2. Boone 1
On a national level the Justice Reinvestment Initiative (JRI) has two broad goals. The first
is adjusting sentencing guidelines to reduce prison terms, add post-release supervision and
treatment programs, and ultimately result in substantial savings for state agencies. Second, JRI
calls for reinvesting these savings in underprivileged communities and disadvantaged groups.
Ideally, this would create a virtuous cycle of falling crime, stabilized communities, and savings
for the state in the form of reduced prison populations.
Seventeen states have adopted some form of JRI program. Typically these plans have
been narrower in scope than the idealized initiative outlined above. The proposed reforms in
Washington State are no different. First, they focus exclusively on property crime offenders,
and direct savings toward victims with the rest being absorbed into other state budget
priorities. Similar to the national conception, Washington's proposed JRI would adjust
sentencing guidelines and shift offender populations into supervision, rather than
incarceration. Narrowing the legislative scope of JRI reforms has the benefit of being more
Figure 1: JRI States
3. Boone 2
politically palatable to those subscribing to a tough on crime approach to criminal justice. It
would also be easier for state agencies to implement. But this more focused approach does not
reduce offender population by the same extent as original proposals.
The Need for Reform
Washington State has the nation's highest rates of property crime. In 2013 Washington
citizens experienced 3,710 property crimes per 100,000 people, compared to a national average
of 2,699. Moreover, the national rate has been declining, while Washington's remained level.
Washington also utilizes supervision less than the national average. Nationally, states sent 27
percent of offenders to parole or supervision, Washington only sent 10 percent. Property
offenders in Washington have been released from incarceration without supervision since
2003. Recidivismrates are high, between 21 and 31 percent of property offenders are re-
incarcerated within two years of release. As a consequence, prison populations have grown,
currently exceed prison capacity, and are projected to increase even further.
4. Boone 3
Figure 2: Population projection
Benefits of Reform
If incarceration trends continue as they have in recent years, Washington State will have
a prison population of 18,542 in 2024. Prison capacity currently stands at 17,423. Without
reform the relentless growth in prison population will necessitate the construction of additional
prison facilities. Construction is estimated to cost the state nearly $200 million by fiscal year
2018. The Council for State Governments (CSG) estimates that implementing JRI reform would
reduce prison populations by nearly 900 people (see figure two). This reduction would keep
offender population in line with current prison capacity, and prevent the need for new
construction. In addition, millions of dollars in operating costs would be saved. Total savings
from 2016 to 2021 are estimated to be nearly $300 million (see figure three for a full
breakdown of savings).
5. Boone 4
Figure 3: Savings
Reinvestment
Several Washington counties run victim notification programs. Typically these notify
victims of property crimes the status of the offender, from arrest to release. In 2016, the
funding for this program will run out in three large counties: King, Pierce and Snohomish.
Savings from JRI will be diverted to fund these programs. An additional $2.4 million is directed
toward victim resources, such as compensation for damages and legal expenses. Law
enforcement agencies will be the recipient of $20 million over five years, for the purpose of
preventative policing specifically targeted toward property offenders. Over $60 million is
appropriated to funding the supervision system, including $9.7 million for those offenders who
violate the terms of their supervision and are returned to prison. It must be noted that not all of
the projected savings have been appropriated. Specifically the construction costs are at this
6. Boone 5
time still hypothetical, and have not yet been reflected in budgets. While averting new
construction would be a significant cost reduction, it would not by itself raise the revenues
necessary to fund supervision. New revenue is needed, although costs of JRI is less than the
costs of the status quo. One last caveat: the proposed reinvestments are not in line with the
original ideology behind the Justice Reform Initiative. Originally, JRI called for investments in
crime ridden and impoverished neighborhoods. Washington's proposed reforms do not directly
do this, although victim compensation and efforts to better offender reintegration would
certainly help these communities. No other state has implemented a model based on JRI's
initial ideal, and it is unclear what such a model would look like in Washington.
The State of Reform
Second substitute Senate bill 5755 is the most recent attempt to pass JRI legislation in
Washington State. This legislation passed the Senate in 2015 with a 40 to 9 vote, it failed to
pass out of the House and did not come for a vote again in 2016. The legislation followed the
JRI reforms outlined above closely. It provided funding for victim notification programs in King,
Snohomish and Pierce Counties. SSB 5755 altered the Washington's sentencing grid, and
provided supervision and treatment programs for property offenders. The legislation's goal was
to reduce property crime 15 percent by FY 2021.
Washington State's offender grid provides sentencing guidelines for prosecutors and
judges. It consists of two factors: the severity of the offense, and the offender's score. An
offender score is determined by the criminal history of a particular offender. SSB 5755 adjusts
the sentencing grid for property offenders, reducing the average prison time and mandating 18
7. Boone 6
months of supervision for offenders with a score of two or higher. The legislation's intent was
to reduce the number of nonviolent offenders in Washington prisons, reduce jail overcrowding
and avoid the need for construction of new prison infrastructure. Next, SSB 5755 sought to
reduce recidivismby assigning offenders to supervision or treatment programs. All offenders
with a score higher than 2 were assigned 18 months of supervision. Treatment was intended for
those addicted to drug or alcohol, substance addiction is strongly correlated with recidivism.
Washington's DOC already runs supervision and treatment programs for other offender groups,
and statistically these measures have proven to reduce recidivism. The proposed legislation
would tackle the dual problems of prison overcrowding and high rates of recidivism in a
comprehensive, data-driven, fashion. It included funding for methods to track the reform's
success through the caseload forecast council and mandated reports to the legislature and
governor. If passed, SSB 5775, or another bill like it, would represent Washington's most
significant criminal justice reform in decades. Projecting the effectiveness of any reform is
difficult considering the numerous variables involved, and JRI is no different.
Effectiveness of Supervision
The goal of any supervision or treatment program should ultimately be to reduce
recidivism. JRI savings are dependent both on reducing prison populations and recidivism rates.
If treatment/supervision programs prove ineffective, and recidivismrates do not decline, then
long-term savings are imperiled. Complicating the picture is the fact individual offenders have
unique needs, and each supervision and treatment program have differing success rates
depending on the subset of offender.
8. Boone 7
First, offenders suffering from drug and alcohol abuse must be separated from those
not battling addiction. Sentencing an offender who is not an addict to an intensive treatment
program is a waste of both money for the state and time better spent reintegrating for the
offender. On the other end of the spectrum, addicts who are promptly enrolled in treatment
programs see their recidivism risks diminish. Even costly treatment programs, involving highly
trained psychologists and drug therapists, are cost effective in the long run if they prevent an
offender from re-committing.
But even the most well intentioned and well managed program will fail if the offender is
not willing to cooperate. Attempting to help someone who refuses to help themselves is a
dubious prospect. And by itself supervision does not reduce recidivism, indeed enrollment in a
supervision program can increase the offender's likelihood of return to jail. Penalties for
violating supervision often include returning to jail for a short period of time, and multiple
violations result in longer sentences. By definition inclusion in a court mandated supervision or
treatment includes the prospects for prison time.
Supervision alone is not enough to guarantee an offender's successful reintegration to
society. If the supervision program is understaffed, underfunded, or poorly managed it will be
of little use to the offender or society at large. Funding based on demonstrated results, strict
legislative oversight and frequent audits are necessary to assure these programs are well run
and effectively serving both the offender and Washington State.
The Costs of Inaction
9. Boone 8
State budgets are tight, and competing priorities prevalent. Some have expressed
trepidation about investing in an unproven system. Yet the status quo cannot continue.
Budgets cannot continue to absorb seemingly endless growth in prison populations.
Washington arrests thousands of citizens for property crimes each year, yet the number of such
crimes has continued to grow. The Justice Reform Initiative, if executed properly, presents a
chance to arrest the growth of prison population, save the State hundreds of millions, and
implement a comprehensive justice reform. It should be tried, the costs of inaction are too
high.
