New report finds little evidence that prison-reduction efforts backed by the U.S. Department of Justice have achieved their stated goals

Researchers at the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation (CJLF), a California-based law and policy group, have released a report which indicates that the federally-funded Justice Reinvestment Initiative (JRI) has largely failed to deliver on its promise of enhancing public safety while reducing incarceration. The grant program has spent about 380 million dollars since inception, and it was funded for 32 million dollars in grants in fiscal year 2025. The Administration’s latest budget proposal, released May 30, would eliminate this funding.

This report does not dismiss the value of community-based programs for certain nonviolent individuals. However, there is a widespread failure in the current program to produce data to demonstrate that the program has actually had any positive impact on crime rates or public safety.

Launched in 2010 and supported by the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the JRI provides grant funding to incentivize states to reduce incarceration rates and reinvest savings into community-based programs. While the initiative aims to reduce prison populations, improve rehabilitation, and enhance public safety, CJLF’s report finds little evidence that the rehabilitation and safety goals have been met.

Although many supporters of the initiative point to reductions in prison populations as proof of success, the report argues that this metric is insufficient and misleading as a sole determinant of “success.” In states where recidivism was measured, the results were mixed, directly contradicting claims that the initiative is enhancing long-term safety outcomes.

“These federal grants encourage states to adopt alternatives to incarceration, but too often states fail to track the most important outcomes like crime, recidivism, and rehabilitation,” said CJLF Research Associate Elizabeth Berger, author of the report. “Many state assessments paint an overly optimistic picture of success by celebrating milestones such as fewer people incarcerated or increased probation populations, without demonstrating that public safety has actually improved. This lack of rigorous evaluation and transparency can mislead policymakers and the public about the true effectiveness of these reforms.”

The report also criticizes the implementation of so-called “evidence-based” programs funded by JRI, noting that many were adopted without proper evaluation or were poorly executed, limiting their effectiveness.

There is a troubling disconnect between what the initiative promises and what it has actually delivered. After all this investment and effort, we still lack clear answers on whether these reforms improve safety. That uncertainty itself is cause for concern.

The authors conclude that, due to the lack of meaningful tracking and reporting on key outcomes such as rehabilitation and recidivism, there is no substantial evidence that the federal funding has actually improved public safety. The report suggests two possible paths forward: overhaul the program with serious accountability measures, or end the federal grants entirely and allow states to make the relevant policy choices on their own.

“It appears that the Administration has chosen to end it, not mend it,” said CJLF’s Legal Director Kent Scheidegger. “That is a feasible choice, and better than the status quo,” he added

The full report, Justice Reinvestment Initiative Falls Short of Achieving Public Safety Goals, is available at: https://www.cjlf.org/publications/JRIReport.2025.pdf.