This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2014, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.

Since April, public servants from every juncture of Utah's criminal justice system have met to review reams of data, ask difficult questions, and hash out recommendations about what our state should do to address its growing population of men and women behind bars.

That's because Utah is knee-deep in a "Justice Reinvestment Initiative" – a process, supported by the Pew Public Safety Performance Project, meant to help Utah better invest taxpayer dollars in support of public safety and strong communities through evidence-based criminal justice practices.

This process has revealed that Utah is keeping people in prison longer than it used to - perhaps unnecessarily wasting hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars each year, while preventing repentant individuals from making restitution and repairing their lives by returning to meaningful participation in community life.

Members of the Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice seem genuinely committed to multi-year process that addresses many of the cracks in Utah's system. They continually reference the important principles of Justice Reinvestment: better utilizing taxpayer dollars in support of public safety, while also offering individuals in the system a real chance to successfully rejoin their families and communities. These principles also reflect the values of many Utahns.

Only time will tell, though, if Utah's Justice Reinvestment Initative is the real thing – or just a chance to look like Utah is doing something positive. States from Texas and South Dakota to Hawaii and Oregon have undertaken Justice Reinvestment efforts. Some have been heralded as true successes. Others have resulted in little improvement…and a lot of disappointment.

In South Carolina, significant enough reforms were made — and backed by serious enough funding — to result in an 8 percent drop in the state's overall prison population. Policymakers there implemented meaningful sentencing reform, improved paroling and release policies, expanded community-based treatment options, and more.

Republican South Carolina Sen. George E. Campsen III remarked of the resulting Justice Reinvestment legislation: "This approach is soft on the taxpayer and smart on crime. It is soft on the taxpayer because it will reduce the need to build more prisons. It is smart on crime because community-based alternatives such as restitution and drug courts entail more accountability and have been proven to reduce recidivism."

Sen. Campsen and his colleagues took seriously the reform directive from their governor, chief justice, Senate president and House speaker. As a result, South Carolina interrupted an explosive trend in prison population growth, and actually realized a decrease in the need for expensive prison beds.

Oklahoma, by contrast, was not as courageous. That state's reform effort focused narrowly on post-release supervision, and several key reforms went largely unfunded. Some initial Justice Reinvestment supporters who participated in formulating Oklahoma's policy recommendations later expressed frustration that their hours of hard work amounted to little. State leaders, it appears, paid lip service to Justice Reinvestment, but did not back up their words with strong action.

What we've witnessed so far has made the ACLU of Utah hopeful that our state will take the route of serious reform, as South Carolina did, instead of faltering like Oklahoma. As CCJJ members begin to draft their Justice Reinvestment legislation in October, we encourage them not to squander this incredible opportunity to make Utah's criminal justice system an example to the rest of the nation.

Anna Brower is a public policy advocate for the ACLU of Utah.