JUSTICE REINVESTMENT misunderstood and misrepresented.
Justice Reinvestment is an interventionist program working to diminish the levels of mainstream authority from peoples lives and this is positive however it is not the solution to significantly reducing and/or eliminating crime and high incarceration rates.
Justice Reinvestment, like many tried and tested programs seeks to work with the target communities and demographic groups which own high incarceration rates and rates of perceived crime in terms of proportion to total populations.
If Justice Reinvestment is sold as the penultimate way forward we will continue to keep target communities impoverished, we will continue to see high incarceration rates. This is what recurrently occurs - we are sold recommendations again and again, one program after another, as the Gospel, none which are the answers - Justice Reinvestment is a step forward, however it is interventionist and it is not a solution from where it matters most - preventative - in that people have a right to every opportunity from the beginning of their lives.
Far too many individuals speak on behalf of policies, programs and research that they do not fully comprehend, and/or for political gain, and hence misrepresent the actual benefits and what else needs to be done.
The solution to reducing incarceration rates in communities with high rates of violence, crime and unemployment is to fully fund these communities in that they acquire the infrastructure and equity that will make them the equivalent of communities Australia-wide. With these communities, many of them with high populations of disenfranchised Aboriginal peoples, fully funded and hence developing an accumulation of infrastructure higher levels of employment will grafted. Social wealth is the key to any community's prospects.
Most people in prisons have low levels of education - and most come from impoverished backgrounds - it is this cycle of poverty and other liabilities we need to break and not to lie that answers rest in mere interventionist programs no matter how well meaning they are or their proponents are.
Various interventionist programs, pre-release and post-release do exist, however they are inadequate and Justice Reinvestment can improve this however it is not the answer to significantly reducing incarceration rates nor adequately improve peoples' lives.
Australia has rising rates of incarceration for Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal peoples. However the rates of incarceration for Aboriginal peoples are at least 14 times more than those of non-Aboriginal peoples, and up to 28 times for Aboriginal male youths as compared to non-Aboriginal male youths. 26% of Australia's prison population is Aboriginal.
Australian Human Rights Social Justice Commissioner Mick Gooda said justice reinvestment could radically reduce the over-representation of Aboriginal peoples in the criminal justice system by reorientating the system to early intervention, diversion and community support instead of putting non-serious offenders in prison." Mr Gooda has described Justice Reinvestment in terms of what will be arguably defined as non-serious offenders and therefore has not explained how peoples lives can be adequately improved.
Mr Gooda said, "We must act now before we lose another generation to the criminal justice system." I argue that without the full suite of funding, and for the duration of a generation, dropped into these communities indeed that we will lose another generation of people to the criminal justice system.
In 1990 there were 15,000 people incarcerated in Australian prisons, we now incarcerate more than 30,000, however the Australian population has not doubled during the last two decades. 26% of the prison population is Aboriginal peoples.
In WA alone there are 4,700 prisoners at a direct cost to the state of more than half a billion and an indirect cost to the state in the many billions, in terms of health, mental health and community burdens and in terms of dysfunctional families and hence the perpetuation of vicious cycles. 41% of our WA prisons are filled with Aboriginal peoples, 68% of our juvenile detention centres with Aboriginal youth. 70% of Aboriginal adults re-offend, and 80% of Aboriginal youth re-offend. The harsh deterrence of prisons appears to be failing and in Western Australia it appears to be destroying the lives of Aboriginal peoples.
The answers do not lie in mandatory sentencing, nor in increased jail sentences - in WA they have risen by on average 118 days - nor in early parole denials. The answers do not lie in building more jails. A new jail is being built in this country every year.
Justice Reinvestment works only at a certain level, and that it is a restorative form of justice, where communities with an over representation of people in the criminal justice system are assisted with target specific funding for infrastructure and various services. The community is encouraged to take a role in its accountability and in working within itself to make for a safer immediate society. Such communities take ownership of diversion programs, preventative crime programs, rehabilitation and education programs, and community counselling programs. In some communities they have taken responsibility for managing ‘prisons’. They have proven to have done better jobs than that of for instance of private prison management companies. There are many examples of where this localised management has worked.
In Alberta, Canada the First Nations people coordinate the National Couselling Service of Alberta and have taken charge of educating and assisting families experiencing domestic violence and mental trauma, and as a result have decreased family violence and have educated family members of their roles as protectors and providers. The Canadian Government confirmed that 80% of the participants in these programs did not re-offend. Justice Reinvestment works in the manner that money saved from less people in jail who have instead been helped by these programs is then reinvested in the community to provide more services, opportunities and infrastructure.
Justice Reinvestment programs bring community together and this includes the Police, Corrective Services, the criminal justice system, community organisations, the local councils, health services, and the non government organisations.
Such programs have worked in Oregon where “there was a 72% drop in juvenile incarceration, after money was reinvested in well-resourced restorative justice and community service programs for juvenile offenders.” As a result Texas reinvested $241 million in ‘treatment programs and improved probation and parole services’. The ‘Texan prison population stopped growing for the first time in decades.’ However this cannot be attributed alone to JI.
These community programs have been effective in Ohio’s criminal justice system, in Indiana where the Governor and state leaders described a strengthening of increased public safety and lower re-offending rates as a result of reinvestment initiatives. In New Hampshire these programs have led to reduced spending on correction facilities and once again achieved increased public safety.
Everyone said that unless something else is done that what is the case that with the passing of each day people are hardened into reoffending, less than every five days someone dies in custody, and with the passing of every year another jail is built.
Justice Reinvestment is a step forward, however it is interventionist and it is not a solution from where it matters most - preventative - in that people have a right to every opportunity from the beginning of their lives.
Gerry Georgatos
Researcher, Australian Deaths in Custody
Convener, Human Rights Alliance
gerry_georgatos@yahoo.com.au - 0430 657 309
Comments
He is so often on the money
Interesting reading this guy. He is so often on the money.
Well said
At long last someone who knows what he is talking about, well said.
Control your corrupt police force and the answer will follow
By ray jackson, president, indigenous social justice association
my comrades in the freedom socialist party in melbourne have just issued their october issue of their newsletter and within the other good articles they have clearly shown why the new buzz-word and practice known as justice re-investment (jr) is considered as to whether it is the government and social panacea that it is trumpeted as being.
personally, with my limited knowledge on the subject, i have little faith that it will truly be of assistance in keeping our people, and especially our youth, out of the white custodial systems. i have basic problems with the premise of the original concept of jr.
we are told that money is to be taken out of current custodial programmes and then this 'saved' money is then spent on programs in the communities to stop recidivism and also to stop people going to goal or to a juvenile justice system. the aim is indeed an admirable one but i find it very difficult to be able to accept that it is just not going to work. and there are at least 3 reasons why i can see no success in this project.
firstly, there is in the usa, the initiator of the original scheme, the practice of cutting funding in one custodial area, e.g.. $5 million, but only investing, perhaps, $2 - $3 million of it in the jr schemes. at a nsw parliament forum i asked if all the 'saved' dollars would be spent on the jr initiatives but i did not receive a satisfactory reply. we must remember that the new o'farrell government of nsw is wanting to slash and burn jobs, welfare and other social programs to overcome the profligacy of the previous labor governments. would barry knock back a few million dollars, here and there, if he had the opportunity to grab them? i very much doubt it.
secondly, the custodial systems of australia are all somewhat strapped for dollars and over the years have been cutting back on programs for some years. so i do not see any fat in the system. here in nsw the push is on for privatising the system and cutting gaol and social worker positions in a vain attempt to lower costs. i am also informed that the dept. of juvenile justice is looking around for a centre to shut down. we are indeed in mean fiscal times.
i do not believe that they can take dollars out of the very lean system to try and work it into other areas. the money is just not there, so, ergo therefore, they can only be cutting or skimming from other areas that are in a desperate need to maintain the pittance that they have. further cuts will only lead to less rehabilitative work, such as it is, being done in the gaols and jj centres. the only possible way i can see this project working is for the nsw gaols commissioner, ron woodham, and the nsw minister, greg smith, to leave their already underfunded system alone and to scrap the next $70 million gaol and share the dollars into the old and new systems. if they are that certain that jr will work, and certainly the nsw attorney-general, gaol minister and jj minister, greg smith is enthusiastic from what i have seen and read, then they should bite the bullet and accept the need to not build any more gaols or jj centres but take the allocated funds and spend it wisely in the jr area. it may even work and be dollars well spent for a change.
thirdly, and perhaps more important than the previous two reasons is that, as i argued at that parliamentary forum mentioned previously, is the herd of elephants in the room. the great stumbling block for any hint of a success is our own police forces. as i stated at the forum the governments, religious bodies, ngo's, etc. could come up with any number of good schemes and intentions but if they are going to continue to allow the elephants to run untrammelled and without any regard to the jr programs, or any others, then they are wasting their time. australian governments have invested perhaps hundreds of million dollars and, at least since 1985, matters have only deteriorated year to year. our current incarceration numbers well prove it.
we all know the special relationship between the pol.ice and the governments. this relationship is best exampled by looking at the industrial relations area. when state and territory governments wield the axe onto the public service for sackings, to lower wage costs, workers compensation changes for the worst, whatever the changes. the police unions and their members are always exempted from the changes. wink, nod, scratch scratch, it just happens.
it is the police who are in the front line of the custodial system and they work to their own innate rules and they will not accept any interference from what they consider to be 'outsiders.' even the royal commissioners were insultingly ignored and have been since 1991. they are truly a law unto themselves. the respective governments continue to protect their police from all crimes, even up to murder. we know that but we need to change that scenario. and i, and others, absolutely believe we can.
no government trial, pilot. scheme or merely a wish-list will ever succeed because the police will not allow it to happen if it even remotely threatens their power bases. they will continue on the social sweeps, arresting our youth, and others of course, until the numbers spiral out of control.
and our politicians spend like drunken sailors coming up with 'answers' that will lead nowhere. the police is where we must begin. our premiers/chief ministers need to inform the police that they must work to the expectations of our society. and that must include recommendation 87a. i am of the opinion that the police must be brought under the control of governments and the wishes of society at large.
stop wasting our money minister. take control of your corrupt police force and the answer will follow.
fkj
Control your corrupt police force and the answer will follow
my comrades in the freedom socialist party in melbourne have just issued their october issue of their newsletter and within the other good articles they have clearly shown why the new buzz-word and practice known as justice re-investment (jr) is considered as to whether it is the government and social panacea that it is trumpeted as being.
personally, with my limited knowledge on the subject, i have little faith that it will truly be of assistance in keeping our people, and especially our youth, out of the white custodial systems. i have basic problems with the premise of the original concept of jr.
we are told that money is to be taken out of current custodial programmes and then this 'saved' money is then spent on programs in the communities to stop recidivism and also to stop people going to gaol or to a juvenile justice system. the aim is indeed an admirable one but i find it very difficult to be able to accept that it is just not going to work. and there are at least 3 reasons why i can see no success in this project.
firstly, there is in the usa, the initiator of the original scheme, the practice of cutting funding in one custodial area, e.g.. $5 million, but only investing, perhaps, $2 - $3 million of it in the jr schemes. at a nsw parliament forum i asked if all the 'saved' dollars would be spent on the jr initiatives but i did not receive a satisfactory reply. we must remember that the new o'farrell government of nsw is wanting to slash and burn jobs, welfare and other social programs to overcome the profligacy of the previous labor governments. would barry knock back a few million dollars, here and there, if he had the opportunity to grab them? i very much doubt it.
secondly, the custodial systems of australia are all somewhat strapped for dollars and over the years have been cutting back on programs for some years. so i do not see any fat in the system. here in nsw the push is on for privatising the system and cutting gaol and social worker positions in a vain attempt to lower costs. i am also informed that the dept. of juvenile justice is looking around for a centre to shut down. we are indeed in mean fiscal times.
i do not believe that they can take dollars out of the very lean system to try and work it into other areas. the money is just not there, so, ergo therefore, they can only be cutting or skimming from other areas that are in a desperate need to maintain the pittance that they have. further cuts will only lead to less rehabilitative work, such as it is, being done in the gaols and jj centres. the only possible way i can see this project working is for the nsw gaols commissioner, ron woodham, and the nsw minister, greg smith, to leave their already underfunded system alone and to scrap the next $70 million gaol and share the dollars into the old and new systems. if they are that certain that jr will work, and certainly the nsw attorney-general, gaol minister and jj minister, greg smith is enthusiastic from what i have seen and read, then they should bite the bullet and accept the need to not build any more gaols or jj centres but take the allocated funds and spend it wisely in the jr area. it may even work and be dollars well spent for a change.
thirdly, and perhaps more important than the previous two reasons is that, as i argued at that parliamentary forum mentioned previously, is the herd of elephants in the room. the great stumbling block for any hint of a success is our own police forces. as i stated at the forum the governments, religious bodies, ngo's, etc. could come up with any number of good schemes and intentions but if they are going to continue to allow the elephants to run untrammelled and without any regard to the jr programs, or any others, then they are wasting their time. australian governments have invested perhaps hundreds of million dollars and, at least since 1985, matters have only deteriorated year to year. our current incarceration numbers well prove it.
we all know the special relationship between the pol.ice and the governments. this relationship is best exampled by looking at the industrial relations area. when state and territory governments wield the axe onto the public service for sackings, to lower wage costs, workers compensation changes for the worst, whatever the changes. the police unions and their members are always exempted from the changes. wink, nod, scratch scratch, it just happens.
it is the police who are in the front line of the custodial system and they work to their own innate rules and they will not accept any interference from what they consider to be 'outsiders.' even the royal commissioners were insultingly ignored and have been since 1991. they are truly a law unto themselves. the respective governments continue to protect their police from all crimes, even up to murder. we know that but we need to change that scenario. and i, and others, absolutely believe we can.
no government trial, pilot. scheme or merely a wish-list will ever succeed because the police will not allow it to happen if it even remotely threatens their power bases. they will continue on the social sweeps, arresting our youth, and others of course, until the numbers spiral out of control.
and our politicians spend like drunken sailors coming up with 'answers' that will lead nowhere. the police is where we must begin. our premiers/chief ministers need to inform the police that they must work to the expectations of our society. and that must include recommendation 87a. i am of the opinion that the police must be brought under the control of governments and the wishes of society at large.
stop wasting our money minister. take control of your corrupt police force and the answer will follow.
ray jackson
president
indigenous social justice association
Justice Reinvestment U.S. style: Not a model to emulate
Freedom Socialist Organiser # 7, October 2011
April 2011 marked the 20th anniversary of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody (RCIADC) handing down its recommendations. Community anger about a wave of Aboriginal deaths in custody sparked a determined nationwide movement. The commission was called in response to investigate 99 deaths.
A key finding was that, although Indigenous people were dying at the same rate as non-indigenous people in custody, the over-representation of Aboriginal Australians in the criminal justice system led to a higher percentage of deaths.
Over the last two decades, deaths in custody have continued at a rate of about one per month, and the over-representation of Indigenous people in custody has ballooned. Twenty years ago, Indigenous people made up 14% of the prison population. It is now 26% and even worse for women and juveniles. Meanwhile, many of the excellent recommendations remain unimplemented. Take, for example, recommendation 87a that arrest be as a matter of last resort or recommendation 90 that bail be considered whenever possible.
Anniversary campaign launched. Australians for Native Title and Reconciliation (ANTAR) released a Joint National Call to Action designed to reduce the over-representation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the criminal justice system and called for supporters to mobilise for its implementation.
This campaign successfully highlighted the crisis and included many welcome initiatives, including demands for clear targets and urgently needed improvements in police accountability. But at the heart of ANTAR’s call to action is support for using a Justice Reinvestment (JR) framework, based on an approach becoming increasingly popular in the U.S.
The U.S. is the biggest jailer on earth — it has 5% of the world’s population but locks up 25% of the world’s prisoners! Over 60% of these inmates are racial and ethnic minorities. More Blacks are under prison or parole control today than were enslaved in 1850! Native Americans, like other people of colour, are also disproportionately incarcerated.
Justice Reinvestment in the U.S. This program, which has been implemented by 10 states and is being actively considered by a further six, is primarily designed to reduce the spiralling cost of the U.S. prison system. Those embracing the program tend to be traditional law-and-order states and, in every case, JR has been introduced with bipartisan support from the Republicans and Democrats.
JR is a cost-cutting community safety program that takes a risk analysis approach. Less money is spent on supervising those who are considered to be at a low risk of re-offending, and a portion of the savings goes into intensifying the supervision of those who are seen as high risk. A portion goes into community programs and a portion is returned as a saving to the state.
The Justice Centre, an organisation formed by the Council of State Governments in 2006, developed the concept. It works with governments to design programs and then measure performance. JR is described by it advocates as "calculating public expenditure on imprisonment in localities with a high concentration of offenders, and diverting a proportion of this expenditure back into those communities to fund initiatives that can have an impact on rates of offending."
At first glance, this may sound attractive. After all, imprisoned people of colour come from the poorest communities with the fewest options. However, none of the public discussion about JR focuses on making life better for the impoverished, primarily people of colour prison population. The stated goal is to reduce spending on corrections to reinvest in strategies that can improve public safety.
In Arizona, a JR state, just 40% of what is saved on prisons is reinvested and it is going to a combination victim services, probation risk reduction strategies and substance abuse treatment. In Connecticut 30 million dollars have been saved, but just 13 million reinvested.
While the programs vary from state to state, in all instances their primary aim is to save money. The programs take a "carrot and stick" approach. About one-third of all prison admissions are for parole violations. So, there’s a mix of incentives to reduce parole time for those who conform and tougher measures for those who don’t.
The Kansas Secretary of Corrections explains: "the idea is to work with offenders to prevent them from violating the conditions of their release, rather than just monitoring to see if violations occur". He says, "Half the offenders will do fine without supervision." However, those seen as high risk have to report daily and wear GPS ankle bracelets! In many states, parole officers are given increased powers to "take swift action" against those who commit minor parole violations.
These get-tough approaches are tolerated by some who claim to be prisoners’ rights advocates because of the meagre funds spent on urgently needed programs, such as supporting people with substance abuse needs, transitional housing and job training programs. There has also been a reduction in recidivism rates by providing mostly incentives, but also providing a little bit of support to low risk parolees deemed less likely to re-offend.
Misguided support. On the surface, the stated goal of reducing imprisonment rates makes JR seem attractive to deaths-in-custody activists wanting to reduce Indigenous imprisonment rates. Providing funding for community programs designed to help parolees to reintegrate is also a welcome initiate. However, the U.S. program is highly problematic, and not something movement activists should support.
It is a neoliberal cost cutting measure that paves the way for increased repressive measures against some sections of the prison population. Programs funded are designed to enhance social control, and JR delivers very little funding to address the real issues of poverty, unemployment, homelessness and addiction. JR would also do nothing to address over-policing and racist police practice – a key reason why people of colour are over-represented in prison populations in the U.S. and why Indigenous people are over-represented in Australia.
Solutions worth fighting for. The link between imprisonment and poverty, unemployment, homelessness, addiction and loss of connection to land and community is crucial. However, a JR style program is not a prerequisite for fully funding all of the support services prisoners need on their release. Redirecting funds from corporate welfare and war could fund these services now!
Abolishing racist arrests and sentencing would drastically reduce the prison population. Other key demands include:
• All forms of discrimination against ex-prisoners must be eliminated;
• Scrap Local Law 8 in the City of Yarra and end the harassment of people for public drinking;
• Treat drug and alcohol addiction as health, not criminal, questions and legalise drugs under community control;
• Establish independent civilian review boards to hold police accountable and end the appalling brutality.
Australia is a country where, in 2009, a 12-year-old Aboriginal boy was charged with receiving stolen goods for accepting a Freddo Frog chocolate and the West Australian police argued that it was appropriate to have the court deal with him, because police had spoken to him about other matters previously!
The demand to fully implement the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody remains as relevant today as it was 20 years ago. We don’t need a new scheme designed by cost cutters. What’s needed is action on the demands the movement has long advocated. This includes recognising that the struggle to end Indigenous deaths in custody cannot be separated from the wider struggle of Australia’s First Nations for sovereignty and a treaty. t
Alison Thorne
The Freedom Socialist Party has been active in the movement since the mid '80s, when we worked with the Committee to Defend Black Rights to organise the Victorian leg of a speaking tour of relatives who had lost a loved one in custody. This helped spark the Royal Commission. We urge other deaths-in-custody campaigners to look critically at the Justice Reinvestment program in the U.S.
(See for yourself at: www.justicereinvestment.org)
Contact us at freedom.socialist.party@ozemail.com.au
Freedom Socialist Organiser # 7, October 2011
Check out our international webpage: www.socialism.com