committee (November 2018); Council of State Governments Justice Center’s South Carolina Workbook: Analyses to Inform Public Safety Strategies (March 2018); and the Urban Institute’s Assessing the Impact of South Carolina’s Parole Probation Reforms (April 2017). Savings totals were documented in the Pew Charitable Trusts’ Data Trends: South Carolina Criminal Justice Reform (September 2017) and include savings and averted costs between 2010 and 2016. The lack of reinvestment was documented in the South Carolina Sentencing Reform Oversight Committee’s State Expenditures Savings Report (December 2015; see discussion on p. 6) and confirmed with relevant agencies in June 2019. Data on crime rates are from the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program (2007–17) and recidivism data for people released from prison between 2007 and 2015 are from South Carolina Return to Prison Rates of Inmates Released FY1993–FY2015. Recidivism data for people placed on probation are from the South Carolina Department of Probation, Parole, and Pardon Services Accountability Report Series (2010–2018). South Carolina’s prison population counts for 2007 through 2018 and prison composition data are from South Carolina DOC’s Average Daily Inmate Population Fiscal Years 1970–2018 and SCDC FAQs, Profile of Inmates in Institutional Count with Current Violent Offense. Applied Research Services calculated the baseline prison population projection (not available online).

South Dakota

South Dakota’s introduction, key accomplishments, and lasting impact narrative are drawn from the following four reports: the South Dakota Criminal Justice Initiative Work Group’s Final Report (November 2012); the Public Safety Improvement Act Oversight Council’s Public Safety Improvement Act 2018 Annual Report (December 2018); the Pew Charitable Trusts’ South Dakota’s 2013 Criminal Justice Initiative: Legislation to Improve Public Safety, Hold Offenders More Accountable, and Reduce Corrections Spending (June 2013); and the Vera Institute of Justice’s Bridging the Divide: Improving Parole Outcomes for Native Americans in South Dakota (October 2016). Savings and reinvestment totals are from the  Public Safety Improvement Act 2018 Annual Report (December 2018). Data on crime rates are from the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program (2007–17) and recidivism data for releases in 2009–13 are from the Council of State Governments’ 50-State Data on Public Safety South Dakota Workbook (March 2018). The South Dakota Department of Corrections reported the recidivism rate for people released from prison in 2014 to Urban in March 2019. South Dakota’s prison population counts are fiscal year–end counts from the South Dakota Public Safety Improvement Act Annual Reports. The Pew Charitable Trusts calculated the baseline prison population projection (not available online). Prison composition data are from the South Dakota Public Safety Improvement Act Annual Reports.

Utah

Utah’s problem statement, key accomplishments, and “lasting impact” narrative are drawn from four sources: the Utah Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice’s Justice Reinvestment Report (November 2014), “Justice Reinvestment Initiative HB 348: Bill Summary” (April 2015) and Current Criminal Justice Policies: 2019 Annual Report (November 2019); and the Pew Charitable Trusts’ “Data Trends: Utah Criminal Justice Reform” (May 2018). The reinvestment total is documented in Pew Charitable Trusts’ “Data Trends: Utah Criminal Justice Reform” (May 2018). Data on crime rates are from the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program (2008–18). Recidivism data for people released from prison to parole are from CSG’s Utah Workbook: Analyses to Inform Public Safety Strategies (March 2018), except data for 2014 through 2016, which were provided by the Utah District Court (February 2020; data are preliminary and subject to change). The prison population, baseline prison population projection, and prison composition percentages are from the Utah Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice’s Current Criminal Justice Policies: 2019 Annual Report (November 2019).

West Virginia

West Virginia’s introduction, key accomplishments, and innovation through JRI narrative are drawn from the following five sources: the Urban Institute’s Reforming Sentencing and Corrections Policy: The Experience of Justice Reinvestment Initiative States (December 2016), and Justice Reinvestment Initiative Data Snapshot: Unpacking Reinvestment (May 2018); Council of State Government’s West Virginia’s Justice Reinvestment: Strengthening Community Supervision, Increasing Accountability, and Expanding Access to Substance Use Treatment (June 2014) and West Virginia Expands Access to Substance Use Treatment Through Justice Reinvestment (November 2015); and the Vera Institute of Justice’s A Path to Recovery: Treating Opioid Use in West Virginia’s Criminal Justice System (November 2017) as well as internal initiative memoranda . Estimated savings and averted costs were collected from Governor Early Ray Tomblin’s March 1, 2016, column “Leading the Fight Against Substance Abuse Through Justice Reinvestment” (no longer available online). JRI reinvestment data was provided to the Urban Institute in a June 2016 memorandum from the Council of State Governments Justice Center (not available online). Data on crime rates are from the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program (2007-17) and recidivism data for prison releases in 2008-14 are from West Virginia DOC’s Recidivism: Inmates Released in 2014. West Virginia’s prison population counts for 2009-18 are from the Division of Correction’s Annual Report Series and data on violent and nonviolent offenses were provided by the West Virginia Department of Military Affairs and Public Safety, Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation in May 2019 (not available online). The baseline prison population projection is from the Office of Strategic Planning’s West Virginia Correctional Population Forecast, 2012-2022.