Community Justice

A private‐sector, incentives‐based model for justice reinvestment

“…The theoretical foundation for justice reinvestment includes the broad literature of community development (Anglin, 2004). The practical foundation is a wide range of experiences, documented by various advocates and policy groups (see Clear and Cadora, 2000; Council of State Governments, 2010a; Tucker and Cadora 2003; Urban Institute, 2010). Reducing mass incarceration is an idea that appeals to the left; reducing the costs of government is an idea that appeals to the right.…”

Extending Dynamic Mapping to Reentry Practitioners

“…CSMS builds on previous efforts to use geospatial technology and approaches to understand prisoner reentry at the local level. Over a decade ago, researchers began mapping patterns of incarceration and related issues such as poverty, crime, and public service use across neighborhoods and cities, with much of this work undertaken by the Justice Mapping Center 4 (Clear & Cadora, 2002). Expanding on this approach and other efforts to map justice topics, the Urban Institute (Urban) launched the Reentry Mapping Network (RMN) in 2002.…”

Community justice and public safety: Assessing criminal justice policy through the lens of the social contract

“…The relationship between incarceration/reentry and crime rates also depends on the neighborhood’s level of incarceration. High rates of incarceration and returning prisoners, and the consequences arising therefrom, are not characteristic of all neighborhoods but are instead heavily concentrated in particular neighborhoods (Clear, 2007; Clear and Cadora, 2001; Clear and Rose, 2003; Gottfredson and Taylor, 1988; Lynch and Sabol, 2004a; Pettit and Western, 2004; Piquero et al, 2006; Rose and Clear, 1998). Coercive mobility theory proposes that incarceration can have a suppressive effect on crime, but only until incarceration rates reach a “tipping point” (Clear, 2007: 164).…”