This is happening in the U.S. too. Some of the counties are under court mandates around overcrowding in the jails. The goal is to have individuals in their communities but without any support, they often miss court dates or other obligations and then they get a warrant and end up back in jail in a worse position. Also, in this situation, the root cause of the arrest is never being addressed.
Our plan is to start working with individuals who are in jail pre-trial, but after many conversations with different stakeholders it became apparent that we should also work with individuals who have been convicted. So it is part of our plan to work with individuals who are on probation, parole and those who could be serving their sentences in the community. There is an opportunity to support these individuals so that they are less likely to violate their conditions of release and end up back in jail.
You are correct. Needs of those in the criminal justice system vary widely. This will depend on the government partners in each jurisdiction that we are in. Some clients will assign us participants and some will give us guidelines on who we are able to work with. In any case, once we get individuals into the program, our intake is what really tells us what services would be beneficial to them. We will then work to connect the with the best services in their area given their specific needs.
We believe that is necessary. There are many organizations and individuals working on this issue. We support change to the culture of mass incarceration. We believe getting people out of jail and helping to support them while they are out is part of that change.
Thank you. Every jurisdiction has their own protocol. Bail is usually set based on a bail schedule. In CA, every county has their own bail schedule. The judge can then listen to arguments to either increase or decrease the bail amount based on different factors around whether they will be a flight risk and whether they will be a danger to the community. Once a bail is set, most people who have money bail out. Those that don't sit in jail until their case is resolved. In many counties, courts do have the option of releasing someone on their own recognizance or with some type of supervision. New laws like In re Humprey (a recent decision out of SF) is changing the way that courts can set bail.
When you are in jail or someone you love is in jail the choice to get out with a smartphone app and support is pretty clear. It is interesting feedback about monitoring but when it is you or your family, you want out. The most folks reaching out to us, have families who are trying to help their loved ones.
We agree. It is also really troublesome to make the case that poor people who cannot afford bail should be kept incarcerated for public safety, but people who have the money to bail out, can await trial at home.
The people that make bail have a financial incentive to “be good”, and not forfeit their bail. That part of the system works fine.... if they offend while out on bail, Uncle Sam gets paid. It’s a broken fix for a broken system.
Harsh(er) punishments are an effective deterrent, and if they don’t deter they should be harsh enough to wipe out offenders through attrition. Eg, shoplifting with 2 hands is easy, with 1 hand is difficult, and with 0 hands is nearly impossible.
We spent most of our professional lives in non profits and the last 6 years in for profit. We believe the business will better serve people with the structure for many reasons, such as hiring, not having to deal with foundations or individual donors, etc. We believe good people can run and create good companies.
First it is great you are tackling a real social issue.
If it works it looks like it could have a positive impact. How ever I have a few concerns/questions
1. How will the incentives be aligned? More people standing trial = larger potential market.
2. This is a false dichotomy.
“Not having to deal with foundations”
There are other models that do not require you to take donor funding. Take a look at the model by Muhammad Yunus[0] or writing by Porter on shared value [1]. For e.g one could generate cash flow for expenses without having investors looking for a return.
3. While a profit motive can be useful to encourage innovation and competitiveness, this can have negative consequences. For e.g in this case what is good for business is not necessarily good for society.(more suspects)
4. Would you consider this a fundamental solution?
5. What outcome are you after?
6. Is there a way to prevent people even Being suspected of a crime? Preventing them committing a crime?
7. Using leverage points from Donella Meadows [2] Where does this fall?
8. Have you looked at systems theory? Very useful for really complex social challenges like the one you are trying to tackle acumen has a free course. [3].
8. Is this solution a short term one with a more long term(fundamental) plan for the future?
