The Diffusion and Adoption of Justice Reinvestment across the United States
In general, it seems that most of the evidence in support of justice reinvestment comes from specific programs that have been implemented in various states (even those that have not yet implemented justice reinvestment as a statewide strategy) that have undergone evaluation and have been found to be successful (for examples, see: Sherman, et al., 1998 and Drake and Miller, 2009).6 Programs that exemplify “best practices” in one location are adopted in other locations; prison projections are then based on prior success of programs.
6 For example, Hawaii only petitioned for federal support and technical assistance for justice reinvestment in 2010, and was still in the data collection phase, when Hawaii’s Opportunity Probation with Enforcement program (HOPE) was touted in the justice reinvestment literature as a model for probation reform that other states should consider implementing. HOPE was evaluated by independent researchers using methods that included a random, control group, and probationers involved were significantly more successful, in terms of decreased drug use and revocation to prison, than probationers who were not enrolled in the program (Hawken & Kleiman, 2009). The results were so successful that the BJA offered grants to four states to implement the same program so that its merits could be evaluated, and attempted federal legislation was initiated to fund HOPE nationally through the Honest Opportunity Probation with Enforcement (HOPE) Initiative Act of 2009, which died in committee.