Performance Incentive Funding has been receiving a lot of attention lately, as states try to reduce their correctional budgets. So far, eight states, Arkansas, California, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Ohio, South Carolina and Texas have enacted Performance Incentive Funding (PIF) legislation.
According to the Vera Institute of Justice, “PIF programs are premised on the idea that if the supervision agency or locality sends fewer low-level offenders to prison—thereby causing the state to incur fewer costs—some portion of the state savings should be shared with the agency or locality. With PIF, agencies or localities receive a financial reward for delivering fewer prison commitments through reduced recidivism and revocations that, in turn, must be reinvested into evidence-based programs in the community.” click here to go to website
Performance Incentive Funding: Aligning Fiscal and Operational Responsibility to Produce More Safety at Less Cost, a new report issued by the Vera Institute on Sentencing and Corrections, claims that there is a serious “structural flaw” in America’s criminal justice system that encourages the courts, and probation and parole departments to sentence low-level, and low-risk, criminals to prison, thereby increasing already sky-rocketing court and correctional costs. Many petty criminals are often sent back to prison for a minor probation or parole violation.
The report details how the eight states with Performance Incentive Funding legislation have successfully reduced recidivism rates, deterred non-violent offenders convicted of a minor crime from being sent to prison, and increased public safety.
A portion of the report Offers “Key Considerations in Designing and Implementing a Performance Incentive Funding Program” which includes advice on how to:
Choose an Administrative Structure
Select a Funding Mechanism
Provide Seed Funding
Select Outcome Measures
Determine Baseline Measures