Third, reaffirm rehabilitation. A fundamental liberal correctional premise, which is substantiated by extensive evidence, is that interventions with offend- ers will not be effective unless they involve a strong rehabilitative compo- nent.209 Rehabilitation programs, however, will not “work” if they are imple- mented without regard to evidence or if fidelity to treatment integrity is undermined by low funding. If reducing recidivism is a serious goal that we are committed to as a society, community corrections must be viewed as a fully vi- able option on equal footing with incarceration, not just the cheap alternative that we run to when the state can no longer afford to put people behind bars. Unless policymakers are willing not just to save money on rehabilitation efforts but to actually spend money on what works, this movement away from incar- ceration will likely be just as ineffective as those in the past. Advocates should stop selling “alternatives” as less expensive. Good alter- natives for higher risk offenders and those with mental health issues will never be cheap and we need to acknowledge that. But over the long run, they will be more humane and pay for themselves. Thankfully, criminal justice reform is attracting a promising infusion of funding from the private sector. Social- impact bonds (SIBs) or “pay for success bonds,” are an innovative financing arrangement that aims to increase the pool of money available for social pro- grams. In an SIB, investors provide financing to operate federal, state, or local- run programs that aim to achieve predetermined outcomes. Generally, these outcomes are expected to save government money, for example, by reducing the need for prison beds or homeless shelters. The government entity agrees in advance that, if the program meets its goals, it will use the savings to pay back the original investment, plus a return. What is particularly attractive about this development is that it should not only jump-start the funding for innovative programs but also improve the corresponding program evaluations. Investors will not invest the capital unless the program can document exactly what it does, with what anticipated reduction in recidivism, and at what cost. It also has the added benefit of creating partnerships between nonprofit, government lead- ers, and the private sector. In 2012, Goldman Sachs announced that it would invest $10 million in a new jail program using social impact bonds.210 In January 2014, Bank of America Merrill Lynch announced it had raised $13.5 million from over forty private and institutional clients, financing a reform initiative for previously in- carcerated New York state offenders.211 That same month, the James Irvine Foundation launched the California Pay for Success Initiative.212 This $2.5 mil- lion effort will provide flexible funding for nonprofit organizations to secure seed funding for innovative programs.213 And the federal government has allo- cated even greater funding. The U.S. Department of Labor has granted $24 mil- lion in funding for social-impact bond employment programs,214 while the De- partment of Treasury is soliciting project ideas for the proposed development of a $300 million Pay For Success Incentive Fund.215 For prison downsizing, us-ing social impact bonds should spur innovation, knowledge-building, and pro- gram accountability.
| Types | Organization |