Oregon Justice Reinvestment Initiative: Return on Investment Final Report

Problem

The Problem the Study Aimed to Address: 

The study assessed the outcomes of Oregon’s Justice Reinvestment Initiative (JRI), enacted by the 2013 House Bill 3194. This legislation aimed to restructure sentencing, reduce the state’s prison population, improve public safety, and hold offenders accountable while avoiding the construction of a new $210 million prison.

General Impact on the System and/or Public: 

The initiative allocated substantial state funding to counties to implement evidence-based programs aimed at reducing prison use and recidivism, thereby ensuring efficient use of resources in the criminal justice system and improving public safety outcomes.
 

Research Questions Answered:

1. What are the statewide impacts of JRI on prison use, recidivism rates, and other program goals?
2. What are the county-specific impacts of JRI on these metrics?
3. What are the effects of major programming efforts on outcomes related to these goals?
   
    

Method and Analysis

Program Evaluated or Gaps Addressed: 

The evaluation addressed gaps in understanding the localized implementation of JRI by analyzing program applications, budget allocations, and outcomes such as prison and recidivism reduction.
 

Data and Sample Size: 

Analysis of county-level JRI applications across four biennia (2013–2021).
Administrative data from the Oregon Department of Corrections and Law Enforcement Data Systems.
Statewide data spanned January 2010 to December 2019, providing pre- and post-JRI implementation insights.
 

Analysis Used:

• Descriptive coding of program strength (weak, moderate, strong) for recidivism and prison reduction.
• Interrupted time-series regression models for state-level impacts.
• Generalized mixed models for county-level impacts.

Outcome

Key Findings:

Statewide Impacts:

• JRI slowed the growth of Oregon's prison population, reducing it significantly after the 2017 legislative enhancements (HB 3078).
• Statewide recidivism measures (arrest, conviction, felony conviction, and incarceration) decreased, except for misdemeanor convictions, which increased slightly.
• Programs focused on treatment and direct services correlated with stronger recidivism reductions than supervision-focused programs.

County-specific Impacts:

• Counties with stronger prison reduction programs showed greater reductions in imprisonment rates relative to court filings.
• Recidivism reduction efforts significantly reduced rates of arrest and imprisonment for JRI-specific crimes.

Program Effectiveness:

• Counties using more funds for direct service programs experienced better outcomes than those focusing on personnel and supervision.
  
   

Implications/Recommendations: 

• Encourage counties to adopt evidence-based sentencing reforms for sustained prison population reduction.
• Invest more JRI funds in treatment and rehabilitation programs to maximize recidivism reductions.
• Provide detailed program design, implementation data, and dosage metrics for future evaluations.
• Standardize county-level needs assessments to better allocate resources and tailor interventions.

This summary offers criminology researchers insights into evidence-based policy impacts, highlighting the importance of program design and the role of local implementation in achieving statewide reforms.