[Joint House and Senate Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 110-299
MASS INCARCERATION IN THE UNITED STATES: AT WHAT COST?
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
JOINT ECONOMIC COMMITTEE
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
OCTOBER 4, 2007
__________
Printed for the use of the Joint Economic Committee
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
39-645 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2008
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866)512-1800
DC area (202)512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail Stop SSOP,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
JOINT ECONOMIC COMMITTEE
[Created pursuant to Sec. 5(a) of Public Law 304, 79th Congress]
SENATE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Charles E. Schumer, New York, Carolyn B. Maloney, New York, Vice
Chairman Chair
Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Maurice D. Hinchey, New York
Jeff Bingaman, New Mexico Baron P. Hill, Indiana
Amy Klobuchar, Minnesota Loretta Sanchez, California
Robert P. Casey, Jr., Pennsylvania Elijah E. Cummings, Maryland
Jim Webb, Virginia Lloyd Doggett, Texas
Sam Brownback, Kansas Jim Saxton, New Jersey, Ranking
John E. Sununu, New Hampshire Republican
Jim DeMint, South Carolina Kevin Brady, Texas
Robert F. Bennett, Utah Phil English, Pennsylvania
Ron Paul, Texas
Michael Laskawy, Executive Director
Christopher J. Frenze, Republican Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Opening Statement of Members
Statement of Hon. Jim Webb, a U.S. Senator from Virginia......... 1
Statement of Hon. Carolyn B. Maloney, Vice Chair, a U.S.
Representative from New York................................... 3
Statement of Hon. Sam Brownback, a U.S. Senator from Kansas...... 5
Statement of Hon. Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott, a U.S.
Representative from Virginia................................... 6
Witnesses
Statement of Dr. Glenn C. Loury, Professor of Economics and
Social Services, Brown University.............................. 11
Statement of Dr. Bruce Western, Director, Inequality and Social
Policy Program, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard
University..................................................... 15
Statement of Alphonso Albert, Executive Director, Second Chances. 17
Statement of Dr. Michael P. Jacobson, Director, Vera Institute of
Justice........................................................ 19
Statement of Pat Nolan, Vice President, Prison Fellowship........ 22
Submissions for the Record
Prepared statement of Senator Jim Webb........................... 41
Prepared statement of Carolyn Maloney, Vice Chair................ 43
Prepared statement of Senator Sam Brownback...................... 44
Prepared statement of Congressman Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott,
Chairman for the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland
Security....................................................... 45
Prepared statement of Dr. Glenn C. Loury, Merton P. Stolz
Professor of the Social Sciences, Department of Economics,
Brown University............................................... 47
Charts:
Violent crime rates...................................... 47
Direct expenditure by criminal justice function, 1982-
2004................................................... 48
Figure 2.2, Drug offenses and arrest rate ratio.......... 51
Figure 2.3, High school seniors reporting drug use....... 51
Winning the war? Drug prices, emergency treatment and
incarceration rates: 1980-2000......................... 52
Changes in the spatial concentration of incarceration in
New York City: 1985-1996............................... 53
Marijuana possession arrests in New York City in three
decades................................................ 55
New York City marijuana possession arrests of Whites,
Hispanics and Blacks in two decades.................... 56
Responses by Dr. Glenn C. Loury to Questions from
Representative Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott................... 54
Prepared statement of Bruce Western, Director, Department of
Sociology, Harvard University.................................. 57
Charts:
Figure 1. Employment-to-population ratios for African
American men without college education................. 58
Men with prison records by age 30-34..................... 62
Prevalence of life events for men b. 1965-1969........... 63
Pay and employment among ex-prisoners (NLSY)............. 64
Responses by Dr. Bruce Western to Questions from
Representative Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott................... 60
Prepared statement of Alphonso Albert, Executive Director, Second
Chances........................................................ 65
Responses by Alphonso Albert to Questions from Representative
Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott.................................. 65
Prepared statement of Michael Jacobson, Director, Vera Institute
of Justice..................................................... 66
Responses by Dr. Michael P. Jacobson to Questions from
Representative Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott................... 67
Prepared statement of Pat Nolan, Vice President, Prison
Fellowship..................................................... 68
Prepared statement of Congresswoman Sheila Jackson-Lee, of Texas. 73
MASS INCARCERATION IN THE UNITED STATES: AT WHAT COST?
----------
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 4, 2007
Congress of the United States,
Joint Economic Committee,
Washington, DC
The Committee met at 10:04 a.m. in room 216 of the Hart
Senate Office Building, the Honorable Jim Webb and Vice Chair
Carolyn B. Maloney, presiding.
Senators present: Webb, Casey, and Brownback.
Representatives present: Maloney, English, Scott, and
Hinchey.
Staff present: Christina Baumgardner, Stephanie Dreyer,
Chris Frenze, Nan Gibson, Gretta Goodwin, Rachel Greszler,
Colleen Healy, Aaron Kabaker, Israel Klein, Michael Laskawy,
Zachary Luck, Robert O'Quinn, Jeff Schlagenhauf, and Robert
Weingart.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JIM WEBB, A U.S. SENATOR FROM
VIRGINIA
Senator Webb [presiding]. The Committee will come to order.
I would like to thank Chairman Schumer for agreeing to hold
this important hearing, and for allowing me the opportunity to
chair it.
I would also like to thank our witnesses for appearing
today and, following my remarks, I would ask Vice Chair Maloney
and Senator Brownback to make some opening remarks. We also
have Congressman Bobby Scott over from the House side who has
worked long and hard on these issues and would like to say a
few words. Then if Congressman English would like to say
something, we will get an opening statement from him.
Then we will turn this over for up to 8-minute summaries of
statements from the panel, and then we will go into questions.
Over the course of the period from the mid-1970s until
today, the United States has embarked on one of the largest
public policy experiments in our history.
Yet this experiment remains shockingly absent from the
public debate. The United States now imprisons a higher
percentage of its citizens than any other country in the world.
In the name of getting tough on crime, there are now 2.1
million Americans in Federal, State, and local prisons and
jails, more people than the populations of New Mexico, West
Virginia, or several other States.
Compared to our democratic advanced-market economy
counterparts, the United States has more people in prison by
several orders of magnitude. All told, more than 7 million
Americans are under some form of corrections supervision,
including probation and parole.
America's incarceration rate raises several serious
questions. These include: The correlation between mass
imprisonment and crime rates; the impact of incarceration on
minority communities and women; the economic costs of the
prison system; criminal justice policy; and transitioning ex-
offenders back into their communities and into productive
employment.
Equally important, the prison system today calls into
question the effects on our society at a broad level. Winston
Churchill noted in 1910, ``The mood and temper of the public in
regard to the treatment of crime and criminals is one of the
most unfailing tests of the civilization of any country.''
With the world's largest prison population, our prisons
test the limits of our democracy and push the boundaries of our
moral identity.
The growth in the prison population is only nominally
related to crime rates. Just last week, in The Washington Post,
the Deputy Director of the Bureau of Justice Statistics stated,
and I quote, ``The growth in the incarceration rate wasn't
really about increased crime but how we choose to respond to
crime.''
The steep increase in the number of people in prison, is
driven, according to most experts, by changes in drug policy
and tougher sentencing, and not necessarily an increase in
crime.
Also, the composition of prison admissions has shifted
towards less serious offenses--parole violations and drug
offenses. Nearly 6 in 10 persons in State prisons for a drug
offense have no history of violence or significant selling
activity.
In 2005, four out of five drug arrests were for possession
and only one out of five were for sales. Is incarcerating low-
level drug offenders working, particularly given recidivism
rates?
The racial composition of America's prisons is alarming.
Although African Americans constitute 14 percent of regular
drug users, they are 37 percent of those arrested for drug
offenses and 56 percent of persons in State prisons for drug
crimes.
African Americans serve nearly as much time in Federal
prisons for drug offenses as Whites do for violent crimes.
A Black male who does not finish high school now has a 60-
percent chance of going to jail. One who has finished high
school has a 30-percent chance.
We have reached a point where the principal nexus between
young African American men in our society is increasingly
becoming the criminal justice system, and we are spending
enormous amounts of money to maintain this system.
The combined expenditures of local, State, and Federal
governments for law enforcement and corrections personnel now
total over $200 billion.
Prison construction and operations has become a sought
after, if uncertain, tool of economic growth for rural
communities.
Are there ways to spend less money, enhance public safety,
and make a fairer prison system?
Having such a large prison population also has significant
employment and productivity implications. The economic output
of prisoners is mostly lost to society while they are in
prison. These negative productivity effects continue in many
cases after release.
As we have gotten tough on crime, we have given up on
rehabilitating offenders. And we have created additional
barriers to re-entry with invisible punishments. These include:
ineligibility for government benefits, such as housing, public
assistance, or student loans. It is no longer simply possible
to pay one's debt to society.
We all want to keep bad people off our streets. We want to
break the back of gangs. We want to cut down on violent
behavior. But there is something else going on when we are
locking up such a high percentage of our people, marking them
at an early age, and, in many cases, eliminating their chances
for productive life as full citizens.
It will take years of energy to address these problems, but
I am committed to working toward a solution that is both
responsive to our needs for law and order and fairer to those
ensnared by this system.
I welcome the thoughts of our witnesses today regarding
these important topics, and also the beginning of a new
national dialogue to address these enormous policy issues.
[The prepared statement of Senator Webb appears in the
Submissions for the Record on page 41.]
With that, I would call on Vice Chair Maloney.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CAROLYN B. MALONEY,
VICE CHAIR, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM NEW YORK
Vice Chair Maloney. Thank you very much. First of all, I
join you in thanking Chairman Schumer for holding this hearing
to examine the economic, political, and social costs of
incarceration. I also thank Senator Webb for chairing, and all
of the panelists and all of my colleagues here today.
The United States has the highest incarceration rates in
the world with more than 2 million Americans currently in jails
or prisons.
Clearly, imprisonment benefits society and is an important
public safety measure, but faced with an unprecedented increase
in incarceration we must ask ourselves whether we are striking
the right balance between the costs and benefits of
imprisonment.
Putting more resources into creating economic opportunities
that provide alternatives to crime would pay dividends in
reducing crime and incarceration, while also strengthening
families and communities.
We all know that, in the long run, crime does not pay, but
it sure is costly. The average annual cost of incarceration for
one Federal prisoner exceeds $20,000 a year, far more than the
average annual cost of $3,700 for participating in a youth
program for a year; or $6,000 for one of our young people to
attend job training; or the $13,000 that we would pay for
tuition at public universities.
There is absolutely no question that crime rates have
dropped in the United States over the past decade. Researchers
agree that the increase in incarceration rates have been driven
by tougher sentences for repeat offenders and drug offenders,
mandatory minimums, and a more punitive approach to post-
release supervision, rather than an increase in crime.
The racial dimension of incarceration is inescapable. Half
of our prison population is African American, yet they
represent just 13 percent of the population of our country as a
whole.
It has become a sad truth that a Black man in his late
twenties without a high school diploma is more likely to be in
jail than to be working. The effect on Black communities has
been devastating.
As noted, Harvard sociologist Orlando Patterson wrote in
the New York Times recently: one in three African American
males in their thirties now has a prison record. He somberly
noted, and I quote, ``These numbers and rates are greater than
anything achieved at the height of the Jim Crow era,'' end
quote.
Women are typically convicted of nonviolent offenses. Most
women who enter the criminal justice system have experienced
physical or sexual abuse and many have physical or mental
health problems.
These inmates may actually benefit from alternatives to
imprisonment such as suspended sentences coupled with extensive
counseling. When mothers are incarcerated their children may be
placed in foster care or with other family members who then
need financial assistance to provide for the children.
Moreover, the removal of a significant family member can
affect the healthy development of children. The Catholic
Charities Diocese in my district, located in Queens and in
Brooklyn, operate a week-long summer camp that provides
opportunities for incarcerated mothers to have quality time
with their children.
Such programs serve as a means to maintain family bonds and
possibly provide a smoother transition and resumption of
parental responsibilities upon release.
If this program shows success, it could serve as a model
for the Nation. Providing employment and training assistance
for ex-offenders, is critical to reducing barriers to
employment, and it benefits families and benefits society.
I support the Second Chance Act of 2007, which provides
grants for re-entry programs that provide mentoring, academic,
and vocational education, employment assistance, and substance
abuse treatment for ex-offenders.
I look forward to hearing from our distinguished panelists
on how best to protect public safety, while addressing the many
costs of imprisonment. I might add, the way that we release men
and women from prison, with absolutely no assistance, leads, in
many cases, to them becoming second offenders, because they
have no place to go, they have no money, and, in many cases,
have no help.
So this is an important hearing. I congratulate the Senator
for leading us to this moment today. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Vice Chair Maloney appears in
the Submissions for the Record on page 43.]
Senator Webb. I thank the Vice Chair. I have been asked to
announce that there is a blue backpack in the back of the room.
Has it been claimed? Whoever--OK, thank you. You have helped us
move the hearing along without an evacuation of the room.
[Laughter.]
Senator Webb. Senator Brownback, we are very grateful for
your coming today, and I know you have done a lot of work in
this area. You now have the floor.
STATEMENT OF HON. SAM BROWNBACK, A U.S. SENATOR FROM KANSAS
Senator Brownback. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
appreciate you holding this hearing and the comments by Vice
Chair Maloney and her thoughts on this, as well.
I have worked on this a lot. I have spent time in prison. I
may be the only one in here that has spent a night in Louisiana
in a State prison there, and one in my State.
I did not have a record, but I went in and stayed, because
I was interested in the programs that were taking place in
these places, because the numbers are stark.
They are terrible, and they are quite an indictment of our
society. But I was looking for something that worked, and what
I found, are some very innovative programs around the country,
that particularly target the recidivism rates, which, to me,
that is one of the key things we can work on, is getting that
recidivism rate down.
Right now, the recidivism rate in the country, is roughly
about two-thirds; two-thirds of the people that go into State,
local, or Federal prisons, in this country, will go back.
And their family members are five times more likely to go
into prison, so it seems like--as somebody raised on a farm,
you hoe where the weeds are. This is where our problem is, and
let's go in and let's deal in those particular areas.
And that is the targeted focus of the Second Chance Act, a
series of grants for innovative programs that will cut
recidivism rates in half in 5 years.
And it is eclectic, it says, you know, whatever you have
got that is working--great, but if it does not work, we are not
going to continue it.
It is measurable, recidivism rates cut in half in 5 years,
and I think that is not soft on crime; I think that is smart on
crime.
And it is something that we need to do, and it is also
humanitarian in recognizing that every person is a beautiful,
unique soul, a child of a living god, regardless of whether
they are in prison or not.
And it tries to treat the individual as a person. I have
had a guy sometime back who said, we get into problems when we
look at people as problems and not as people. That includes
somebody that has committed a crime, even very difficult and
bad crimes.
So I think we have got some things we need to change here,
how we look at people in prison, what we do on bringing them
out of prison.
I think we have got a good model in the Second Chance Act.
It has passed the Judiciary Committee, it is a bipartisan bill.
It is ready for floor action, and I know that Chairman Webb is
a co-sponsor of the bill, as well.
I would hope this would be something that this Congress
could get done. I think we can get a signature on it from
President Bush, and really target this particular area of this
problem.
It does not fix the whole thing, but it does get at a
particularly key area. It is something that can work and
support these innovative programs.
I look forward to the panelists' presentations, and I
particularly appreciate Pat Nolan coming here on short notice.
They have worked on these topics a lot, and I hope we can move
forward with this topic and get something actually
accomplished. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Senator Brownback appears in the
Submissions for the Record on page 44.]
Senator Webb. Thank you very much, Senator Brownback.
Congressman Scott, who also has worked many, many years on
this, we appreciate you coming over to be part of the hearing
this morning, and you may feel free to make a statement.
STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT,
A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM VIRGINIA
Representative Scott. Thank you, Senator Webb. I want to
thank Senator Schumer and Vice Chair Maloney for the
opportunity to be with you today as we discuss the very
important subject of the costs of mass incarceration we have
seen in the United States.
Today, the United States is the world's leading
incarcerator, by far, with an average incarceration rate of
over seven times the international average.
The average incarceration rate in the rest of the world, is
somewhere around 100 per 100,000, and the rate in the United
States is over 700 per 100,000. In some inner city communities,
the rate goes above 4,000 per 100,000.
Russia has the next closest rate of incarceration, with 611
per hundred thousand, and everybody else is much lower. For
example, in India, the world's largest democracy, the rate is
30 per 100,000. In China, the world's largest country, by
population, the rate is 118 per 100,000.
We did not get here overnight. I have learned that when it
comes to crime policy, we have a choice: You can reduce crime
or you can play politics.
And the politics of crime is the get-tough approach, such
as more life with parole, mandatory minimum sentences, treating
more juveniles as adults. With this approach, no matter how
tough we got last year, we get tougher this year.
We have been putting more and more people in jail, and in
the last 30 years, we have gone from approximately 300,000
persons incarcerated in the United States in 1970 to over 2
million today. The annual costs have gone up to $65 billion a
year.
And the United States has some of the world's most severe
punishments for crime, including for juveniles. For more than
2,200 juveniles sentenced in the world to life without parole,
all but 12 are in the United States.
Research and analysis, as well as common sense, tells us
that no matter how tough you are on people who you prosecute
for crimes today, unless you are addressing the reasons they
got to the point to commit crimes in the first place, the next
wave developing in the system will simply replace those that
you take out. And the crime continues.
This is not to say that we should not prosecute crimes, or
that imprisonment has no impact. The problem is that you reach
a point of diminishing returns, with no appreciable benefit.
In fact, you run the risk of diminishing returns to
actually being counterproductive. For example, when you have so
many people in a community with criminal records, that the
criminal record no longer has a stigma or deterrent effect, you
have lost your deterrent effect of the criminal justice system,
altogether.
The corollary cost of mass incarceration resulting from the
tough-on-crime politics unfortunately falls, as we have heard,
disproportionately among minorities, particularly Black and
Hispanic youth.
The sad reality is that many children born in minority
communities today are, from birth, without appropriate
intervention, on what is called the cradle-to-prison pipeline.
When you see how simple it is to get them on a cradle-to-
college pipeline, it is tragic and much more costly to society,
economically and socially, if we do not do so.
There are other costs to consider when crime rates are
high, such as the high medical costs associated with gun
crimes. One study suggested that actuarial science estimated
that the annual cost of gun violence in the United States is
approximately $100 billion.
Fortunately, we have a choice. All credible research and
evidence shows that a continuum of evidence-based programs for
youth identified as being at risk of involvement in delinquent
behavior, and those already involved, will not only put kids on
an appropriate pipeline towards college, rather than prison,
but it will also save more money than it costs.
Washington State did an extensive study that showed that
evidence-based prevention and rehabilitation programs, such as
drug treatment, reduce crime and save money, when compared to
waiting for crimes to be committed and then sending offenders
to prison.
Washington State adopted many of the initiatives in that
study and, consequently, avoided having to build a new prison
as a result. There are huge opportunity costs in not doing what
the research and evidence tells us will reduce crime.
To illustrate, let's examine the impact in Virginia of the
lost opportunities associated with the get-tough crime policy
called abolish parole. Rather than invest in proven crime-
reduction measures that work, Virginia chose to go down the
costly and wasteful path of abolishing parole.
The proponents suggested that even if it worked perfectly,
the reduction in violent crime would be a statistically
insignificant 3 percent, and even that would be without
considering the counterproductive effects of no parole, such as
the fact that you cannot hold hardened criminals longer, and
the loss of incentive for prisoners to get an education and job
training while in prison.
They estimated that the cost of abolishing parole would be
$2.2 billion to build new prisons, and about a billion-a-year
operating costs.
Now, let's just do a little quick, back-of-the-envelope
arithmetic of that kind of budget. There are 11 congressional
districts in Virginia, so that is about $200 million for
construction and $90 for operations in each congressional
district of about 600,000.
So, for a city of 100,000, we are talking $30 million in
construction and $15 million in operating. Let's see what you
could have done with that.
For $30 million, you could have built ten $3 million Boys
and Girls Clubs or family resource centers. With the operating
expenses, you could have run those clubs and family resource
centers at $600,000 a year, and that would be $6 million.
You could have a thousand summer jobs and that would be
another million; a thousand summer camp scholarships at $1,000
and that would be another million; 4,000 after-school programs
at $250, another million; 2,000 college scholarships at $2,000,
and that is $4 million; services for 200 juveniles at $10,000 a
year, $2 million. You could have done all of that, or you could
codify a slogan without even knowing if you are reducing crime
or even increasing crime.
Of course, we have so many people locked up that we are
seeing, a large number returning to the communities, in most
cases, no better than when they started out.
This year, we have 650,000 people being released from State
and Federal prisons, along with 9 million leaving local jails.
The recidivism rate of 67 percent has to be dealt with.
Over one-third of the jailed inmates have physical or
mental disabilities, many had drug problems, and with no
parole, no good conduct credits, and other self development
initiatives being eliminated, we have limited vocational and
other developmental programs while in prison.
All of that, along with the disqualifications that result
from having a felony record, make it easy to see why the
recidivism rate is so high.
One program that has been hugely successful is the Federal
Prison Industries, but unfortunately, that program has just
been undermined with the provision in the Senate Defense
Authorization bill.
The Second Chance Act now pending before Congress will
provide a host of evidence-based approaches designed to reduce
the high rate of recidivism now occurring; and if we are going
to continue to send more and more people to prison with longer
and longer sentences, we should do as much as we reasonably can
to ensure that when they return from prison, they do not turn
around and go back to prison because of new crimes.
The primary reason for doing so is not to benefit the
offenders, although it does; the primary reason for doing so is
that it better assures that all of us and other members of the
public will be less likely to be victims of crime due to
recidivism, and we will also save the high costs of law
enforcement and incarceration.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for holding this very
important hearing and for inviting me to sit with you today.
[The prepared statement of Representative Robert C.
``Bobby'' Scott appears in the Submissions for the Record on
page 45.]
Senator Webb. Thank you very much, Congressman Scott. Are
there any other Committee members who wish to make an opening
statement before we go to the witnesses? Senator Casey?
Senator Casey. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for
calling this hearing, and I want the audience to know, as a
first-year Senator, how thrilling it is to be able to call Jim
Webb, Mr. Chairman.
[Laughter.]
Senator Webb. There is hope.
[Laughter.]
Senator Casey. And, Chairwoman Maloney, thank you for your
work on this issue and so many others.
Vice Chair Maloney. Thank you.
Senator Casey. I do not have a long statement, but I do
want to say that the problem that we are here to discuss today
and the testimony we will hear from this distinguished panel,
as we all know, is both a human tragedy and a fiscal nightmare,
and we are well aware of that.
But I think it is important that we do our best today to
listen and to learn, and I am honored to be in the presence of
so many people who have labored in this vineyard for a long
time. We are grateful for the work that is already been done.
But as you can see from this panel, from the Members of
Congress who are here, as well as others, that this is a
bipartisan challenge. Neither party has a corner on the market,
so to speak, of knowledge and wisdom and insight and
legislation.
Both parties, I think, are deeply concerned about this. I
have to say that one of the reasons that we're in this
demographic and fiscal challenge, and why so many lives have
been ruined, is that we failed, I think, as a country, and both
parties have failed to invest in children in the dawn of their
lives.
That's not the whole reason, that is not the only reason we
have this problem, but that is a big part of the problem.
I have a bill on pre-kindergarten education and Chairwoman
Maloney has similar legislation in the House, and others have
worked on this, but I think that today, it is not enough to
curse the darkness of that failure to invest.
We could do that all day long, and that is not enough. We
have to be concerned about the children and the young adults
who did not get the benefit of those investments. We have to
deal with them.
We cannot just talk about what should have happened to
them; we have got to deal with the challenges in their lives.
So, I know that this hearing today will bring light to that
darkness, and will further amplify and develop solutions to
this problem, so I thank the Chairman, and I am happy to be
here today.
Senator Webb. Thank you very much, Senator Casey. Any
others? Congressman Hinchey?
Representative Hinchey. Senator Webb, I just want to
briefly express my appreciation to you for drawing our
attention to this very important issue.
And it really is something that needs to be dealt with. It
is another example, I think, of kind of a self-inflicted wound
that we have put on our society.
And we have done so until fairly recently. Up until the
mid-1970s, the incarceration rate in the United States, was
fairly even with the rest of the world and we were not putting
ourselves up front in any way.
But policies changed back then, and over the course of the
last 35 years, the number of people that we have locked up in
prisons and jails across the country has gone up by more than
700 percent.
So this is an issue that really needs to be dealt with, and
it is an issue that we can deal with. This Congress must
address it.
It is, in part, I think, an example of how capitalism can
be used badly to deal with issues in ways that just make those
issues even worse to confront.
So Senator, I deeply appreciate your attention to this, and
the opportunity you have given us to learn more about it from
this distinguished panel.
And the incentive that, hopefully, this will provide for us
to make appropriate corrections.
Senator Webb. Thank you very much. Congressman English, did
you wish to make a statement?
Representative English. Let me just say, Mr. Chairman, that
I am delighted we are doing this hearing. It is immensely
timely.
I will submit my remarks for the record, with the idea that
we can hopefully proceed now to our much-awaited testimony from
this excellent panel.
Senator Webb. Thank you very much. We do have a very
distinguished panel. We appreciate all of you taking your time
to come here today. I know that our staff worked really hard to
get the right group of people who can help illuminate this
issue.
We are starting from our left to the right with Professor
Glenn Loury, who is the Merton P. Stoltz Professor of Social
Sciences at the department of economics at Brown University. He
has taught previously at Boston, Harvard, and Northwestern
Universities and the University of Michigan.
He is a distinguished academic economist who has
contributed to a wide variety of areas in applied microeconomic
theory, and has written extensively on racial inequality.
Professor Bruce Western, is the director of
multidisciplinary programs in inequality and social policy at
the Kennedy School of Government. He taught at Princeton from
1993 to 2007. His work has focused on the role of incarceration
in social and economic inequality in American society. He is
the author of ``Punishment and Inequality in America: A Study
of the Growth and Social Impact of the American Penal System.''
Alphonso Albert is the director of Second Chances in
Norfolk, Virginia, a program designed to provide comprehensive
support services that lead to full-time employment and social
stability for those individuals impacted by the stigma of being
labeled as ex-offenders.
Prior to working with Second Chances, Mr. Albert served as
the assistant director of business liaison for the city of
Norfolk's enterprise community initiative, Norfolk Works,
Incorporated.
Dr. Michael Jacobson is the director of the Vera Institute
of Justice. He is the author of ``Downsizing Prisons: How to
Reduce Crime and End Mass Incarceration.''
Prior to joining Vera, he was a professor at the City
University of New York Graduate Center and the John Jay College
of Criminal Justice. He served as New York City's correction
commissioner, probation commissioner, and deputy budget
director.
Pat Nolan is vice president of Prison Fellowship, where he
focuses on efforts to ensure that offenders are better prepared
to live healthy, productive, law-abiding lives on their
release. He served 15 years in the California State Assembly,
four of them as the Assembly Republican Leader.
Mr. Nolan has appeared before Congress to testify on
matters such as prison work programs, juvenile justice, and
religious freedom.
We welcome all of the witnesses. Normally, this is a 5-
minute round. I think, with the depth of knowledge of the
witnesses, I am prepared to go to 8 minutes, if any witness
wants to go to 8 minutes.
Dr. Loury, welcome. You can begin.
STATEMENT OF DR. GLENN C. LOURY, PROFESSOR OF ECONOMICS AND
SOCIAL SCIENCES, BROWN UNIVERSITY
Dr. Loury. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Madam Vice Chairwoman,
and distinguished Members, I thank you for the opportunity to
address this vital issue before your Committee.
There are six main points that I wish to make with this
testimony about the advent of mass incarceration as a crime
control policy in the United States:
First, let me reiterate what has already been said, which
is that over the past four decades, we have witnessed an
historic expansion of coercive State power deployed internally
on a massive scale.
As a result of this policy, the American prison system has
grown into a leviathan, unmatched in human history. Never has a
supposedly free country denied basic liberty to so many of its
citizens.
We imprison, as has been said, at a far higher rate than
any other industrial democracy in the world; we imprison at a
higher rate than Russia, China, and vastly more than any of the
countries in Europe.
Second, it is my considered opinion that this high level of
imprisonment, is not any longer, if ever it was, a rational
response to high levels of crime, rather, our mass
incarceration policy is an historical inheritance bequeathed to
us by wave after wave of crime fighting at the State and
Federal levels over the past 35 years.
This policy response, I firmly believe, has now become
counterproductive. The so-called War on Drugs, about which I
will have a little bit more to say at the end of this
testimony, is a leading example of one such misconceived policy
initiative that now has us in its grip.
Thirdly, I wish to point out that institutional
arrangements for dealing with criminal offenders in the United
States, evolved to serve expressive as well as instrumental
ends. This is perhaps not surprising, but it is also not an
entirely healthy development.
We have wanted to send message to the criminals and to the
law-abiding public alike, and we have done so with a vengeance.
In the process, we have, in effect, answered the question
of who is to blame for the maladies which beset our troubled
civilization? That is, we have, in effect, constructed a
national narrative; we have created scapegoats; we have
indulged our need to feel virtuous.
We have assuaged our fears. We have met the enemy, and the
enemy is them, the violent, predatory, immoral, irredeemable
thugs.
I believe that this narrative, which supports and
encourages our embrace of the policy of mass incarceration, is,
itself, a sociologically naive and morally superficial view
about how to deal with social problems at the bottom rungs of
American society.
Fourth, I feel constrained to observe that these people who
have offended, as Senator Brownback said in his opening
remarks, these people who have offended against our laws, are,
nevertheless, human beings, and while they may deserve
punishment, imprisoning them is something that we, the people
of the United States of America, are doing.
Indeed, punishment is one of the most politically salient
things that you can do in a democracy. The State is forcibly
depriving citizens of their liberty.
Precisely how we do such a thing is a measure of our
national character. And while this practice is necessary for
the maintenance of order in society, it should always be
undertaken humanely and in a spirit of hope, in a manner that
comports with our deepest political and spiritual values.
We ought never to lose sight of the essential humanity of
those whom we punish and of the humanity of those to whom
offenders are connected via the intimate ties of social and
psychic affiliation.
Unfortunately, we have not always lived up to this high
standard.
Fifth, I must call attention to, again, as has been noted,
a huge gap between the race in the incidence of punishment
which exists in our country.
Black Americans and Hispanics, together, account for about
one-quarter of the overall national population, but constitute
about two-thirds of the State and Federal prison populations.
The extent of racial disparity in imprisonment rates, is
greater than in any other area of American life. The scandalous
fact of the matter is that the primary contact between poorly
educated Black American men of a certain age, and the American
state, is via the police and the penal apparatus.
The coercive aspect of government is the most salient
feature of their experience of the public sector. My colleague
sitting here, Bruce Western, has estimated, as he will say, I
suppose, in greater detail, that some 59 percent of Black male
high school dropouts born in the late 1960s, had been sent to
prison on a felony offense at least once before they reached
the age of 35.
For these men and the families and communities with which
they are associated, the adverse effects of incarceration will
extend well beyond their stay behind bars.
A fundamental point to bear in mind is that the experience
of prison feeds back to affect the life course of those
incarcerated, in an adverse manner. The vast majority of
inmates do return eventually to society.
The evidence that prison has adversely affected their
subsequent life chances is considerable and impressive.
Now, I invite you to consider the nearly 60 percent of
Black male high school dropouts born in the late 1960s, who
will have been in prison before their 40th year. For these men,
their links to family have been disrupted.
Their subsequent work lives will be diminished. Their
voting rights may be curtailed or even revoked. They will
suffer, quite literally, civic excommunication from American
democracy.
It is no exaggeration to say that, given our zeal for
social discipline, these men will be consigned to a permanent,
non-White male nether caste. Yet, since these men, whatever
their shortcomings, have emotional and sexual and family needs,
including the need to be fathers and husbands, we will have
created a biopolitical situation where the children of this
nether caste are likely, themselves, to join a new generation
of untouchables. I understand that this is harsh language, but
I think it is a very harsh reality that I am describing.
In the interest of time, let me curtail reading my formal
remarks here, and just say, finally, that I want to make a few
observations about the War on Drugs.
This policy has not been successful, in my view, and it has
a hugely disparate, adverse impact on the African American
community. Consider the table, which is in your handout. It is
actually taken from Professor Western's book, giving a chart
showing drug offenses and arrest ratios over the period from
1970 to 2000.
What the chart shows is that in the 1970s, Blacks were
arrested for drug offenses at twice the rate of Whites, and by
the late 1980s, that ratio had grown to four times as great.
[The referenced chart appears in the Submissions for the
Record on page 51.]
However, as another chart in your handout, the figure
labeled ``High School Seniors Reporting Drug Use,'' also drawn
from Professor Western's work, shows Blacks do not use drugs at
any higher rate than Whites. Black high school seniors reported
using drugs at a slightly lower rate than did Whites.
[The referenced chart appears in the Submissions for the
Record on page 51.]
So we have a situation where, to deal with the problem, we
are punishing people, but the problem has been generated by
faults and failures in our society that are very broad in terms
of class and race, that do not fall with any one group.
It can be no surprise to us that if there is going to be an
open-air drug market in a city, it is going to take place by
the tracks, near the docks, in the dark corner, in places where
people can be anonymous.
And it is going to be manned and womanned by people whose
alternative opportunities are very scant, who do not have
education and who do not have another way of making money. That
can come as no surprise to us.
But that market would not be there in the first place if it
were not for ordinary Americans, your constituents, my
relatives, people like you and I, who want to engage in the
consumption of these substances.
When we punish the suppliers, we weight the cost of this
social malady wholly on one segment of a transaction that takes
two to tango. And the racial inequality of that is really quite
stark.
Let me close by giving one concrete illustration of what I
am talking about. I believe there is a floor chart that gives
statistics on marijuana arrests in New York City over the three
decades of 1977 through 2006.
If you could display it, please, what it shows is that--
this is just one city. It is an important city, of course, and
we have good data for New York City, so it is possible to
examine this empirically, but it is not uncharacteristic of
what is going on around the country.
[The referenced chart appears in the Submissions to the
Record on page 55.]
We changed our policy in the late 1980s and early 1990s,
and in New York City, the crackdown on marijuana possession,
was very severe. As you can see, in that decade from 1997 to
2006, 10 times as many people are being arrested for marijuana
possession in the city as had been in the decade prior.
If you could show the next chart, it gives a breakdown of
those arrests by race in New York City. What you will see for
the city there is just what I had been saying about the
national scene, which is that while the intensity of marijuana
arrests increases dramatically, the burden of those arrests is
borne vastly disproportionately by Black and Latino residents
of the city, relative to Whites.
[The referenced chart appears in the Submissions to the
Record on page 56.]
There is no reason to suppose that Blacks in New York City
are consuming marijuana or any other drug at any higher a rate
relative to Whites than is the national population, and we know
that there is really no racial disparity, or if anything,
Whites are consuming at a slightly higher rate in the national
population.
This result is a consequence of policing behavior and the
decisions that police are making about whom to arrest when they
see them smoking marijuana in public, but I merely want to give
it as a concrete illustration of the main point that I am
trying to make, which is that the weight of this institutional
transformation is being borne vastly disproportionately by some
of the most disadvantaged people in our society, and a
fundamental question of fairness is raised by that, in my mind,
and I want to call it to your attention.
Finally, let me just say this about the War on Drugs: I am
a economist and I cannot help take note of the fact--again, it
is in your handout--that while the War on Drugs--I have a chart
that says ``Winning the War: Drug Prices, Emergency Treatment,
and Incarceration Rates, 1980-2000.''
[The referenced chart appears in the Submissions to the
Record on page 52.]
I just cannot help but take note of the fact that the solid
line in that chart that is moving upward over the course of
those 20 years, is a measure of the number of inmates in prison
for drug offenses, that has increased steadily.
The dashed line in that chart, which also moves upward over
the course of those 20 years is a measure of the number of
emergency room admissions of people who have gone with drug
maladies to emergency rooms, and so that gives some measure of
the intensity of abuse of drugs.
All the other lines in that chart are measures of the
quality-adjusted price on the street, of heroin, cocaine, and
methamphetamine. As you can see, with the exception of
methamphetamine, which has a price spike in the late 1980s and
early 1990s, all of those lines are headed straight down, which
is to say that over the 20-year period from 1980 to 2000, while
we have severely ratcheted up the intensity of the punishment
of drug offenders, the problems from drug use have not abated--
witness the emergency room admissions--and the ease of
obtaining the substances on the street has not been diminished.
The best measure of that is the price of the substance on the
street, which has been going down, in quality-adjusted terms.
Senator Webb. Dr. Loury, we are going to have to ask you to
wrap this up pretty fast.
Dr. Loury. Thank you very much for the opportunity.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Loury appears in the
Submissions for the Record on page 47.]
Senator Webb. There will be further opportunities to get to
those points, and we thank you very much for the eloquent
testimony. Dr. Western?
STATEMENT OF DR. BRUCE WESTERN, DIRECTOR, INEQUALITY AND SOCIAL
POLICY PROGRAM, KENNEDY SCHOOL OF GOVERNMENT, HARVARD
UNIVERSITY
Dr. Western. Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee,
thank you for the opportunity of testifying today about the
causes and economic effects of the growth in the incarceration
rate.
The fraction of the population in State and Federal prison
has increased in every single year for the last 34 years. The
rate of imprisonment today is now five times higher than in
1972. The U.S. rate of imprisonment is 5 to 10 times higher
than in the longstanding democracies of Western Europe.
Internationally, our incarceration rate is only rivaled but
not exceeded by the incarceration rates of South Africa and
Russia.
Today's novel rates of incarceration are most remarkable
for their concentration among young African American men with
little schooling. To understand the prevalence of the penal
system in the lives of these young men, I calculated the
percentage of men who have ever been to prison by their mid-
thirties.
Most prisoners will be admitted for the first time, before
age 35, so this is an estimate of the lifetime chances of going
to prison.
Now we are talking about prison incarceration, not jail
incarceration. This is at least 12 months of time served in a
State or Federal facility, for a felony conviction. It is an
average of 34 months of time served.
For men born in the late 1940s, who reached their mid-
thirties in 1979, Blacks were 9 percent likely to go to
prison--about 1 in 10 Black men would go to prison, if they
were born in the late 1940s.
For Black men born in the late 1960s, the lifetime chances
of imprisonment had grown to 22.8 percent. Among Black men
without a college education, now in their early forties, nearly
a third have prison records, and for young Black male dropouts,
prison time has become a normal life event.
A number of people have quoted this statistic today, and I
estimate that about 60 percent of young Black male high school
dropouts born since the late 1960s will go to prison at some
point in their lives.
Young Black men are now more likely to go to prison than to
graduate college with a 4-year degree, and they are more likely
to go to prison today than to serve in the military.
These extraordinary rates of incarceration are new. We need
only go back 20 years to find a time when the penal system was
not pervasive in the lives of young African American men.
In the period of mass incarceration, Blacks have remained
seven to eight times more likely to be incarcerated than
Whites. This large racial disparity is unmatched by most other
social indicators.
Racial disparities in unemployment, non-marital child-
bearing, infant mortality, and wealth, for example, were all
significantly lower than the racial disparity in imprisonment.
These high rates of incarceration have significant economic
consequences. My analysis of the National Longitudinal Survey
of Youth indicates that incarceration reduces hourly wages by
between 10 and 15 percent, and this is in a population that has
very poor economic opportunities to begin with.
Annual employment is reduced by 10 to 15 percent. Because
of the combined effects on wages and annual employment, the
effects on annual incomes are very large, and I find that the
annual incomes of formerly incarcerated men are about 35
percent to 40 percent lower than for similar men who have not
been incarcerated.
These effects of incarceration on individual economic
status are not new. We can find research going back to the
1960s, providing similar results.
What is new is the scale on which these effects are now
being played out. Because returning prisoners are highly
concentrated in poor urban neighborhoods, the economic
penalties of incarceration now permeate the most economically
vulnerable families and communities.
Because incarceration rates are now so historically high,
assistance for reintegration and rehabilitation will also be
felt, not just by those coming out of prison, but by the poor
and minority communities from which they originate.
What can we do? I suggest three types of policies would
help alleviate the social and economic effects of mass
incarceration: Congress should reexamine the large number of
collateral consequences limiting the access of ex-felons to
Federal benefits and employment.
Many restrictions, such as limitations on educational,
welfare, and housing benefits, do not serve public safety,
impede the reintegration of the formerly incarcerated, and
penalize family members.
While restrictions on benefits or employment might be
justified, if they are closely linked to particular crimes,
such restrictions should be strictly time-limited, because of
the strong pattern of criminal desistance with age.
Two, Congress should support prisoner re-entry programs
that provide transitional employment and other services. Well-
designed programs have been found to improve employment and
reduce recidivism.
Research suggests that community-based re-entry programs
should ideally be integrated with education and other programs
in prison. Post-prison employment would be encouraged by
passage of the Second Chance Act.
I am very encouraged by the remarks of the Committee on the
Second Chance Act of 2007 today. Employer incentives can be
promoted through expansions of the Work Opportunity Tax Credit
and the Federal bonding program.
Three, Congress should support the establishment of
criminal justice social impact panels in local jurisdictions,
that can evaluate unwarranted disparities in juvenile and adult
incarceration.
By assessing the link between socioeconomic disparities in
offending and disparities in incarceration, local social impact
panels could identify and take steps to eliminate
disproportionate incarceration in poor and minority
communities, or indeed, in any community.
My research indicates that the penal system now places a
very heavy burden on poor and fragile families. But this story
is largely unknown outside the communities most affected.
Robust action by Congress can change our national
conversation about criminal punishment, help ensure that the
great benefits of our economy are passed on to the poorest, and
by doing so, will promote public safety. Thanks very much for
the opportunity.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Western appears in the
Submissions for the Record on page 57.]
Senator Webb. Thanks very much, Dr. Western. Alphonso
Albert, who has a hands-on career, I am very interested in
hearing your views, sir.
STATEMENT OF ALPHONSO ALBERT, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SECOND
CHANCES
Mr. Albert. Thank you. Chairman Webb, Vice Chair Maloney,
Senators, Congressman Scott, thank you for having me here
today.
I work in this area every day. I work with the offender
every day and I see a lot of the issues and problems firsthand.
Over the past 8 years, Second Chances has served more than
1200 offenders; provided more than 900 jobs at an average wage
of $9.00 an hour; maintained more than a 73-percent retention
rate for employment over 2 years, and something I neglected to
include in my written statement, but after listening to Senator
Brownback, I was reminded to include that we have maintained
less than a 10-percent recidivism rate over the 8-year period,
and that is for the entire 1200 that we have served.
We have initiated or implemented programs that work with
children of incarcerated parents in providing tutoring,
cultural outings, exposing them to alternative kinds of things.
We have instituted a housing initiative for offenders that
are returning, that are homeless. It is a permanent supportive
housing initiative.
We jointly collaborated with one of our late local State
funders and the city of Norfolk, and implemented a housing
program.
We have implemented three business enterprises where we
hire offenders at a minimum wage of $8 an hour, and if they are
able to get their license--and we help them get that, because
that is a major challenge. A drivers license and ID when they
leave prison is a major challenge and a major obstacle.
When they get a drivers license, we are able to pay them
$12 an hour with benefits. It is a moving company, a
landscaping company, and a building maintenance company that we
have initiated to employ the offenders ourselves, aside from
working with local employers.
There is a collateral cost, I think, to incarceration that
largely goes unspoken. And let me just say, before I get fully
into my presentation, that I wholeheartedly agree with the
recommendations of Dr. Western.
He really touched on some significant points that I think
we do not often think about when we talk about providing
services to offenders, supporting re-entry initiatives, and the
kinds of recommendations that he made earlier.
But the cost is one to the families, and most offenders
that we see, actually, I believe, all come from a family, but
most have families. One of the reasons that the stats that
Senator Brownback quoted about a family member is five times
more likely to be incarcerated themselves, is because the same
conditions that existed for that offender will exist for that
family member unless there is some intervening factor that we
try to disrupt, if you will.
It is not because those people are predisposed to
incarceration, but they are going to come up in the same
conditions. The children are going to come up in the same
conditions, they are going to be under-educated, have limited
employment opportunities, with the same influences around them,
and so they are subject to the same outcome and same results.
The greatest challenge that we face on a daily basis in
working with the offenders is lack of pre-release planning and
post-release services; pre-release planning, because the
expectation of the offender is often quite different when they
seek to get out, and the expectations of probation and parole,
if they have a probation officer, if they happen to have any
parole, which is getting less and less likely, the expectation
of how helpful that parole officer will be, what family members
will be.
We have instituted housing laws that are discriminatory,
which makes it difficult for an offender to even go back and
connect with his family.
I know, locally, in the city of Norfolk, with our local
housing authority, if an offender were to try to use his family
as a stabilizing source or force, whereas most people that get
in life crisis or life challenge or difficulty can go to
family, he cannot. He cannot be seen connected with the family.
He cannot go into that community again. Private-sector
housing persons are able to discriminate, based on him having a
record, so it is less and less likely that he can even get an
apartment or place of his own, even if he has resources.
Recently, the State of Virginia became one of seven States
around the country to participate in the National Governors
Association Re-entry Policy Academy. Virginia subsequently
initiated five pilot programs around the State, but they have
done so with no funding.
And with no funding, there are no counselors to initiate
pre-release planning, there is no funding to support post-
releases services to help people with case management, to help
people with job placement, job referrals, life skills training,
any kind of skills training that creates a situation where the
person is better off coming out than they were going in.
Those are some of the challenges that we face. I would
venture to say, at the legislative level, both locally,
statewide, and federally, we have had an approach that sort of
advocates revenge as opposed to exacting public justice.
It seems that we advocate for revenge, and so we get
systems--and when we work with offenders, like local circuit
court systems, collection agencies that seem content on
exacting greater levels of punishment, they feel compelled to
perpetuate the punishment, like, I want to be a part of this
that makes it more difficult for you to make a transition, so
that the offender gets no support.
If he is trying to get a collection on how many court costs
and fines he has, child support enforcement, that locks him up
when he is not working and says it is voluntary unemployment,
so he cannot earn money to pay off child support that he is
already amassed.
And so it seems that at every level, somebody else is
exacting more punishment. I will say this one last thing,
Senator Webb: A young lady came into my office. She was a part
of our program for a long time, and she has become a part of a
group we call the Advocates for Second Chances, and she
advocates for other people that are going through life
transition in the peer support group.
And she had been recently turned down for a license to get
her nursing license. She had gone to school, she had gone
through all the hoops, she had lost two jobs the year before,
and she came in my office and she sat down and she started
crying.
She asked me, she said, it has been 18 years and I would
like to know, when is the debt paid? At what point is this debt
going to be paid?
And I think a lot of our offenders face that daily, where
there seems to be no end to the punishment. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Albert appears in the
Submissions for the Record on page 65.]
Senator Webb. Thank you very much, Mr. Albert. I couldn't
agree more with what you just said.
Dr. Jacobson, welcome.
STATEMENT OF DR. MICHAEL P. JACOBSON, DIRECTOR,
VERA INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE
Dr. Jacobson. Thank you, and good morning Senator Webb,
Vice Chair Maloney, and to the rest of the Committee members
for inviting me here today.
The United States now spends over $60 billion annually to
maintain its Corrections System, reflecting the fact that we
imprison--as we have heard many times today--a greater
percentage of our population than any other nation on earth.
In the last 30 years we have seen our jail and prison
population rise from almost 250,000 to almost 2.3 million
currently, nearly a tenfold increase. The strain that this
geometric increase in those incarcerated puts on our States and
cities is cumulative and continues to grow.
Over the last decade and a half, the only function of State
governments that has grown as a percentage of overall State
budgets is, with the exception of Medicaid, corrections. The
rate of growth of spending on corrections in State budgets
exceeds that for education, health care, social services,
transportation, and environmental protection.
There is a very clear relationship between the amount of
money we spend on prisons and the amount that is available, or
not available, for all these other essential areas of
government. In many States--and California is one that
specifically comes to mind--one can literally see money move in
the budget from primary and secondary education to prisons.
State budgets tend to be largely zero-sum games, and
increases in corrections spending have absolutely held down
spending in these other areas of government, many of which are
also directly related to public safety.
Of course the obvious question this raises is: What do we
get for that money? Certainly there should be some significant
connection between our tremendous use of prison and public
safety.
As most people know, the United States experienced a large
crime decline from the early 1990s to the early 2000s, and it
would seem to make intuitive sense that our significantly
increasing prison systems played a major role in that decline.
In fact, it is a far more mixed story than it appears.
There is consensus among criminologists and social scientists
that over the last decade our increased use of prison was
responsible for only some--maybe one-fifth, but by no means
most--of the national crime decline.
Additionally, there is also agreement that going forward
putting even more people in prison will have declining
effectiveness as we put more and more people in prison who
present less and less of a threat to public safety.
At this point, putting greater numbers of people into
prison as a way to achieve more public safety is one of the
least effective ways we know of to decrease crime.
We know, for instance, that even after spending tens of
billions of dollars on incarceration, more than half of those
leaving prison are back in prison within 3 years, not a result
that anyone should be proud of.
We know that targeted spending for effective in-prison and
post-prison re-entry programs will reduce crime, and thus the
number of victims, more substantially than any prison
expansion. We know that diverting people who are not threats to
public safety from prison into serious and structured
community-based alternatives to prison is more effective than
simply continuing to incarcerate these same people at huge
expense.
In the same vein, research shows that increasing high
school graduation rates, certain neighborhood-based law
enforcement initiatives, and increases in employment and wages
will also more effectively reduce crime than a greater use of
prison.
We also know that incarcerating so much of our population,
and especially the disproportionate incarceration of people of
color, comes with other costs as well. We have heard many of
them already.
Hundreds of thousands of people leave prison annually with
no right to vote, no access to public housing, hugely limited
ability to find employment, and high levels of drug use and
mental illness.
These unintended consequences of incarceration ripple
through families and communities as those returning home are
overwhelmed by seemingly intractable obstacles. Not
surprisingly, astounding numbers wind up returning to prison,
further draining scarce resources that could be made available
to deal with some of these obstacles themselves.
As someone who used to run the largest city jail system in
the country, I know that most people who leave jail and prison
do not want to go back. It is a miserable and degrading
experience, and my colleagues who run these systems and I
always marvel about the number of people who, once they leave
prison, want to make good and do good.
Once they leave, however, they are confronted by such
overwhelming barriers on which we currently spend almost no
money or attention that no one should be surprised when these
same people return to prison so soon.
We know that States can continue to decrease crime and
simultaneously decrease prison populations. New York State, for
example, for the last 7 years has seen the largest decrease in
its prison population of any State in the country--a decline of
14 percent.
The rest of the States increased their prison populations
by an average of 12 percent over the same time period, and many
States increased far more than that.
At that same time, violent crime decreased in New York
State by 20 percent compared to just over 1 percent for the
rest of the country.
Prison populations can drop, along with crime and
victimization. If we were serious about using our limited
resources most effectively to reduce crime and victimization
and increase public safety, then we would begin to responsibly
and systematically transfer to community-based prevention, re-
entry, and capacity building some of the resources now used to
imprison people.
It is important to stress here that this is an issue of
public safety. Even putting aside all arguments about
efficiency and effectiveness, talking only in terms of public
safety, we will all be safer if we begin to re-invest into
other programmatic initiatives both inside and outside the
criminal justice system some of the money that now goes to
incarcerate people who do not pose a threat to public safety
and who, in fact, become more of a threat to public safety once
they have been imprisoned.
The fact is that almost all the extant research points out
that our prison system is too big, too expensive, drains funds
away from other essential areas that can more effectively
increase public safety, and is harmful to our poorest
communities.
Despite all this research, however, we continue to imprison
more and more people. There are a host of reasons for this
ongoing trend, including the attraction of prisons as engines
of economic development for rural communities, the financial
incentives for public employee unions as well as for the
private prison industry in spending more on prisons, the
realities of the budget process and constrained budgets that
limit opportunities to make substantial investments in new
initiatives, and the omnipresent hyper-politics that surround
issues of crime and punishment in the United States.
These are all formidable obstacles, but none should be
sufficient to keep us from educating policymakers and the
public that there is a better way to be safe and have less
crime. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Jacobson appears in the
Submissions for the Record on page 66.]
Senator Webb. Thank you very much.
Mr. Nolan, welcome.
STATEMENT OF PAT NOLAN, VICE PRESIDENT,
PRISON FELLOWSHIP
Mr. Nolan. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman and Members, I appreciate very much this
opportunity to share my thoughts with you on the costs of the
massive increase in incarceration in the United States. As Mr.
Chairman mentioned, I am vice president of Prison Fellowship
and served in the California Legislature for 15 years, 4 of
those as Republican leader. I was reliably tough on crime
legislator.
I was one of the original sponsors of the Victims Bill of
Rights and was awarded the Victims Advocate Award by Parents of
Murdered Children.
Then I was prosecuted for a campaign contribution I
accepted which turned out to be part of an F.B.I. sting, and I
served 29 months in Federal custody.
Now God has placed me in a position of Prison Fellowship
that allows me to share my observation with government
officials like you to use my experience as a lawyer, a
legislator, and a prisoner to improve our system.
The figures on incarceration are staggering. One in every
32 adult Americans is in prison or on supervised release--1 in
every 32.
Prisons have become the fastest growing item in State
budgets, siphoning off dollars that could otherwise be
available for schools, roads, and hospitals. Offenders serve
their sentences in overcrowded prisons where they are exposed
to the horrors of violence, including rape; isolation from
family and friends; and despair.
The best way I can describe to you how it feels to be in
prison is: I was an amputee. I was cut off from my family, from
my home, from my community, from my job, and from my church.
Then, with my stumps still bleeding, I was tossed into a
roiling cauldron of anger, bitterness, despair, and often
violence.
Most inmates are idle in prison, warehoused with little
preparation to make better choices when they return to the free
world. Just one-third of all released prisoners will receive
vocational or educational training in prison.
While about 3 of every 4 prisoners has a substance abuse
problem, less than 20 percent will receive any drug-abuse
treatment while they are incarcerated.
The number of returning inmates is now four times what it
was just 20 years ago, yet there are fewer programs to prepare
them for a successful return to our communities.
On leaving prisons they will have difficulty finding
employment. The odds are great that they will return to prison.
More than 700,000 inmates will be released next year from our
prisons. To put that in context: That is three times the size
of the United States Marine Corps. Over 1900 felons a day will
be released from prisons and returned home.
What has been done to prepare them to live healthy,
productive lives? What kind of neighbors will they be? Our
large investment in prisons might be justified if inmates were
reformed in their hearts and their habits, but most inmates do
not leave prisons transformed into law-abiding citizens.
In fact, the very skills they learn inside to survive make
them anti-social when they come home. The fact of the matter is
that if things continue as they are, most of the inmates
released will commit more crimes.
Over the last 30 years, the rate of recidivism has remained
steadily at about two-thirds. If two-thirds of the patients
leaving a hospital went home sick, we would find a better way
to treat them.
We have to find a better way to help inmates change their
lives so they can live safely in the community.
One important step would be to pass the Second Chance Act.
I am delighted that so many members on the dais are co-sponsors
of it. We are very close to passing it. It will help our States
and communities develop ways to prepare inmates for their safe
and successful transition home.
But in addition to prison preparation, we must also examine
the sentencing statutes that put so many nonviolent offenders
in prison. Certainly we need prisons to separate the dangerous
offenders from our society. But given the over-crowding and
violence in our prisons, why on earth would we send a
nonviolent person to prison?
Prisons are for people we are afraid of. Yet our sentencing
laws have filled them with people we are just mad at.
Changing our sentences so that low-risk offenders are
punished in the community under strict supervision would reduce
overcrowding in prisons and help control the violence. It would
hold low-risk offenders accountable without exposing them to
violence and the great difficulties of transitioning back to
employment in the community after their sentence.
The moment after offenders step off the bus, they face
several critical decisions:
Where will they live?
Where can they get a meal?
Where should they look for a job?
How do they get to the job interview?
And where can they earn enough money just to pay for the
necessities of life?
Returning inmates are also confronted with many details
that are just personal business, for example, obtaining ID
cards. Why on earth would we send inmates home from prison
without an ID or a license? We know who they are.
Some States--Alabama, for instance, gives them a check for
$5, but no ID. Now how do you cash that check when you get
home?
Making medical appointments is extremely difficult for
them, as is working through the many bureaucratic problems of
everyday life. Individually they are difficult. Taken together,
they can be overwhelming.
The difficulties that inmates face prompt intense stress,
and they worry about the logistics of just getting by. To
someone who has had no control over their lives for a period of
years, it floods them with too much, too many decisions to
make.
My own experience is a good example. The day I came to the
halfway house, a bunch of my buddies from the capitol took me
to the 8th Street Deli. They all ordered. The waiter stood
there. I knew what I was supposed to do, but my eyes raced over
the menu and I was paralyzed. I couldn't decide what to order.
For 2 years I had not had a choice over what to eat. So
finally, out of embarrassment, I just ordered what my eyes lit
upon just to get that humiliation over with.
Now, think about the person that leaves prison that did not
come from a good family, that did not have my education, that
did not have the strong faith I had. How do they deal with all
these issues? Issues of life and death in many cases. That's
what confronts them. And we do so little to prepare them.
I realize I am running out of time. I would just like to
make a couple of extra points. One is the importance of mentors
and the Second Chance Act as a grant program to help community
and faith-based groups establish mentoring programs.
What at-risk people need are loving people to help them
with all these decisions I just discussed. Dr. King said: ``To
change someone, you must first love them and they must know
that they are loved.''
The government and its programs cannot love a person; only
people can do that. So we really need to encourage volunteers,
most of which come from churches, synagogues, and mosques, to
come along beside these people and invest in them.
Prison Fellowship for 31 years has served prisoners, ex-
prisoners, and their families. We have found six things that
are essential.
One is: Community. Put men and women in facilities, in
dorms, housing units, where those that want to change their
lives can have a community free from the usual prison
atmosphere.
Second: Consistency. Being able to work with them on a
consistent and frequent basis--daily if possible.
Third: Character. A focus on moral and personal issues that
led to criminal behavior. The inmates need a moral compass to
help them make the decision when they get out. They say
``character'' is doing what is right when no one is looking. We
have to help them understand why that is important.
Fourth: It is comprehensive. It should focus on
transformation of every aspect of their lives: Spiritual
formation, education, vocational training, substance abuse
treatment, life skill training, and parental skills.
Fifth: It should be continuous. It should start in prison--
--
Senator Webb. Mr. Nolan, we are going to have to ask you to
summarize your remarks.
Mr. Nolan. As a State legislator I made the mistake of
thinking that locking up more people would automatically make
us safer. Only when I was in prison did I realize that
imprisoning so many of our people while doing little to prepare
them to come home actually makes us less safe.
When two out of three inmates are arrested within 3 years
of release, our criminal justice system is failing us. Prisons
do not exist as an end in themselves. They exist to make our
communities safer. We must hold them accountable to do that.
I am grateful to God that I live in the United States so
that Inmate 06833097 can come and testify before Congress and
express my opinions without fear of arrest. And I am so
grateful to all of you for caring enough to hold this hearing
and try to start a public discussion of this serious problem
that confronts us.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Nolan appears in the
Submissions for the Record on page 68.]
Senator Webb. Thank you very much, Mr. Nolan, for your
testimony. I appreciate all of the testimony today. It has been
very eloquent, and I appreciate the patience of our colleagues
here. We all have to run according to the clock, but there is
so much valuable information that we need to be listening to,
so I did extend the clock quite a bit.
I will begin our question period. We will go down the line
and have more than one round, if people want to ask further
questions.
I would like to just quickly start off by saying I became
interested in this on a policy level about 25 years ago when I
was, to my knowledge, the first American journalist who was
able to get inside the Japanese jail system. I did a story for
Parade Magazine about Americans in Japanese Jails.
At that time, even though I had been a committee counsel
here, and I had a law degree, it was the first time that I
really sat down and read--I read all of the Bureau of Justice
Statistics about crime in the United States to try to make a
comparison, and there were a couple of things that jumped out
at me at that point.
One was that Japan had a population half the United States,
one-half exactly at that time, and they only had 40,000 people
in jail. They had 50,000 people under government control,
10,000 awaiting resolution of their cases. But at that time we
had 780,000 people in jail, and we were probably second in the
world in terms of the incarceration rate. Now we have got more
than 2 million people in jail.
I have followed this over the years, and I am grateful that
I have had the opportunity to be able to start to work on this
process, and I am committed to trying to do something about
this not just today in this hearing but in the future.
One of the things that needs to happen in my opinion,
whenever you start trying to turn policies around, is that the
American public needs to understand the dimensions of the
problem, the cultural dimensions of the problem rather than
simply going to one bill or another bill.
In the testimony today there were a couple of things that
had come up. And Dr. Loury you were very specific about this in
your writings, which I have found to be incredibly perceptive.
Karl Zinsmeister, who works in the White House now.
Vice Chair Maloney. Chairman Webb, we have a series of
votes in the House, so we----
Senator Webb. Would you like to say something before you
go, then?
Vice Chair Maloney. I just would like to----
Senator Webb. I will interrupt my questions and----
Vice Chair Maloney. Just 2 seconds to welcome very strongly
Dr. Jacobson, who has served with great distinction in the city
in which I live, and I know him from my city council days.
Congratulations on your service. I thought all of your
testimony was very moving, and we want to do something about
it. But right now we have got to go vote and we will try to get
back, but thank you.
Senator Webb. Well thank you very much for coming over, and
I hope we can work on this more in the future.
Two pieces come together, and I would like to get your
reactions on this: One is that Karl Zinsmeister was saying at a
panel--he works for President Bush now, he used to be the
editor of American Enterprise Magazine and had worked for
Senator Moynihan at one point--he was talking about the fact
that family stability is a key indicator to success in America.
And what we see here when you are discussing the adverse
effects of the avalanche that continues down when we go into
incarceration is the incredible impact on and the destruction
of the family, particularly in the Black community right now.
A second piece that I find very persuasive--and I would
like to get your reactions to--is this notion, and Dr. Loury
you mentioned it specifically with your charts up here--that
particularly in drug cases, the point of arrest seems to
identify who the criminal is, rather than the conduct itself.
You go into these neighborhoods where drugs are being sold, and
the abnormality of, or the skewing of, the statistics becomes a
function of where the arrests are made. The arrests are made in
a specific spot because that is where the drugs are sold, which
tends to skew the prison population--I would like to get your
further thoughts on both of those points.
We could just start down the panel, any way you want to
discuss them. I think the American public needs to understand
both of those.
Dr. Loury. Well, let me just take this opportunity, in
response to the question to call attention to some charts that
I wanted to show during my testimony but did not have an
opportunity to, which is a geographical map of New York City,
``Changes In Spatial Concentration of Incarceration In New York
City.''
[The referenced chart appears in the Submissions for the
Record on page 53.]
So there is the chart. This is drawn from the work of the
sociologists at Columbia University, the criminologist Jeffrey
Fagan and his colleagues.
Basically what is shown there are the areas (in red) with
the highest concentration of persons incarcerated in New York
State, who lived in New York City prior to their incarceration.
The Black area is the next-highest level of concentration.
And you can see there is a very geographically specific pattern
to where people live in the city who end up going to prison
from the city: certain neighborhoods in the north of Manhattan,
in the south of Bronx, in Brooklyn, and in Queens. That was
1985 on the left panel. The right panel is 1996.
What you see is that the areas of high concentration in
1985 are also areas of high concentration in 1996, but they
have grown bigger; this shows that the epidemiology--the
spatial pattern--of incarceration has a very clear structure in
these particular areas of the city.
The authors of the study from which that figure is drawn go
on to observe that one consequence of this is that people who
live in those neighborhoods who are incarcerated, once they are
released from prison, come back to those neighborhoods; that
police officers in pursuit of criminals are
disproportionately----
Senator Webb. Excuse me, Dr. Loury, may I interrupt you one
second?
Dr. Loury. Yes. Am I taking too much time?
Senator Webb. Congressman Hinchey has to leave for votes,
and I wanted to give him an opportunity to make any
statements----
Dr. Loury. Yes, of course.
Senator Webb [continuing]. Or ask any questions before he
leaves.
Representative Hinchey. Well, Senator Webb, I thank you
very much once again. And, Dr. Loury, please excuse the
interruption.
Dr. Loury. Not at all.
Representative Hinchey. Sorry we're having this series of
votes, but they are going to take another 40 minutes before
they are over. We have six votes coming up, unfortunately.
I just want to express my appreciation to you for bringing
our attention to this issue, and for all of you and the
testimonies that you have given.
The focus of that testimony has largely been on the impacts
that these circumstances and this structure has on the
individuals, their families, and to a large extent also on our
society.
I would like to focus attention on one other aspect of
this. That is, the causes. The causes of these high rates of
incarceration, and the solutions that we should be addressing
ourselves to try to reduce these high rates of incarcerations.
I think one of the problems that we confront is the
definition of crime, which was altered dramatically, as you
pointed out, all of you, in the mid-1970s and from there on,
the so-called War on Drugs, for example, is a creation that was
put into place largely for political purposes, I believe, and I
think that that really needs to be addressed.
So many of the people--the largest percentage, I believe,
of the people that we have in prison across the country both
State and Federal are based upon offenses dealing with the drug
issue. And the ``War on Drugs'' reminds me of the establishment
of Prohibition back in the 1920s, and that created a huge
influx of various sorts of crime and disruption within our
entire society.
So I think that these are some of the things that we need
to address, and I would like very much to be able to work with
you, Senator, or both of you--I know you are both strongly
committed to this issue--and I hope that we can come up with
some solutions.
So once again, thank you.
Senator Webb. We appreciate your support. Hopefully we can
get the House interested in the Second Chances Act as a
starting point on this.
Representative Hinchey. Yes, indeed.
Senator Webb. Thank you very much, Congressman.
I did not mean to interrupt you.
Dr. Loury. Not at all, and I think I may have been going
on. I want to give others the chance. May I just comment
briefly on your reference to Mr. Zinsmeister and the issue of
the family.
What I want to say about that is: Yes, of course strong
families are a very good thing, and where families are strong
criminal offending can be expected to be less. But the other
thing that I want to add is that association is not causation.
One point that I think we need to be clear about here is
that sometimes common factors can be both undermining the
strength of the family and promoting criminal participation in
the population.
So, you know, it would be wonderful if the family were
stronger, particularly within the African American community,
but it may be a mistake to say: Oh, if we could only strengthen
the family, then everything would be all right. Because, as I
have said, the fact that common factors of disadvantage, and
stress, and economic marginality may be both undermining family
relations and promoting criminality.
Senator Webb. Thank you very much.
Dr. Western, do you have any thoughts on this?
Dr. Western. Three quick thoughts on the family, Senator:
The men in prison are much more likely to have low levels
of education, poor work histories, and to be economically
disadvantaged in a whole variety of ways, but they are not any
less likely to have children than the rest of the population.
So they are as connected to children in that sense as the rest
of the population.
The implication of this is that these very high rates of
incarceration are creating very high rates of paternal
incarceration. So there are very large numbers of children now
who are experiencing a parent being sent to prison, and they
parallel the figures that we have seen for incarceration rates
for adults.
Incarceration is very stigmatic. The stigma of
incarceration, the loss in social status, ethnographic evidence
shows is passed on to children.
As well, incarceration is associated--the third point with
increased risk of divorce and separation. So this run-up in the
incarceration rate has been tremendously corrosive of family
structure in the poor communities most affected.
On drug arrests, very quickly, drug regulation is a very
different category of crime from all others. We do not have
good figures on the level of drug use in the population. There
are surveys, but the main figures we rely on are arrest rates.
And arrest rates are produced largely through policy decisions
about policing and not underlying patterns of offending.
Where drugs are traded in public space, as they are in
urban areas, rather than in private spaces, they are in
suburban homes, we are going to see patterns of policing, I
think, that are going to generate these very large racial
disparities that we saw in the statistics that Professor Loury
presented.
So I think these trends in drug arrests we see do not
reflect trends in underlying behavior, but they are very much
produced by decisions about policing. And because of the nature
of the drug trade, that significantly explains the racial
disparities we have observed.
Senator Webb. I think it is important for the American
public to understand that. That is one reason I wanted to flag
it. As you reach for a solution, this is not a pattern of
behavior so much as it is a pattern of arrest, quite frankly.
Dr. Western. I think that is absolutely correct.
Senator Webb. Mr. Albert, would you like to add anything on
this?
Mr. Albert. Just the fact, Senator Webb, that I think a lot
does happen at arrest. I happen to sit on a local committee
that is grant-funded to look at something called
``Disproportionate Minority Contact.'' And one of the
challenges, I think, to this Committee is assigning blame
without assigning blame: Looking at every point in the process
where there is a decision to be made about how to charge
someone. What type of offense to charge a person with, if there
is indeed an offense that has been committed? And this is
affecting juveniles, but I think the same holds true for
adults.
At the decision-making point, at every point in the system,
the decision consistently is made in the extreme for
minorities, and I think that gets the results that we see
today.
Now at some point something drives that. And I think a lot
of it has to do with perception. I think a lot of it has to do
with living patterns. I think a lot of it has to do with our
decisions about where to allocate resources; the quality-of-
life kinds of calls for service, and all of a sudden that
becomes a problem neighborhood.
It is easier to see certain things that cost more resources
to investigate when people are able to do things inside their
home, in closed communities, and so it is an easy issue to
address.
So it is one of those things for me that is both simple and
complicated at the same time. I think it is simple to see and
understand, but very complicated to address.
Senator Webb. Dr. Jacobson? Mr. Nolan?
Dr. Jacobson. Yes, two quick points. One is on the
relatively low-level drug arrests issue, in addition to all the
issues that have been raised here.
Compared to having almost no one in State prisons for drug
offenses 20 years ago, there are probably something like
300,000 people there now. Again, if you look at the extant
research, drug sale and possession cases are crimes for which
criminologists tend to feel that incarceration provides
absolutely no public safety benefit.
It is very different from incarcerating someone who commits
violent crimes or someone who is a rapist. There you are
obviously deterring that behavior. The person is in prison.
There is hopefully some general deterrence.
When you imprison what is usually some young kid dealing
drugs on the street corner, you get what criminologists tend to
call a one-for-one replacement. With that person in prison,
there is an economic opportunity. It is a job. Someone else
takes up that activity.
So you wind up spending incredible sums of money making
people worse when they come out and getting essentially nothing
from it except harm.
The other point that I would like to make related to all of
this is: If you look at Professor Loury's charts up there,
which happen to represent New York City but that could
represent any city in this country, they all have the same
patterns. There are incredibly concentrated geographic areas of
mostly cities' poorest residents, and primarily communities of
color that have huge numbers of people go up and back to State
prison.
If you look at where those residents come from, how many
there are, and the percentage they make up of the State prison
population, New York State spends--and this is true in every
State--hundreds of millions of dollars on the residents of
those poorest communities. We just do not spend any of that
money in those communities. We take people out of those
communities, and we spend that money to hold them upstate.
And as long as we continue spending money on prisons
instead of spending it on strengthening those communities and
building them up, this cycle will continue.
This gets back to my point about using the money we now
spend differently. We spend huge amounts of money on people who
live in the poorest areas in any city. It's just that the money
does not go to those areas, it goes to different areas.
Senator Webb. Thank you. I apologize for going over,
Senator Casey, but we had those interruptions.
Senator Casey. That is OK.
Senator Webb [continuing]. One more thought, and then I'll
turn it over to you.
Mr. Nolan. I will be quick. Two things.
One thing is: It should be the focus of our prison system
to maintain and strengthen family ties. Sadly, it is the
opposite. We place prisoners far from their families;
oftentimes make it impossible, especially for the poor
families, to visit.
We treat families very disrespectfully when they come to
visit. The visitation facilities are terrible. Hours are short.
We have astronomical phone costs which make it hard to stay in
touch that way.
While I was in prison, I tried to read to my children over
the phone. I would go over their report cards. I would read
books they were reading in school. Now the Federal system
limits the number of calls, and limits the number of phone
numbers on inmates' call lists.
Prison Fellowship has a program called Angel Tree that
reaches out to children with a gift from their incarcerated
parent. It is important that we keep those family bonds strong.
We should do more to knit those bonds together.
Another program in New York City La Bodega de la Familia,
which aims at healing the whole family. They deal with the
incarcerated parent, the spouse, girlfriend, or whatever, and
children on the outside to reconcile them--there are oftentimes
anger issues and frustration with the crime. They deal with
codependency and actual dependency to try to ensure there is a
welcoming home for them to come to.
The last thing is Mr. Hinchey brought up the definition of
``crime.'' When our Nation was founded there were four crimes:
piracy--Federal crimes--piracy, counterfeiting, treason, I'm
missing one. Anyway, there are now over 4,000 statutory crimes,
and tens of thousands of regulations that are de facto crimes
that there doesn't have to be criminal intent, you are just
convicted of them.
There is a group left and right called ``Over-
Criminalized.org,'' which includes the National Association of
Criminal Defense Council, Heritage Foundation, ACLU, and Prison
Fellowship. The group is looking at why do we have all these
laws that make criminals of what are essentially normal
relations between people? And why do we have so many laws that
put people in prison for things that are just decisions of
society that ``we don't like this,'' as opposed to being
inherently evil or bad.
Senator Webb. Thank you.
I would like to note at this point that a statement from
Congresswoman Sheila Jackson-Lee will be entered into the
hearing record. I neglected to say that earlier.
[The prepared statement of Representative Sheila Jackson-
Lee appears in the Submissions for the Record on page 73.]
Senator Webb. Senator Casey, thank you for your patience,
sir.
Senator Casey. Thank you, Senator Webb. I appreciate you
calling this hearing.
I guess we will continue the left to right movement here.
Dr. Loury, I wanted to ask you about something you
testified to. I took a quick note, and I am not sure I got it
all, but part of your testimony talked about the increase in
the number of arrests--and I know you spoke to that a couple of
times--but also the dramatic rise in emergency room admissions.
Can you go back to that and just reiterate what you said
about that, because it is a pretty dramatic fact.
Dr. Loury. Yes, I can. I had the chart called ``Winning The
War? Drug Prices, Emergency Treatment, and Incarceration
Rates.'' It is not a floor chart; it was just on the handout.
[The referenced chart appears in the Submissions to the
Record on page 52.]
Senator Casey. Oh, that is what it was. I think when you
referred to it I did not have the handouts. I do not know if
there is a----
Dr. Loury. Yes, sir. There is a handout, and there is a
chart here that is taken from the research of John Caulkins and
his colleagues at Carnegie Mellon University, and it basically
tries to measure over the 20-year period of 1980 to 2000 both
the extent of incarceration and emergency room admissions for
drug-related maladies.
That is the dashed line in the chart there. The solid line
is imprisonment, numbers of persons in prison for drug
offenses. And then it juxtaposes with those trends the trend in
the same time period of the quality-adjusted price of drugs on
the streets of American cities, as best one could estimate it,
and my point was simply to say that the solid line for
imprisonment goes up. The dashed line for emergency room
admissions goes up. But the lines for the prices are going
down.
What that is telling me is that we are incarcerating more
people, but as has just been noted here, you lock up someone
who is selling drugs, but you don't get rid of the market, you
just create an opportunity for someone else to sell drugs.
So we have not been effective at raising the price of drugs
on the street; nor have we been effective at keeping people
from getting and abusing the drugs in the sense that at least
one indicator of that--emergency room admissions shows itself
to be trending upward over this period.
So that is what I was trying to say.
Senator Casey. No, I appreciate that. And this is a great
chart to have--of course it is always better if there is color,
but we can work on a chart--but it really is a dramatic
presentation, that even though arrests are up, ER admissions
are up as well, and the price question is significant as well.
I guess I want to play devil's advocate. I guess for the
whole panel. Look, if someone is watching this hearing and they
see the charts we have had, and they see the testimony just on
the possession issue, or arrests for possession, they may be
watching. And I am not sure I fully understand some of the
points that we are trying to make here.
They may be watching or listening, and they say: Well,
look, if a law enforcement official encounters someone on the
street and there is a law in place that you are supposed to
arrest someone who has a controlled substance on them, and they
arrest them, and that number keeps getting bigger, what are we
arguing about here? Why is that a problem?
And I think most people can differentiate and place a
greater weight on, or understand the reason we penalize those
who sell drugs maybe at a higher intensity than we penalize
those who are, quote, ``only'' in possession, but (a) how do
you deal with the devil's advocate question about: Look, they
were possessing a substance, and they are arrested for it, and
the numbers are going up. That is one question.
But then how also do you deal with the other question,
which is: Where is the problem there? Is the problem with the
policy of arrest? Or is the problem with what happens after
they are arrested? Or that we are locking too many of them up
for, quote, ``only'' possession as opposed to selling?
I guess there are two big questions there. One is the
devil's advocate question. And the other is where is the
problem with the policy.
I don't know if I'm throwing it out to all of you, but each
of you I know has some experience with these questions.
Anybody.
Mr. Albert. I can speak----
Senator Casey. Mr. Albert.
Mr. Albert. Thank you. I can speak very briefly to
something we see with some low-level kinds of things. I will
use as an example a marijuana arrest.
The police officer has the discretion to, say, take a
person to jail, in which case they have to post bail. And they
risk some other kinds of factors like staying in jail a long
time. If he's employed, risk losing employment. Being separated
from his family if he can't post bail. Or, to give him a
summons to appear in court, and then have the judge, once he
appears in court with the summons, give him some kind of
community alternative as opposed to incarceration.
If the decision is made to arrest him and he cannot post
bail, then his life is more complicated. He is in jail
obviously longer. It costs the system more, obviously, to
incarcerate him. He risks losing a job if he has one, and
disrupting his family.
The judge is more likely to sentence him to incarceration
if he comes in front of the judge--and I am not an academician;
I have not studied this, but I can tell you from my personal
experiences from what I see in dealing with the people, if a
person comes before the judge already incarcerated, he is more
likely to be incarcerated by the judge if he is found guilty.
If he comes in from the street as a result of a summons, or
having posted bail, then there is a greater likelihood--and
this is purely anecdotal--that he will be given an alternative,
and not be incarcerated.
So that is one example of how the decision at the point of
contact is made that really starts the ball rolling. Once in
jail, then there is a whole other set of factors that kicks in
I think that sort of continues to exacerbate the issue.
Senator Casey. Well that example helps me a lot to
understand this better. How do we change that? Not that we can
enact laws to impact every decision a police officer makes, but
is that because there is a uniformity in how to treat that
particular offender at the street level? Or is it really that
we have to focus on what police officers are told about their
discretion when it comes to a first-time possession situation?
Or what do you think it is?
Mr. Albert. I think police--and again I am purely speaking
from my understanding of it--I think the police tend to----
Senator Casey. Well you have had a lot of experience. You
have dealt with a lot of these programs, and this is valuable.
Mr. Albert. Sure. I think police tend to, in their decision
making, reflect the sentiment of their community. And I think
if a police officer sees a community going toward, or in the
direction of an alternative to sentencing and an understanding
of these kinds of things, if they see funding directed toward a
program that sort of supports alternatives to incarceration and
not sort of being quite as aggressive at the point of
incarceration, they tend to make decisions that affect that.
I am just starting an office for the city of Norfolk called
the Office of Public and Criminal Justice for the city. The
idea that the city manager wanted to move forward with the
entire city is that communities need justice. The kids deserve
the same right to an opportunity for education and not live
under the threat of gunfire. But in the context of that, we see
police officers who are adjusting the way they police,
interacting with the community a different way because they
tend to reflect, I think, the sentiment of their community.
If they feel the community wants them to get extremely
aggressive and tough at the point of contact, then I think they
tend to do that. So I think as we support alternative programs,
alternative to incarceration, as we support sort of these
tactics that are not as aggressive with nonviolent offenses
that tend to help people be more productive on the outside as
opposed to incarceration, I think their mindsets tend to
reflect that in their policing tactics and discretion.
Senator Casey. Thank you.
Dr. Jacobson. I think one other----
Senator Casey. Mr. Jacobson.
Dr. Jacobson [continuing]. Piece of that response to a
person who asks, ``What's wrong with it'' , even absent the
initial look at what police are making arrests for and how they
use their discretion, addressing the assumption that once
arrests have been made that it is perfectly appropriate to use
jails and prisons for a variety of behaviors and crimes.
It is just not appropriate to use prison or jail for almost
every behavior in crime. But we tend to use prison and jail as
our default punishment. That is what we do. It happens to be an
exceedingly expensive, punitive, and potentially harmful
punishment. So you have to be really careful how you use it.
So part of the answer to, ``What is wrong with putting
people in jail or prison once you arrest them'', is that the
safety of the very person asking that question is affected if
we put too many people in jail and prison. Because we are not
dealing with their sobriety issues or their drug issues or
their employment issues. And we know if we put people in jail
or prison for relatively short periods of time, they are just
going to be worse when they come out.
The person raising these issues is going to be more at risk
of being victimized, but we cannot afford to spend money on the
programs we know would work better because we are putting
everyone in jail and prison.
So, it is a difficult decision to make. Governments should
be very careful and parsimonious about how they make it. We
tend to make the decision too easily for everyone because it
works at some political level. It just does not work at a
substantive level.
Senator Casey. Mr. Nolan?
Mr. Nolan. As a conservative I was suspicious of every
branch of government--OSHA, DMV, CalTrans----
[Laughter.]
Mr. Nolan. But I turned a blind eye to law enforcement and
prosecutors. I guess, thinking about it now, I guess it was
because I felt their motives were right.
The reality is: They are just government employees like
everyone else. In fact, I have said that to understand prisons,
take a DMV office and string barbed wire around it and give the
clerks guns. That is the mentality of prisons.
With prosecutors, it is the same way. I think police
activity is often driven by the prosecutors, and prosecutors
often want to drive up numbers. I will give you two examples of
guys I did time with.
One was a fellow named Jerry that had a private plane. And
he was offered a quick opportunity to make a lot of money
flying drugs into the United States from Mexico. He made one
run, made a lot of money, decided he did not want to take that
risk any more, he had too much at stake, and he and his wife
went into a business making lunches and muffins and then going
around to businesses in office buildings and selling them.
Seven years after that one plane flight, one of the guys
that was in the drug deal was caught doing something else and
the prosecutor said: Can you give us anybody else?
So they gave him Jerry. Jerry was prosecuted and got a 5-
year sentence. Now that 5-year sentence did not stop one ounce
of drugs from coming into the country. He was out of the
business already. But that ran up the score.
The second thing was a fellow named Gordon, a family farmer
from, I think he was from Montana, or Idaho. He was from Idaho,
and his family farm was in trouble. So he began to grow a
little pot and sell it on the side.
A girl that he knew, wasn't dating, but was beaten up by
her boyfriend, and he gave her his gun to help protect herself.
She was caught doing drugs, and of course the same thing, the
prosecutor said: Can you give us anybody else? Oh, yeah, yeah,
Gordon.
So she came, set up a deal to buy marijuana from him. At
the buy she gave him the gun back. His sentence without the gun
would have been a few months in prison. With the gun, it was a
mandatory 5-year minimum.
Gordon didn't bring the gun to the buy. The prosecutors
instructed the girl to bring it, which then set up the 5-year
sentence. Setting up the gun charge did not prevent any more
drugs from getting on the street, but it destroyed Gordon and
his family.
Those prosecutors were looking for numbers to look like
they were tough on crime. It would be better if they were held
accountable for how their prosecutions stopped the flow of
drugs into our cities.
One last thing. The crack/powder dispute should not be at
the Federal level. Crack is sold on the local level on the
street because it is chemically unstable and can't be
transferred far. It is cooked and sold on the street. That is
something the local police can handle.
The Federal Government should be focusing their
prosecutions on the people who are transporting huge amounts of
cocaine into the country and across State lines. That is where
we ought to put our Federal effort, not busting little boutique
street markets which sell small amounts of crack on the street.
Senator Casey. I know I am over, but I would just say by
way of comment, if we have time before we go, and I will try to
ask more, but I really appreciate the focus here on what I will
call re-entry, the process of leaving prison and how we have
not thought nearly enough about it and do not have policies in
place to prepare people for the exit into our society, and the
numbers on--the number of felons released per day and the idea
that we can just release them without any kind of preparation
for them and expect them to make it in society.
That is a challenge that I think we have in the Federal
Government, and State governments have that challenge as well.
But Senator Webb has the time I have borrowed from him.
Senator Webb. Thank you, Senator Casey.
I am going to ask another question, but if you care to.
Senator Casey. I think I have to run.
Senator Webb. OK.
Senator Casey. Thank you, very much.
Senator Webb. We appreciate your being here.
I would like to throw something out again that came from
the observations that I made when I was looking at the Japanese
prison system years ago.
One is, if you were sentenced to 4 or 5 years in a Japanese
prison, you had really done something wrong. The sentencing in
Japan is very short. They focus on solving a crime. They focus
on catching the criminal.
But once the criminal is caught, once the process has gone
forward, the length of sentence is not as important as having
brought some resolution to the process.
The other thing that they did was they had two different
categories of prisons. They did not do this by nature of the
severity of a crime. They did it by whether you were a repeat
offender.
They had Category A prisons and Category B prisons. I do
not know whether they still do this. But a Category A prison
was a first offender. Any kind of first offender. And what they
did in these prisons, the Category A prisons, is they focused
on the prospect of re-entry.
They gave serious skills classes. For instance, at that
time, auto repair; today it probably would be computers. But
when you got a certificate out of this process, it did not say
``Fuchu (phonetic) Prison'' on it. It said ``Ministry of
Labor'' on it.
So when someone came out of that system, they had had one
bite of the apple, and it was assumed that they were going to
re-enter society and they had a productive certificate in their
hand.
Then they had Category B prisons. Even if you were
convicted of shop lifting five times, you would go to the
repeat offender prison and those people made paper bags. They
worked. But they did basic, other types of jobs. They were
populated very heavily by organized crime, the organized
criminals, the aysans (phonetic), and those sorts of things.
But that leads me to two questions. One is, do any of you
have an opinion or a belief that length of sentence actually
deters crime? I think obviously we do not want to give the
wrong impression to people that we are trying to be soft on
crime. There are certainly people who deserve to be locked up
for a long period of time.
But, (a), does the length of sentence actually deter crime?
And (b), there has to be some other way of looking at a lot
of these drug offenses. Let's be honest. Drug use is pandemic
in the United States. Would you have thoughts on a different
process for people involved in drug crimes, particularly crimes
of possession or low-level sales?
Dr. Loury. Yes, I would just say briefly that I think we
should repeal mandatory minimum drug laws, and that we should
release non-violent drug offenders, or at least mandate
treatment for them both within prison and outside.
I mean the point has already been made here that the public
safety benefits of locking someone up for non-violent drug
offending are de minimis. And the general question that Dr.
Jacobson has I think done a good job of articulating of how to
efficiently use our limited incarceration resources is raised
here.
I mean, it is also raised by Three Strikes' laws that hold
people in prison beyond the time in their life cycle when they
would be most likely to offend.
The United States, I have heard someone say, is the only
country in the world where prison gerontologist is actually an
occupational title.
Dr. Jacobson. The deterrence question is a fascinating
question, and I am sure we could stay here all day and talk
about it. I think most people who look at this stuff would say
that the most important deterrent is swift apprehension and
punishment.
In fact, the length of time you serve, whether it is 3
years or 6 years for sticking up a 7-11, is something people
simply do not make rational calculations about. They don't
think about it because they do not know it.
Senator Webb. They don't think about, ``Am I going to get
caught?''
Dr. Jacobson. Correct. And most people do not think they
are going to get caught. Most State legislators do not know the
length of times for the crimes that they legislate. The public
does not know it, although they have some sense that this is
illegal; if I do it, I will go to prison; but there is
absolutely no evidence that any marginal increase in going from
a sentence of 3 to 4, 4 to 6, 8 to 10, or 10 to 20 has any
benefit on general deterrence and keeping people from
committing crimes--certainly not in relation to how quickly you
might get apprehended and punished. Even if the punishment is
10 percent of the sentence.
And to further Dr. Loury's point, it's not just the Three
Strikes law, and all these mandatory minimums, which is why we
have geriatric prisons. We keep people well beyond their crime-
committing years, which does not do any good for specific
deterrence. You're not getting anything from keeping that
person in prison, and there is no evidence that you get that
general deterrence either.
So why we keep people in prison as our prisoners age into
their sixties, seventies and eighties, which is happening in
almost every State, is an interesting question. It is all about
retribution and punishment. And you can understand that at some
level if you are the victim or the victim's family of some of
the crimes that those people might have committed. But we
should just be clear about that discussion.
It is not about public safety. We do not keep people in
prison when they are in their sixties, seventies and eighties
for public safety. It has absolutely nothing to do with that,
and there are huge costs to doing that.
Mr. Nolan. Both Dr. Loury and Dr. Jacobson are absolutely
right. Prisoners are not rational calculators. They do not
think they will get caught. If they thought they would get
caught, they would seriously consider the sentences.
Most of the folks I met in prison thought they were smarter
than everybody. They never thought they would get caught.
Secondly, because we have scarce resources our system
focuses on the broken law. Prison Fellowship supports
restorative justice in which you look at the harm done to
victims and to the community, and you weigh that. Under
restorative justice, the system weighs the relative costs to
society of imprisoning an offender, versus the harm they have
done. Possessing drugs does not do great harm to society.
Shooting a bystander at 7-11 does. That is what the public
worries about.
As far as how to deal with drug possession, treatment is so
much more effective than incarceration. Dr. Joe Califano,
former Secretary of HEW, who is at Columbia University, said:
To lock up an addict for 5 years, 10 years, 15 years, but do
nothing about their underlying addiction, and then releasing
them is a fraud. It is absolutely a fraud on the public.
I also have a suggestion for you, Mr. Chairman. If you
could have the staff of this Joint Economic Committee do a
study of the economic impact of mass incarceration, one thing
is the effect on the economy and the effect on national
defense.
With such a huge swath of young men limited in their
employability and income after prison--you can see the studies
that show that--and impaired with a conviction, they are not
able to participate in the economy, buy cars, et cetera, and
they also cannot join the military.
Senator Webb. That's one of the principal objectives of
this hearing--its economic impact, and we do intend to continue
to focus on that.
Mr. Nolan. I just compliment you so much for this.
Senator Webb. Dr. Western?
Dr. Western. So, time served has increased enormously over
the last 20 years, so people are serving longer and longer, and
estimates attribute about a third of the increase in State and
Federal prison populations, to an increase in time served.
And you see this in the penal codes, with a much greater
reliance on life sentences. My reading of the research is
exactly the same as Dr. Jacobson's. It's not the severity of
the sentence that deters, it's the certainty of apprehension,
and this is reflected in the effects of the increase in the
number of police on the reduction in crime through the 1990s.
That was the big driver of the crime drop, was the very
large increase in the number of sworn officers on the street in
large urban areas.
On drug possession, through the 1970s and 1980s, I think we
can say that drug dealing became a shadow economy, and informal
economy in poor neighborhoods, and a context in which there
were very few legitimate opportunities, and also in a context
in which the problems of drug addiction were becoming more
severe.
So we could have treated what was a social and economic
problem, in several different ways: We could have used social
and economic policy instruments to address the development of
this shadow economy in poor neighborhoods, but we chose to
adopt a punitive approach that relied heavily on the criminal
justice system.
It's not too late to adopt social and economic policy
measures to reduce the problems associated with this shadow
economy, and I think employment policy and measures for drug
treatment have to be significant parts of what an alternative
policy approach would look like.
Senator Webb. Thank you. Does anyone else care to comment?
[No response.]
Senator Webb. I would like to thank all of you for having
taken the time to be with us today. I hope we have begun a
process here where we can start shedding the right kind of
light on this enormously complicated issue.
On the one hand, I don't think there are any of us who
would like to see improper enforcement of the laws. There are
people who truly deserve to be in prison.
Again, as I said during my opening statement, we want to be
able to break the back of gangs in this country and to deter
those types of conduct that can be deterred.
At the same time, I hope, from this hearing, a number of my
colleagues and people in the community can understand a little
bit better the dynamic that has taken over this issue, which is
an unhealthy dynamic for our country.
I intend to continue to focus on this, and I welcome all of
your input, not only today, but in the future, to my staff.
We intend to see what we can do to rebalance the scales in
this country.
Again, thank you very much for appearing with us today, and
we appreciate your testimony very much. This hearing is closed.
[Applause.]
[Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
Submissions for the Record
=======================================================================
Prepared Statement of Senator Jim Webb
I would like to thank Chairman Schumer for agreeing to hold this
important hearing and allowing me the opportunity to chair it. I would
also like to thank our witnesses for appearing today. Following my
remarks, I would ask Vice-Chair Maloney and Senator Brownback to make
their opening statements.
Over the course of the period from the mid-1970s until today, the
United States has embarked on one of the largest public policy
experiments in our history, yet this experiment remains shockingly
absent from public debate: the United States now imprisons a higher
percentage of its citizens than any other country in the world.
In the name of ``getting tough on crime,'' there are now 2.1
million Americans in federal, state, and local prisons and jails--more
people than the populations of New Mexico, West Virginia, or several
other states. Compared to our democratic, advanced market economy
counterparts, the United States has more people in prison by several
orders of magnitude.
All tolled, more than 7 million Americans are under some form of
correction supervision, including probation and parole.
America's incarceration rate raises several serious questions.
These include: the correlation between mass imprisonment and crime
rates, the impact of incarceration on minority communities and women,
the economic costs of the prison system, criminal justice policy, and
transitioning ex-offenders back into their communities and into
productive employment. Equally important, the prison system today calls
into question the effects on our society more broadly.
As Winston Churchill noted in 1910, ``The mood and temper of the
public in regard to the treatment of crime and criminals is one of the
most unfailing tests of the civilization of any country.'' With the
world's largest prison population, our prisons test the limits of our
democracy and push the boundaries of our moral identity.
The growth in the prison population is only nominally related to
crime rates. Just last week in the Washington Post, the deputy director
of the Bureau of Justice Statistics stated that ``the growth [in the
incarceration rate] wasn't really about increase[ed] crime but how we
chose to respond to crime.''
The steep increase in the number of people in prison is driven,
according to most experts, by changes in drug policy and tougher
sentencing, and not necessarily an increase in crime. Also, the
composition of prison admissions has shifted toward less serious
offenses: parole violations and drug offenses. Nearly 6 in 10 persons
in state prison for a drug offense have no history of violence or
significant selling activity. In 2005, four out of five drug arrests
were for possession and only one out of five were for sales.
Is incarcerating low-level drug offenders working, particularly
given recidivism rates?
The racial composition of America's prisons is alarming. Although
African Americans constitute 14 percent of regular drug users, they are
37 percent of those arrested for drug offenses, and 56 percent of
persons in state prisons for drug crimes. African Americans serve
nearly as much time in federal prisons for drug offenses as whites do
for violent crimes.
A black male who does not finish high school now has a 60 percent
chance of going to jail. One who has finished high school has a 30
percent chance. We have reached a point where the principal nexus
between young African-American men and our society is increasingly the
criminal justice system.
Moreover, we are spending enormous amounts of money to maintain the
prison system. The combined expenditures of local, state, and federal
governments for law enforcement and corrections personnel total over
$200 billion. Prison construction and operation has become sought
after, if uncertain, tools of economic growth for rural communities.
Are there ways to spend less money, enhance public safety, and make
a fairer prison system?
Having such a large prison population also has significant
employment and productivity implications. The economic output of
prisoners is mostly lost to society while they are imprisoned. These
negative productivity effects continue after release. As we've gotten
tough on crime, we've given up on rehabilitating offenders. And we've
created additional barriers to reentry with ``invisible punishments.''
These include ineligibility for certain government benefits, such as
housing, public assistance, or student loans. It is no longer possible
to pay your debt to society.
We want to keep bad people off our streets. We want to break the
back of gangs, and we want to cut down on violent behavior. But there's
something else going on when we're locking up such a high percentage of
our people, marking them at an early age and in many cases eliminating
their chances for a productive life as full citizens. It will take
years of energy to address these problems. But I am committed to
working on a solution that is both responsive to our needs for law and
order, and fairer to those ensnared by this system.
I welcome the thoughts of our witnesses today regarding these
important topics, and a continuing national dialogue to address these
enormous policy issues.
I would like to introduce today's witnesses:
Professor Glenn Loury is the Merton P. Stoltz Professor of the
Social Sciences at the Department of Economics at Brown University. He
has taught previously at Boston, Harvard and Northwestern Universities,
and the University of Michigan. Mr. Loury is a distinguished academic
economist who has contributed to a variety of areas in applied
microeconomic theory and written on racial inequality.
Professor Bruce Western is the Director of the Multidisciplinary
Program in Inequality and Social Policy at the Kennedy School of
Government. He taught at Princeton University from 1993 to 2007. Dr.
Western's work has focused on the role of incarceration in social and
economic inequality in American society. He is the author of Punishment
and Inequality in America, a study of the growth and social impact of
the American penal system.
Alphonso Albert is the Director of Second Chances, in Norfolk,
Virginia, a program designed to provide comprehensive support services
that lead to full-time employment and social stability for those
individuals impacted by the stigma of being labeled ``ex-offender.''
Prior to working with the Second Chances Program, Mr. Albert served as
the Assistant Director and Business Liaison for the City of Norfolk's
Enterprise Community initiative, Norfolk Works Inc.
Michael P. Jacobson is the director of the Vera Institute of
Justice. He is the author of Downsizing Prisons: How to Reduce Crime
and End Mass Incarceration. Prior to joining Vera, he was a professor
at the City University of New York Graduate Center and the John Jay
College of Criminal Justice. He has served as New York City's
Correction Commissioner, Probation Commissioner, and Deputy Budget
Director.
Pat Nolan is the Vice-President of Prison Fellowship, where he
focuses on efforts to ensure that offenders are better prepared to live
healthy, productive, law-abiding lives on their release. He served 15
years in the California State Assembly, four of them as the Assembly
Republican Leader. Mr. Nolan has appeared before Congress to testify on
matters such as prison work programs, juvenile justice and religious
freedom.
Witnesses should please limit their remarks to five minutes,
although their entire statements will be entered into the record. After
all the witnesses have presented their testimony, we will move to
questions.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Prepared Statement of Carolyn Maloney, Vice Chair
Good morning. I would like to thank Chairman Schumer for holding
this hearing to examine the economic, political, and social costs of
incarceration. I also want to thank Senator Webb for chairing.
The United States has the highest incarceration rates in the world,
with more than 2 million Americans currently in jails or prisons.
Clearly, imprisonment benefits society and is an important public
safety measure. But faced with an unprecedented increase in
incarceration, we must ask ourselves whether we are striking the right
balance between the costs and benefits of imprisonment.
Putting more resources into creating economic opportunities that
provide alternatives to crime would pay dividends in reducing crime and
incarceration, while also strengthening families and communities.
We all know that in the long run crime doesn't pay, but it sure is
costly. The average annual cost of incarceration for one federal
prisoner exceeds $20,000--far more than the average annual cost of
$3,700 for a youth program, $6,000 for a job training program or the
$13,000 for tuition at public universities.
There is no question that crime rates have dropped in the U.S. over
the past decade. Researchers agree that the increase in incarceration
rates have been driven by tougher sentences for repeat offenders and
drug offenders, mandatory minimums, and a more punitive approach to
post-release supervision, rather than an increase in crime.
The racial dimension of incarceration is inescapable. Half of our
prison population is African American, yet they represent just 13
percent of the population as a whole. It has become a sad truth that a
black man in his late twenties without a high school diploma is more
likely to be in jail than to be working. The effect on black
communities has been devastating.
As noted Harvard sociologist Orlando Patterson wrote in the New
York Times recently, one in three African American males in their 30s
now has a prison record. He somberly noted, ``These numbers and rates
are incomparably greater than anything achieved at the height of the
Jim Crow era.''
Women are typically convicted of nonviolent offenses. Most women
who enter the criminal justice system have experienced physical or
sexual abuse, and many have physical or mental health problems. These
inmates may actually benefit from alternatives to imprisonment, such as
suspended sentences coupled with extensive counseling.
When mothers are incarcerated, their children may be placed in
foster care, or with other family members who then need financial
assistance to provide for the children. Moreover, the removal of a
significant family member can affect the healthy development of
children.
The Catholic Charities Diocese of Brooklyn and Queens operate a
week-long summer camp that provides opportunities for incarcerated
mothers to have quality time with their children. Such programs serve
as a means to maintain family bonds, and possibly provide a smoother
transition and resumption of parental responsibilities upon release. If
this program shows success, it could serve as a model for the nation.
Providing employment and training assistance for ex-offenders is
critical to reducing barriers to employment, and it benefits families.
I support the Second Chance Act of 2007, which provides grants for re-
entry programs that provide mentoring, academic and vocation education,
and employment assistance, and substance abuse treatment for ex-
offenders.
I look forward to hearing from our distinguished panel about how
best to protect public safety, while addressing the many costs of
imprisonment.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this important hearing
regarding ``Mass Incarceration in the Unites States: At What Cost?''
As you know, for some time, I, along with my colleagues on the
judiciary committee, have been working extremely hard to enact
legislation that will have a positive effect upon our prison system,
the Recidivism Reduction and Second Chance Act of 2007.
It goes without saying that we have a broken prison system--and the
results are devastating not only to those incarcerated and their
families but to society as a whole.
This year alone, more than 650,000 inmates will be released from
prison, and studies show that approximately two-thirds will likely be
rearrested within three years of release.
The economic effects of our broken system are staggering and leave
our state and local governments financially vulnerable.
State corrections systems across the country have experienced
tremendous growth since 1980. Between 1980 and 2005, the total number
of adults under corrections supervision (prisons, jails, probation, and
parole) increased 283 percent from approximately 2 million in 1980 to
more than 7 million in 2005. Likewise, state spending on corrections
has grown faster than nearly any other state budget item--increasing
from $9 billion in 1984 to $41 billion in 2004.
A recent report from the Pew Charitable Trusts revealed that the
Nation's prison population is projected to grow an additional 13
percent over the next five years. State and federal prison populations
are expected to add approximately 192,000 persons at a cost of $27.5
billion between 2006 and 2011.
It is time that we fix this broken system. It is time that we
invest federal dollars wisely on programs that are successful in
reducing the rates of recidivism for the program participants.
For too long, we have stood back and watched this situation
deteriorate. I am pleased that there are States, such as Kansas, that
are leading the way in innovative reentry programs with great success.
In 2007, the Kansas prison population was projected to grow 26
percent by 2016 at a cost to taxpayers of $500 million in additional
construction and operating costs. High rates of failure among people on
community supervision and low rates of in-prison program completion
were identified as key factors driving the growth.
During the 2007 Session, Kansas policymakers overwhelmingly enacted
a legislative package that is expected to avert the need to build
nearly 1,300 new prison beds and to save the state $80 million over the
next five years.
Mr. Chairman, we need to encourage such innovation and build upon
the experiences of States such as Kansas in order to reduce crime and
re-arrest and incarceration rates.
Although States have taken the first step in designing strategies
to avert growth in their prison populations and corrections
expenditures, they will need the support of the federal government
going forward.
The role of the federal government in state and local re-entry must
be limited, but can still have a significant impact.
I am pleased that our federal agencies have taken the lead and are
collaborating on programs designed to increase public safety while
providing services to inmates, which will, in turn, decrease
recidivism.
Through legislation such as the Recidivism Reduction and Second
Chance Act of 2007, small amounts of federal dollars can help to
encourage innovation in re-entry, reduce recidivism and establish
standards of performance.
In addition to the public response, organizations such as Prison
Fellowship Ministries have led the way in providing non-profit
assistance and I am pleased the Pat Nolan, Vice-President of Prison
Fellowship Ministries is joining us today. These organizations are
doing wonderful work in treating the ``whole person''--this is
beneficial to both inmates and their families and has transformed the
lives of those who are incarcerated.
However, we must not stop here. We must continue to move toward
rectifying the recidivism rates in this country.
Additionally, family environments need to be improved so that
children are brought up under more stable conditions. Children who come
from fatherless homes are 20 times more likely to be incarcerated and
children who do not graduate high school are 3.5 times more likely to
be incarcerated.
We can no longer set idly by and watch while ex-offenders and their
families deteriorate--especially the children of those incarcerated--
which not only leads to hardships for the ex-offenders and their
families, but to society as a whole.
We must support programs that provide public safety, reduce the
cost of recidivism on States, and provide for a second chance for ex-
offenders and their families. I look forward to hearing the statements
from today's witnesses.
__________
Prepared Statement of Congressman Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott, Chairman
for the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Chairman Webb and Vice
Chairwoman Maloney for the opportunity to be with you today as we
discuss this very important subject of the cost of the mass
incarceration we have in the United States. Today, the U.S. is the
world's leading incarcerator, by far, with an average incarceration
rate over 7 times the international average. The average incarceration
rate in the rest of the world is about 100 per 100,000 citizens. The
rate in the U.S. is over 700 per 100,000 residents, and in some inner-
city communities, the rate goes over 4,000 per 100,000. Russia is the
next closest in rate of incarceration with 611 per 100,000 citizens.
Everybody else is much below, such as India, the world's largest
Democracy, with 30 per 100,000 and China, the world's largest country
by population, with a rate 118 per 100,000.
We didn't get to this position overnight. I have learned that when
it comes to crime policy, you have a choice--you can reduce crime or
you can play politics. The politics of crime call for so-called ``tough
on crime'' approaches such as more life without parole, mandatory
minimum sentences, and treating more juveniles as adults or gang
members. Under the get tough approach, no matter how tough you were
last year, you have to get tougher this year. We have been getting
tougher year-by-year for over 30 years now. Since 1970, we have gone
from around 300,000 persons incarcerated in the U.S. to over 2 million,
and annual prison costs now are over $65 billion this year.
And the U.S. has some of the world's most severe punishments for
crime, including for juveniles. Of the more than 2200 juveniles
sentenced to life without parole, all but 12 are in the U.S.
Research and analysis, as well as common sense, tell us that no
matter how tough you are on the people you prosecute for crime today,
unless you are addressing the reasons they got to the point to commit
the crimes in the first place, the next wave developing in the system
will simply replace the ones you take out and crime continues. This is
not to say that we shouldn't prosecute crimes or that imprisonment has
no impact. The problem is that you reach the point of diminishing
returns in a particular case with no appreciable benefit. In fact, you
run the risk of it diminishing returns to the point of actually being
counterproductive, such as when you have so many in a neighborhood with
criminal records that a criminal record no longer represents a stigma
or provides an effective deterrent to crime.
A corollary cost of the mass incarceration resulting from ``tough
on crime' politics is the fact that it falls in a grossly
disproportionate manner on minorities, particularly Black and Hispanic
youth. The sad reality is that many children born in minority
communities today are, from birth, without an appropriate intervention,
on a ``cradle to prison pipeline''. When we see how simple it is to get
them on a ``cradle to college pipeline'', it is tragic, and much more
costly to society, economically and socially, if we don't do so. There
are also other costs to consider when crime rates are high, such as the
medical costs associated with gun crimes. One study estimated the
annual cost of gun violence in the U.S. to be $100 billion.
Fortunately, we have a choice. All the credible research and
evidence shows that a continuum of evidenced-based programs for youth
identified as being at risk of involvement in delinquent behavior, and
those already involved, will not only put kids on an appropriate
``pipeline'', but will save much more than they cost when compared to
the avoided law enforcement, prison and other costs. Washington State
did an extensive study showing that evidenced-based prevention and
rehabilitation programs reduce crime and save money when compared to
waiting for crimes to be committed and sending offenders to prison.
Washington State adopted many of these initiatives and consequently has
avoided the necessity of building new, expensive prisons. The question
is whether we have the political will to make that choice. Washington
made that choice, adopted the policy, avoided building more prisons,
and reduced crime at the same time.
There is also a huge opportunity cost to not doing what research
and evidence says will reduce crime. To illustrate, let's examine the
impact in Virginia of the lost opportunities associated with the tough
on crime sound byte ``abolish parole''. Rather than invest in proven
crime reduction measures that work, Virginia chose to go down the
costly and wasteful path of abolishing parole. Despite the proponents
claim, even if it worked perfectly, the reduction in violent crime
would be a statistically insignificant 3 percent, and even that would
be without considering the counterproductive effects of no parole, such
as the fact that you can't hold hardened criminals longer and the loss
of an incentive for prisoners to get an education and job training
while in prison. They estimated the cost of abolishing parole was $2.2
billion to build new prisons and about a billion in annual operating
costs. Doing some back of the envelope arithmetics, let's see what we
can do with that kind of money. There are 11 Congressional districts in
Virginia, so that's about $200 million for construction and about $90
million for operations per Congressional district of 600,000 people. So
for a city of around 100,000, you're talking about more than $30
million for construction and $15 million operating.
Alternatively, here's what you could do with that kind of money in
a small city:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Construction:
10--$3 million Boys and Girls Clubs or 30M
family resource center.
Operating:
10 clubs or centers @ $600,000/yr......... 6M
1,000 summer jobs @ $1,000................ 1M
1,000 summer camp scholarships @ $1,000... 1M
4,000 after school programs @ $250........ 1M
2,000 college scholarships @ $2,000....... 4M
Services for 200 juveniles @ $10,000/year. 2M
------------------------------------------------------------------------
So you can spend money codifying a slogan without knowing whether
you are reducing or increasing crime or you can spend the same amount
of money, or even less, on evidenced-based prevention programs and
rehabilitation programs proven to reduce crime.
Of course, having so many people locked up, we are now seeing a
huge number returning to our communities, in most cases no better off
then when they left and, in all too many cases, much worse. This year,
more than 650,000 people will be released from state and federal
prisons, along with more than 9 million people leaving local jails.
According to the Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Statistics,
some 67 percent of offenders leaving state and federal prison are
rearrested within three years. Most offenders go into prison unskilled,
poorly educated, and poorly motivated and over one-third of all jail
inmates have some physical or mental disability. With no parole, no
good conduct credits or other self-development incentives, limited
vocational or other development programs in prison, and all the
disqualifications that result from a felony record, it is not hard to
see why the recidivism rate is so high.
One program in the federal prison system that has proven to be a
huge incentive program for not only good conduct and safer, easier to
manage prisons, and getting an education required to qualify for it,
but has also for developing work skills proven to increase employment
after release and reduce crime, is the Federal Prison Industries, or
FPI program. Unfortunately, a provision in the just passed Senate
Defense Authorization bill essentially guts the FPI program.
The Second Chance Act now pending before the Congress provides a
host of evidenced-based approaches designed to reduce the high rate of
recidivism now occurring. If we are going to continue to send more and
more people to prison with longer and longer sentences, we should do as
much as we reasonably can to assure that when they do return they don't
go back to prison due to new crimes. The primary reason for doing so is
not to benefit offenders, although it does--the primary reason for
doing so is to better assure that all of us and other members of the
public will not be victims of crime due to recidivism and to save the
high cost of law enforcement and incarceration. Again, Mr. Chairman, I
would like to thank you for holding this very important hearing and for
inviting me to sit with you for it. Thank you.
Prepared Statement of Glenn C. Loury, Merton P. Stoltz Professor of the
Social Sciences, Department of Economics, Brown University
Mass Incarceration and American Values
Mr. Chairman, Madam Vice-Chairwoman, and distinguished Members, I
thank you for the opportunity to address this vital issue before your
committee.
There are six main points about the advent of mass incarceration as
a crime control policy in the United States that I wish to make with
this testimony:
1. First, I wish to emphasize that with the advent of the mass
incarceration policy we have witnessed an historic expansion of
coercive state power, deployed internally on a massive scale. Violent
crime peaked in the early 1990s, and began what has proven to be a
long, precipitous decline. (See the Figure below. A similar trend
applies for non-violent property crimes.) But, no one saw this coming.
Crime was a real problem two decades ago, and fighting a war on crime
was bipartisan national policy.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
As a result of this policy, the American prison system has grown
into a leviathan unmatched in human history. Never has a supposedly
``free country'' denied basic liberty to so many of its citizens. As of
December 2006, some two-and-one-quarter million persons were being held
in the nearly 5,000 prisons and jails that are scattered, like an
archipelago, across America's urban and rural landscapes. Incarceration
is now being used in the United States on an unprecedented scale. We
imprison at a far higher rate than any other industrial democracy in
the world. We imprison at a higher rate than Russia or China, and
vastly more than any of the countries in Europe.
And, it is costing us a veritable fortune. Spending on law
enforcement and corrections at all levels of government now totals
roughly a fifth of a trillion dollars per year. In constant dollars,
this spending has more than quadrupled over the last quarter-century.
The table below indicates how this spending breaks-down by function:
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
2. Second, I claim that this high level of imprisonment is not any
longer, if ever it was, a rational response to high levels of crime.
Rather, our mass incarceration policy is an historical inheritance,
bequeathed to us by wave after wave of crime-fighting at the state and
the federal levels over the past 35 years. This policy response, I
firmly believe, has now become counter-productive. (The so-called War
on Drugs, about which I have more to say at the end of this testimony,
is a leading example of one such misconceived policy initiative that
now has us in its grip.)
3. Third, I wish to point out that institutional arrangements for
dealing with criminal offenders in the United States have evolved to
serve expressive as well as instrumental ends. We have wanted to ``send
a message''--to the criminals and to the law-abiding public, alike--
and, have done so with a vengeance. In the process, we have answered
the question: Who is to blame for the maladies which beset our troubled
civilization? We have, in effect, constructed a national narrative. We
have created scapegoats, indulged our need to feel virtuous about
ourselves, and assuaged our fears. We have met the enemy, and the enemy
is THEM--the violent, predatory, immoral, irredeemable ``thugs.'' I
believe that this narrative, which supports and encourages our embrace
of the policy of mass incarceration is, itself, a sociologically naive
and morally superficial view.
4. Fourth, I wish to observe that these people who have offended
against our laws are nevertheless human beings. And, while they may
deserve punishment, imprisoning them is something that We the People of
the United States of America are doing. Indeed, punishment is one of
the most politically salient things that we do in a democracy: the
state is forcibly depriving citizens of their liberty. And, while this
practice is necessary for the maintenance of order in society, it
should always be done humanely, in a manner that comports with our
deepest political values. We ought never to lose sight of the essential
humanity of those whom we punish--and, of the humanity of those to whom
offenders are connected via intimate ties of social and psychic
affiliation. Unfortunately, we have not always lived up to this high
standard. Thus, Confronting Confinement, a report released last year
from the Commission on Safety and Abuse in America's Prisons (of which
former US Attorney General Nicholas Katzenback was co-chairman), found
that our penal institutions are (i) dangerously overcrowded, that (ii)
they rely overly much on physical isolation to manage the behavior of
inmates (a practice which, the Commission found, can have a lasting
adverse effect on the prisoners' mental health), and that they are
horribly, unnecessarily violent. The report estimates that more than
1.5 million people annually are released from prisons and jails with a
life-threatening infectious disease--the HIV, drug-resistant staph
infections, hepatitis-C, and tuberculosis; and, that at least one out
of every six prisoners--over 350,000 people on a given day--are
``seriously mentally ill.''
5. Fifth, I must call attention to a huge gap between the races in
the incidence of punishment which exists in our country. Black
Americans and Hispanics together account for about one-quarter of the
overall national population, but constitute about two-thirds of state
and federal prison populations. The extent of racial disparity in
imprisonment rates is greater than in any other major arena of American
social life: at eight-to-one, the black-white ratio of incarceration
rates dwarfs the two-to-one ratio of unemployment rates, three-to-one
non-marital child bearing ratio, the two-to-one black-white ratio of
infant mortality rates and one-to-five ratio of net worth. As the table
below makes clear, more black male high school dropouts are
incarcerated than belong to unions or are enrolled in all government
social welfare programs, combined.
Men Incarcerated (2000), in Unions, or in Social Programs (1996)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whites Hispanics Blacks
------------------------------------------------------------------------
All men, age 20 to 40
In prison or jail........................ 1.60% 4.60% 11.50%
In labor union........................... 9.70% 10.70% 11.50%
On welfare............................... 1.70% 1.40% 2.30%
In any program (including welfare)....... 6.70% 4.90% 10.80%
Male high school dropouts, age 20 to 40
In prison or jail........................ 6.70% 6.00% 32.40%
In labor union........................... 6.30% 8.10% 2.30%
On welfare............................... 6.20% 1.70% 3.70%
In any program (including welfare)....... 17.90% 6.30% 24.00%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Survey of Incomes and Program Participation (1996)
The scandalous fact of the matter is that the primary contact
between poorly educated black American men of a certain age and the
American state is via the police and the penal apparatus. For instance,
among black male high school dropouts ages 20 to 40, a third were under
lock and key on a given day in the year 2000, while fewer than 3
percent belonged to a union, and less than one-quarter were enrolled in
any kind of social program (according to Harvard University
sociologist, Bruce Western.) The coercive aspect of government is the
most salient feature of their experience of the public sector. Western
estimates that some 58 percent of black male dropouts born between 1965
and 1969 were sent to prison on a felony offense at least once before
reaching the age of 35.
For these men, and the families and communities with which they are
associated, the adverse effects of incarceration will extend beyond
their stays behind bars. To see how the post-1980 prison boom affected
Americans differently, depending on their race and their social class,
consider two birth cohorts of black and white men. The first cohort was
born in 1945 to 1949, just after World War II. These individuals
reached their mid-thirties by 1970, just before the rapid increase in
imprisonment rates. The second cohort was born during the Vietnam War,
from 1965 to 1969, and reached their mid-thirties during the height of
the prison boom. The table below compares the imprisonment experience
of these two cohorts, broken down by race and level of education:
Cumulative Risk of Imprisonment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Less than HS or GED All Some
------------- HS ------------- Noncollege College
------------- -------------------------
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White men
Born 1945 to 1949.............................. 1.4 4 1 2.1 0.5
Born 1965 to 1969.............................. 2.9 11.2 3.6 5.3 0.7
Black men
Born 1945 to 1949.............................. 10.5 17.1 6.5 12 5.9
Born 1965 to 1969.............................. 20.5 58.9 18.4 30.2 4.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice that the aggregate risk of imprisonment is twice as great in
the later cohort--2.9 percent as compared to 1.4 percent for white men;
and, 20.5 percent as compared to 10.5 percent for black men. Moreover,
one can see from the table that the experience of incarceration for
poorly educated black men is estimated to be four times more prevalent
in the later than in the earlier cohort--58.9 percent as compared to
17.1 percent. The massive scale of this policy shift is stunning. To
repeat: there is a nearly three-fifths chance that a black male with
less than HS diploma born between 1965-69 will have gone to prison or
jail at least once prior to reaching age 35.
A fundamental point to bear in mind is that the experience of
prison feeds-back to affect the life course of those incarcerated in an
adverse manner. The vast majority of inmates return to society. The
evidence that prison adversely affects the subsequent life chances of
the incarcerated is considerable and impressive.
Table 5.2--Wages, Employment, Earnings
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incarceration Status
--------------------------
Never Before After
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hourly wages (dollars per hour)
White........................................ 14.7 11.14 11.8
Hispanic..................................... 13.59 12.3 10.31
Black........................................ 12.34 10.25 9.25
Annual employment (weeks per year)
White........................................ 44 37 23
Hispanic..................................... 43 35 24
Black........................................ 40 35 21
Annual earnings (thousands of dollars per
year)
White........................................ 26.44 13.7 9.76
Hispanic..................................... 23.9 13.29 9.14
Black........................................ 20.37 13.34 7.02
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The table above reproduces Harvard University sociologist Bruce
Western's (admittedly crude but suggestive) estimates of the impact of
imprisonment on subsequent labor market outcomes. Hourly wages of
incarcerated black men are 10 percent lower after prison than before.
And weeks worked per year of all imprisoned men are down by \1/3\ or
more after release, as compared with prior to their incarceration. Now,
consider the nearly 60 percent of black male high school dropouts born
in the late 1960s who will have been imprisoned before their fortieth
year. For these men, their links to family have been disrupted; their
subsequent work lives will be diminished; their voting rights are often
permanently revoked. They will suffer, quite literally, a ``civic
excommunication'' from American democracy. It is no exaggeration to say
that, given our zeal for social discipline, these men will be consigned
to a permanent, non-white, male nether caste. And yet, since these
men--whatever their shortcomings--have emotional and sexual and family
needs, including the need to be fathers and lovers and husbands--we
will have created a bio-political situation where the children of this
nether caste are likely themselves to join a new generation of
untouchables.
A central reality of our time is the fact that there has opened a
wide racial gap in the acquisition of cognitive skills, the extent of
law-abidingness, the stability of family relations, the attachment to
the work force, and the like. This disparity in human development is,
as a historical matter, rooted in political, economic, social, and
cultural factors peculiar to this society and reflective of its
unlovely racial history: it is a societal, not communal or personal,
achievement. At the level of the individual case we must, of course,
act as if this were not so. There could be no law, no civilization,
without the imputation to particular persons of responsibility for
their wrongful acts. But the sum of a million cases, each one rightly
judged on its merits to be individually fair, may nevertheless
constitute a great historic wrong. The state does not only deal with
individual cases. It also makes policies in the aggregate, and the
consequences of these policies are more or less knowable. And who can
honestly say--who can look in the mirror and say with a straight face--
that we now have laws and policies that we would endorse if we did not
know our own situation and genuinely considered the possibility that we
might be the least advantaged?
6. Finally, I would like to make a few observations about the so-
called War on Drugs. This policy has not been successful in my view,
and it has had a hugely disparate, adverse impact on the African
American community. Consider the table below, showing the trend in drug
arrest rates by race since 1970.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
drug arrests of blacks spike in late 80's
Blacks were twice as likely as whites to be arrested for a drug
offense in 1975, but four-times as likely (1,460 versus 365 per
100,000) by 1989. For all of the 1990s, drug arrest rates remained at
historically unprecedented levels. Yet, according to the National
Survey on Drug Abuse (NSDA), drug use among adults fell from 20 percent
in 1979 to 11 percent in 2000. A similar trend occurred for
adolescents. In the age groups 12-17 and 18-25, usage of marijuana,
cocaine and heroin all peaked at roughly the same time (in the late
1970s), and began a steady decline thereafter (Tonry 2004, Figure 5.14,
p. 132). Thus, a decline in drug use across the board had begun a
decade before the War on Drugs was initiated.
There are some interesting discrepancies between the racial gap in
drug use and in drug arrests. In figure 2.2 (above) one can see that
the drug arrest rate for blacks stood at twice the rate for whites in
the late 1970s, rising to 4 times the white rate by 1990. On the other
hand, figure 2.3 (below) reveals that throughout this period white high
school seniors reported using drugs at a significantly higher rate than
blacks.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Presumably this relatively high rate of drug use in the early 80's
in the mainstream of American society partially explains the urgency
many felt to mount a national attack on the problem. Yet, how
successful has the effort been, and at what cost?
As the data below make clear, retail prices on the street of
illicit drugs fell steadily and sharply throughout the period 1980-2000
(with the exception of methamphetamine which experienced a price spike
in the late 80's-early 90's), even as ``war mobilization'' caused drug
incarceration rate to skyrocket:
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[Source: Caulkins, Reuter and Taylor, ``Can Supply Restrictions Lower
Price?'' Contributions to Economic Analysis and Policy Vol. 5 (2006)]
spatial effects
What all this comes to is that, to save ``our'' middle class kids
from the threat of their being engulfed by a drug epidemic that might
not have even existed by the time drug incarceration began rapidly
rising in the 1980s, we criminalized ``our'' underclass kids. Arrests
went up and up, drug prices went down and down, and drug consumptions
seems not to have been much impacted by the policy.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
An interesting case in point is New York City. Columbia University
criminologist Jeffery Fagan and his colleagues have analyzed data on
arrests in various New York City residential neighborhoods and police
precincts. They report that, 70 percent of state inmates in New York
come from New York City. Between 1990 and 2003 the number of state
prison inmates coming from the city rose from 55,000 to 70,000. The
City also had an average daily jail population of nearly 18,000 in
1999. ``Rates of incarceration in NYC have been largely unaffected by
the city's dramatic declines in crime. Moreover, the increase in
incarceration is in part ``attributable to aggressive enforcement of
drug laws, especially street-level enforcement resulting in large
numbers of felony arrests of retail drug sellers.'' They note that
``drug-related offenses have accounted for an increasing proportion of
prison admissions--up from 12 percent of state prison admissions in
1985 to 31 percent in 1990, to 38 percent in 1996. Some 11,600
residents of NYC entered the NY state prison system on drug-related
offenses in 1996, compared to 9,345 in 1990.
As the maps above make clear, incarceration was highest in the
City's poorest neighborhoods though these were not in every instance
the neighborhoods where crime rates were highest. Most interestingly,
when these data were analyzed at the level of police precincts, the
authors discovered a perverse positive feedback of incarceration on
crime: higher incarceration in a given neighborhood seemed to predict
higher crime rates one year later in that same neighborhood. They
concluded that the growth and persistence of incarceration over time
were due primarily to drug enforcement and to sentencing laws that
require imprisonment for repeat felons. Police scrutiny was more
intensive and less forgiving in neighborhoods high incarceration
neighborhoods, and parolees returning to such neighborhoods were more
closely monitored. This discretionary, spatially discriminatory police
behavior led to a high and increasing rate of repeat prison admissions
in the designated neighborhoods, even as crime rates fell.
Further evidence along these lines can be found by examining the
experience of anti-marijuana law enforcement. Comprehensive data on
this have been collected for New York City by the Queens College
sociologist Harry Levine and his colleagues, and are presented in the
tables that follow. These data speak volumes about the racially
discriminatory and spatially selective enforcement of anti-drug
statutes. Bear in mind when viewing these data that U.S. Government
statistics have consistently found that White teenagers and young
adults use marijuana as much, or more, than Blacks and Hispanics do.
Nonetheless, in 2006 in New York City, the per capita arrest rate of
Blacks was nearly 8 times the rate of Whites.
Again, I wish to express my gratitude to the Committee for this
opportunity to present my reflections on this urgent matter of national
policy.
______
Responses by Dr. Glenn C. Loury to Questions from
Representative Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott
Question 1. In your testimony, you state that high levels of
imprisonment have become counterproductive. Please elaborate.
Response. The three main reasons that I see the current high level
of imprisonment as being counterproductive are as follows:
1. Holding people in prison doesn't make them ``better.'' Rather,
it makes them ``worse.'' Not only do we fail to rehabilitate criminals
when they're in custody. Incarceration has a significant adverse impact
on the employability (weeks work down by a third) and the earnings
(wages off by 10 percent) of ex-convicts. They are ``scarred'' by the
experience of prison. Their mental and physical health is negatively
affected. Recidivism rates are such that nearly 50 percent of prisoners
are returned to custody within three years of their release.
2. The amount of public safety ``purchased'' for society by using
prisons on the scale that we are now using them does not justify the
cost incurred to hold prisoner behind bars, let alone the cost we're
imposing on prisoners and the communities from which they come.
The economist, Steven Levitt, estimates that more money spent on
policing, and less on imprisonment, would lead to lower crime rates
(Journal of Economic Perspectives, 2004). The conservative political
scientist, John Dilulio, opined in the Wall Street Journal nearly a
decade ago (March 12, 1999) that we were then overusing prison for
crime control purposes, and that we should aim toward ``zero-growth in
incarceration.'' Some ``tough on crime'' policies, like ``three strikes
and you're out'' hold offenders behind bars for decades beyond the
point in the lifecycle after which people cease to be a threat to
society. Given the widespread problems of over-crowding and the huge
pressure on state budgets due to the cost of running these mammoth
prison systems, cell space devoted to holding non-violent drug
offenders could be much more effectively utilized.
3. Imprisonment on the scale which we are now undertaking, and that
is so concentrated among the poorly educated, urban, racial minority
male youth populations of our country, does not make the communities
from which offenders are taken better, it makes them worse. A number of
observers (see, for example, Fagan et al., ``Reciprocal effects of
crime and incarceration in New York City Neighborhoods,'' Fordham Law
Journal 2003) have noted that massive and spatially concentrated
incarceration feeds-back to have a detrimental effect on the social
climate in the communities to which inmates inevitably return. The
legitimacy of law enforcement is weakened; the moral norms against
offending are undermined; the stigma of imprisonment is eviscerated;
the intensity of law enforcement scrutiny is enhanced. Fagan et al.
actually find that New York City neighborhoods which experienced the
highest rates of incarceration in one year were, other things equal,
likely to experience higher rates of crime in future years.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Prepared Statement of Bruce Western, Director, Department of Sociology,
Harvard University
Mr Chairman and Members of the Committee: thank you for the
opportunity of testifying today about the causes and economic effects
of the growth in the incarceration rate.
I. Trends in Incarceration
The fraction of the population in state and federal prison has
increased in every single year for the last 34 years. The rate of
imprisonment today is now five times higher than in 1972.\1\ The US
rate of imprisonment is five to ten times higher than in the
longstanding democracies of Western Europe, and is only rivaled, though
not exceeded, by the incarceration rates of South Africa and Russia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pastore and Maguire (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today's novel rates of incarceration are most remarkable for their
concentration among young African American men with little schooling.
While fewer than 2 percent of young white men, aged 22 to 30, were in
prison or jail in 2004, the incarceration rate of young black men was
13.5 percent (Table 1). Among young black men who had never been to
college, 21.1 percent were locked up on an average day in 2004. At the
bottom of the education ladder, I estimate that more than 1 in 3 black
male high school dropouts were incarcerated in 2004.
Table 1.--Incarceration rates for young men, 1980 and 2004.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whites Blacks
---------------------------
1980 2004 1980 2004
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Men Aged 22-30 in Prison or Jail (%)
All men..................................... 0.6 1.9 5.7 13.5
Without College Education................... 1.1 4.2 7.4 21.1
High School Dropouts........................ 2.3 7.3 11.7 34.2
Men with Prison Records by Age 34 (%)
All men..................................... 1.2 2.8 9.0 22.8
Without College Education................... 1.8 5.1 12.1 30.9
High School Dropouts........................ 4.2 14.8 14.7 62.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Percentage of men with prison records are risks of imprisonment
estimated for birth cohorts born 1945-1949 by 1979, and 1970-1974 by
2004. Sources and methods are described in Western (2006).
To examine the chances of going to prison over a lifetime, I also
calculated the percentage of men who have ever been to prison by their
mid-thirties. (Most prisoners will be admitted for the first time
before age 35.) These percentages describe the prevalence of
imprisonment, not jail incarceration--at least 12 months in a state or
federal facility, and an average of 34 months of time served. For men
born in the late 1940s who reached their mid-thirties in 1979, blacks
were 9 percent likely to go to prison. For black men born in the late
1960s, the lifetime chances of imprisonment had grown to 22.8 percent.
Among black men without college education now in their early forties,
nearly a third have prison records. For young black male dropouts,
prison time has become a normal life event, affecting 60 percent of
those born since the late 1960s. Young black men are now more likely to
go to prison than to graduate college with a 4-year degree, or to serve
in the military.\2\ These extraordinary rates of incarceration are new.
We need only go back 20 years to find a time when the penal system was
not pervasive in the lives of young African American men.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Western (2006, 29).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the period of mass incarceration, blacks have remained 7 to 8
times more likely to be incarcerated than whites. The large black-white
disparity in incarceration is unmatched by most other social
indicators. Racial disparities in unemployment (2 to 1), nonmarital
childbearing (3 to 1), infant mortality (2 to 1), and wealth (1 to 5)
are all significantly lower than the 7 to 1 black-white ratio in
incarceration rates.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Western (2006, 16).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Invisible Disadvantage
Because of high incarceration rates, conventional measures of
economic well-being are optimistic for young unskilled black men.
Conventional economic statistics, like wage and employment rates, are
based only on the non-institutional population. For example, the
employment-to-population ratio calculated from the monthly Census
Bureau household survey, the Current Population Survey, significantly
overstates employment rates. Figure 1 shows the employment-to-
population ratio for black men without college education, aged 22 to
30. Taking the conventional approach and excluding prison and jail
inmates from the population count, employment appears to have declined
from 73 to 63 percent, from 1989 to 2004. Once prisoners are counted
among the jobless in the population, the percentage employed among
young low-education black men falls from 65 to 50 percent. Figure 1
shows that employment rates for young non-college black men did not
increase at all through the economic expansion of the late 1990s. The
appearance of improved employment in the noninstitutional population
was overshadowed by rising incarceration rates.
III. The Labor Market After Prison
While mass incarceration creates a large pool of disadvantaged men
who are invisible in conventional labor force statistics, it also
diminishes the economic opportunities of those who are released.
Researchers have found that men released from incarceration earn less
and are employed less than similar men who have not been incarcerated.
Estimates of the earnings loss associated with imprisonment range from
10 to 30 percent.\4\ A few studies also report that youth detained in
correctional facilities before age 20 have higher unemployment and
receive lower wages a decade or longer after incarceration.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Grogger (1995), Lott (1990), Waldfogel (1994), Western (2002).
\5\ Freeman (1992) and Western and Beckett (1999).
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The poor labor market experiences of the formerly incarcerated can
be explained in several ways. Those coming out of prison typically have
little schooling and erratic work histories. A prison record further
deepens this disadvantage. The stigma of a criminal conviction makes
ex-offenders undesirable job applicants in the eyes of employers.
Criminal stigma has a legal dimension in which those with criminal
records are barred from employment in certain industries and
occupations. Incarceration can also deplete skills and foster behaviors
that are ill-suited to the open labor market.
Analysis of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (1979)
suggests time in prison affects a wide range of employment experiences.
The NLSY is a nationally representative survey of youth aged 14 to 20
in 1979. The respondents were interviewed annually until 1994, then
every other year after that. From 1979 to 2000, 1 in 5 of the black
male respondents were interviewed at least once in a correctional
facility.
Statistical analysis shows that imprisonment reduces the hourly
wages, annual employment, and annual incomes of young men. Annual
employment is reduced by between 10 and 15 percent. Hourly wages are
reduced by between 12 and 16 percent. The combined effects of
incarceration on hourly wages and annual employment, produce large
losses in annual incomes. I find that the annual incomes of formerly
incarcerated men are about 35 percent lower than for similar men who
have not been incarcerated. We can gain more insight into the kinds of
jobs obtained by released prisoners by considering the effects of
incarceration on job tenure and wage growth. Analysis of the NLSY shows
that the wages of ex-prisoners grow 25 percent more slowly as workers
get older. Incarceration is also associated with a one-third reduction
in job tenure. These statistics suggest that incarceration channels men
into informal, secondary labor market jobs that offer little economic
stability or upward mobility.
These effects of incarceration on individual economic status are
not new, but they are now playing out on a novel scale. Because
returning prisoners are highly concentrated in poor urban
neighborhoods, the economic penalties of incarceration now permeate the
most economically vulnerable families and communities.
IV. Policy Implications
Because incarceration rates are now so historically high,
assistance for re-integration and rehabilitation will be felt not just
by those coming out of prison, but by the poor and minority communities
from which they originate. Three types of policies would help alleviate
the social and economic effects of mass incarceration.
Congress should re-examine the large of number of collateral
consequences limiting the access of ex-felons to federal benefits and
employment. Many restrictions--such as limitations on educational,
welfare, and housing benefits--do not serve public safety, impede the
reintegration of the formerly incarcerated, and penalize family
members. While restrictions on benefits or employment might be
justified if they are closely linked to particular crimes, such
restrictions should be strictly time-limited, given the strong pattern
of criminal desistance with age.
Congress should support prisoner re-entry programs that provide
transitional employment and other services. Well-designed programs have
been found to improve employment and reduce recidivism. Research
suggests that community-based re-entry programs should ideally be
integrated with education and other programs in prison, and also
provide housing, drug treatment, and health care to improve the job
readiness of released-prisoners.\6\ Post-prison employment would be
encouraged by passage of the Second Chance Act of 2007. Employer
incentives can be promoted through expansions of the Work Opportunity
Tax Credit and the Federal Bonding Program. Taken together, these three
measures would provide an important first step to a comprehensive
federal re-entry policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Positive effects of employment and education programs in prison
and after are reported by Saylor and Gaes (1997, 1999), Steurer, Smith,
and Tracy (2001), and Finn (1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress should support the establishment of criminal justice
social-impact panels in local jurisdictions that can evaluate
unwarranted disparities in juvenile and adult incarceration. By
assessing the link between socioeconomic disparities in offending to
disparities in incarceration, local social impact panels could identify
and take steps to eliminate disproportionate incarceration in poor and
minority communities. Social-impact panels could also be charged with
assessing disparities that may arise under proposed sentencing reforms.
References
Pastore, Ann L. and Kathleen Maguire, eds. 2007. Sourcebook of Criminal
Justice Statistics [Online]. Table 6.28.2005. Available: http://
www.albany.edu/sourcebook/. Accessed September 30, 2007.
Finn, Peter. 1998. Texas's Project RIO (Re-Integration of Offenders).
Washington DC: National Institute of Justice. NCJ 168637.
Freeman, Richard B. 1992. ``Crime and the Employment of Disadvantaged
Youth.'' Pp. 201-37 in Urban Labor Markets and Job Opportunity,
edited by George Peterson and Wayne Vroman. Washington, DC: Urban
Institute Press.
Grogger, Jeffrey. 1995. ``The Effect of Arrests on the Employment and
Earnings of Young Men.'' Quarterly Journal of Economics 110:51-71.
Lott, John R. 1990. ``The Effect of Conviction on the Legitimate Income
of Criminals.'' Economics Letters 34:381-385.
Saylor, William G. and Gaes, Gerald G. 1997. ``Training Inmates Through
Industrial Work Participation and Vocational and Apprenticeship
Instruction.'' Corrections Management Quarterly 1:32-43.
Saylor, William G. and Gaes, Gerald G. 1999. ``The Differential Effect
of Industries and Vocational Training on Post Release Outcome for
Ethnic and Racial Groups.'' Office of Research and Evaluation.
Washington DC: Federal Bureau of Prisons.
Steurer, Stephen J., Linda Smith and Alice Tracy. 2001. ``Three State
Recidivism Study.'' Report submitted to the Office of Correctional
Education, U.S. Department of Education. Lanham, MD: Correctional
Education Association.
Waldfogel, Joel. 1994. ``The Effect of Criminal Conviction on Income
and the Trust `Reposed in the Workmen.''' Journal of Human
Resources 29:62-81.
Western, Bruce. 2002. ``The Impact of Incarceration on Wage Mobility
and Inequality.'' American Sociological Review 67:477-98.
Western, Bruce. 2006. Punishment and Inequality in America. New York:
Russell Sage Foundation.
Western, Bruce and Katherine Beckett. 1999. ``How Unregulated is the
U.S. Labor Market: The Penal System as a Labor Market
Institution.'' American Journal of Sociology, 104:1030-60.
______
Responses by Dr. Bruce Western to Questions from
Representative Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott
Question 1. In your testimony, you mentioned creating local social-
impact panels. Could you provide more details about these panels,
including who would sit on these panels?
Response. Regarding social impact review panels, sentencing
commissions at the state and federal levels periodically review
demographic patterns in sentencing and other phases of criminal
processing. The US Sentencing Commission, for example, is required to
collect and publish data on federal sentencing practices. Under its
Congressional mandate, the USSC annually publishes figures on the
racial, ethnic, age and sex composition of sentenced defendants. The
social impact panels I propose would do similar work, drawing on
similar expertise and resources as the research arm of the USSC. The
panels might ideally be established within state sentencing
commissions.
Although the data collection and dissemination tasks would be
similar in form to the reporting activities of the USSC, the content
would be different. Social impact panels would collect data not just on
sentencing but also on arrest, pretrial incarceration, sentenced
incarceration, and release. Instead of collecting data just on the
race, ethnicity, age, and sex, data would also be obtained on the
schooling and residence of those going to prison. This focus on
schooling and residence is motivated by the extreme educational and
residential disparities in incarceration. Finally, to identify
unwarranted disparities, the social impact panels would compare
patterns of incarceration to patterns of offending reflected in survey
data and data on calls to police. The panel could thus identify
localities and social groups whose incarceration rates exceeded their
levels of criminal offending. If systematic evidence of disparate
incarceration was reported, the panel would work with criminal justice
agencies and other stakeholders to eliminate the disparities.
Many of the data resources to conduct this work already exist. Data
from the National Corrections Reporting Program provides a demographic
census of prison admissions and releases in 38 states. The FBI Uniform
Crime Reports and National Incident-Based Reporting System offer
detailed counts of offenses known to the police at the county level.
The National Crime Victimization Survey of the Bureau of Justice
Statistics provides highly detailed demographic information about crime
victims. The proposed work of the social impact panels would not build
a new statistical system; rather it would extend existing resources
with the clear purpose of identifying and mitigating social and
residential patterns of disparate incarceration. The social impact
panels would also provide advice to policymakers about proposed
sentencing and other reforms. By providing this information,
policymakers will tend to weigh more heavily the adverse consequences
of unwarranted disparities. (A similar and more detailed discussion is
provided by Marc Mauer in his proposal for racial impact statements in
the 2007 Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law.)
Question 2. In your testimony, you mentioned collateral
consequences of incarceration, such as restrictions on participation in
public benefit programs. What specific recommendations do you have with
regard to these restrictions? What are the negative consequences of
having these restrictions?
Response. Regarding collateral consequences of incarceration,
individuals with criminal convictions may currently be denied a range
of federal benefits. TANF, food stamps, education grants and loans, and
federal housing assistance are currently denied to those with felony
and misdemeanor records. The 1996 welfare reform established bans on
TANF and food stamps for people with felony drug convictions. States
could expressly pass exemptions for the denial of benefits and twelve
did so while the remainder kept the bans in full or adopted modified
restrictions. These bans disproportionately affect poor women with
children, a group whose incarceration rate is growing much faster than
the general population. I know of no scientific evidence that public
safety is served by the denial of TANF and food stamps to individuals
with drug convictions. Indeed, rehabilitation and reintegration may
well be promoted by such benefits. Many individuals with criminal
records have difficulty obtaining work, either because they lack job
skills or because employers have policies against hiring individuals
with prior convictions. Public assistance and food stamps provide such
individuals with necessary survival assistance as they look for
employment. Public assistance and food stamps also help ensure the
continued availability of alcohol and drug treatment programs. Alcohol
and drug treatment programs, particularly residential programs, have
historically relied on funding from a client's public assistance and
food stamps to pay for room and board. Without these funds, programs
are forced to reduce services. Because they might adversely affect
public safety. Congress should eliminate bans on TANF and food stamps
for those with drug convictions.
In 1998 the Higher Education Act was amended to disqualify those
with felony and misdemeanor drug convictions from eligibility for post-
secondary aid from Pell Grants, Stafford loans, and work-study
assistance. Lifetime ineligibility is imposed on those with three
convictions for drug possession or two convictions for drug sales. The
GAO estimates that from 2001 to 2003, around 140,000 applicants for
federal education assistance were denied because of a drug conviction.
The number affected is likely to be much larger, because the ban on
those with drug conviction discourages many from applying. Low
education is perhaps the dominant deficit, besides the criminal record
itself, limiting the economic opportunities of those released from
incarceration. As for the ban on TANF and food stamps, I know of no
scientific evidence that the ban on post-secondary education assistance
promotes public safety. Indeed, the ban on post-secondary education for
those with drug convictions is more likely to lead to recidivism than
desistance from crime. Because higher education supports are targeted
at low-income students, banning post-secondary aid compounds the
economic difficulties that those with criminal records are struggling
to overcome. Congress should eliminate the denial of federal post
secondary education benefits to individuals with drug convictions.
Finally, a variety of provisions deny federally assisted housing
benefits to those involved in drug-related activity. Federal law
provides for two main exclusions. Those engaging in drug-related
activity in public housing can be evicted, and applications for public
housing can be denied to those with convictions for drug-related
activities. Drug-related serious violence is an acute problem in public
housing. However, there is little evidence that the denial of housing
to those with drug convictions has reduced crime public housing. Public
housing, like education and welfare benefits, helps erase a key deficit
for those returning home from prison and jail. In the absence of
evidence that the denial of public housing to those with drug
convictions improves public safety, and in light of the vast number of
poor citizens with drug convictions, Congress should eliminate
ineligibility for public housing on the basis of a criminal record.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Prepared Statement of Alphonso Albert, Executive Director,
Second Chances
The Second Chances program is a program sponsored by the city of
Norfolk to assist non-violent offenders that are returning back into
the local community after being incarcerated in jail and prison.
Over the past eight years, Second Chances has served more than 1200
offenders, provided more than 900 jobs at an average wage of $9.00 per
hour and maintained a 73 percent employment retention rate over one
year period. Additionally, Second Chances has implemented programs to
serve children of incarcerated parents, opened a permanent supportive
housing initiative to provide housing for offenders that are homeless
upon their return and started three business enterprises that hire
program participants at a minimum of $ 8 per hour and $12 per hour with
benefits when they have drivers license.
There is a collateral cost to incarceration however, that is rarely
observed or talked about but one that comes back to haunt society in so
many other ways. The cost is one that impacts families and children of
incarcerated individuals. Most incarcerated individuals have families
and many of them have children that grow-up themselves to be
incarcerated. The fact that a child that lives in a household with a
loved one or family member that has been incarcerated and will likely
be incarcerated themselves when they grow up is due in large measure to
the fact that the same conditions that existed for the adult will exist
for the child unless there is some intervening factors. Limited
education, lack of positive role model, poor housing conditions, abuse,
etc. are all factors that contribute. The Second Chances staff recently
conducted a survey of women in the Norfolk City jail that were within
90 days of release. The results of the survey indicated that and that
34 women had children between the ages of 4-18, only 9 of the 34 had
legal custody of their children, 25 or the 34 self reported as having
problems with substance abuse or addiction, 16 admitted having damaged
relationship with family as a result of their addiction, and 27
acknowledged that they needed some type of parenting class or training
in order to be a better parents.
The greatest challenge that we face on a daily basis in helping
offenders make a positive transition from prison back into the
community (getting out and staying out as productive citizens) is pre-
release planning and post release services. The department of
corrections provides limited training opportunities for returning
offenders and has only recently began focusing re-entry planning as a
part of their overall strategy for helping offenders make a smooth
transition back into local communities. More often than not, the issues
of no proper identification, no birth certificates, limited pre-release
plans, no post release services, housing and lack of job leads,
financial burden and hardship are all things that stifle the offenders
and prevent the individual from having a positive re-entry experience.
These factors also lead to recidivism and relapse in so many of the
cases that we see on a daily basis.
Recently, the State of Virginia became one of seven states around
the country to participate in the National Governors Association
Reentry Policy Academy. Virginia sub sequentially established five
pilot programs around the State that focused on providing pre-release
planning and post release services. The challenge to these pilot sites
however, is lack of funding. Lack of funding means no counselors to
work with offenders prior to release in getting proper Identification,
birth certificates and a total of all fines, court cost, child support,
restitution and other financial obligations prior to release. Funding
at the federal level would also support staffing that helps offenders
with job leads, housing placement, job training and other post release
services. It is my opinion that funding for reentry programs that
provide pre and post release planning as well as job placement, case
management and follow-up aftercare should be made available in order to
help prevent recidivism, strengthen families, and promote healthy
communities through the concept of investing in our human
infrastructure at a time when we can least afford not to do so.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony to this
committee and I would be pleased to answer any further questions.
______
Responses by Alphonso Albert to Questions from
Representative Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott
Question 1. In your testimony, you mention the importance of pre-
release planning and post-release services. How would you recommend
integrating these ideas into the current criminal justice and
incarceration system and what effect would the re-institution of parole
have on an inmate's incentive to plan for release.
Response. Pre-release planning and post release services could be
integrated into the current system by funding directed to the state re-
entry pilots and programs that are currently providing pre and post
release services as beginning models. Funding that would provide each
pilot site with two pre-release counselors per facility that would be
responsible for assisting offenders with securing id cards, birth
certificates, clothing, an assessment of all fines and financial
obligations prior to release as well as two or three weeks of
orientation that prepares the offenders for what to expect when
returning. Funding for the same pilot for post release services would
help with transitional jobs, case managers, housing vouchers,
transportation assistance, life skills, job training and other related
services.
As far as the parole board, I do think that having parole adds
incentive to an inmates when incarcerated and motivates positive
behavior and outlook for inmate. I also feel however that the
compromise achieved when selecting a parole board in the past (and by
compromise, I mean the people selected) has been too political and
influenced too heavily by people that either advocate revenge or victim
rights. This does not allow for an objective viewing of the risk
factors and suitability of inmate parole candidates. I am strongly in
favor of reinstituting the parole system here in Virginia, however; the
board should be selected differently. I certainly hope that I have
answered your questions satisfactorily and please feel free to contact
me if I can be of further assistance.
__________
Prepared Statement of Michael Jacobson, Director,
Vera Institute of Justice
Good morning Senator Webb. I would like to thank you for inviting
me here to testify today. I have some brief remarks and then I'd be
happy to answer any questions you might have.
The United States now spends over $60 billion annually to maintain
its corrections system reflecting the fact that we imprison a greater
percentage of our population than any other nation on earth. In the
last 30 years, we have seen the jail and prison population rise from
250 thousand to almost 2.3 million, almost a tenfold increase.
The strain that this geometric increase in those incarcerated puts
on our states and cities is cumulative and continues to grow. Over the
last decade and a half, the only function of state governments to grow
as a percentage of overall state budgets is, with the exception of
Medicaid, corrections. The rate of growth of spending on corrections in
state budgets exceeds that for education, health care, social services,
transportation and environmental protection. There is a very clear
relationship between the amount of money we spend on prisons and the
amount that is available, or not available, for all these other
essential areas of government. In many states--California is one that
especially comes to mind--one can literally see money move in the
budget from primary and secondary education to prisons. State budgets
tend to be largely zero sum games and increases in corrections spending
has absolutely held down spending in these other areas of government,
many of which are also directly related to public safety.
Of course, the obvious question this raises is, ``what do we get
for that money?'' Certainly, there should be some significant
connection between our tremendous use of prison and public safety. As
most people know, the U.S. experienced a large crime decline from the
early 1990s to the early 2000s and it would seem to make intuitive
sense that our significantly increasing prison systems played a major
role in that decline.
In fact, it is a much more mixed and nuanced story than it would
appear. There is some consensus among criminologists and social
scientists that over the last decade, our increased use of prison was
responsible for some (perhaps around 20-25 percent) but by no means
most of the national crime decline. Additionally, there is also
agreement that, going forward, putting even more people in prison will
have declining effectiveness as we put more and more people in prison
who present less and less of a threat to public safety. At this point,
putting greater numbers of people into prison as a way to achieve more
public safety is one of the least effective ways we know to decrease
crime.
We know, for instance, that even after spending tens of billions of
dollars on incarceration, more than half of those leaving prison are
back in prison within three years--not a result that anybody should be
proud of. We know that targeted spending for effective in-prison and
post-prison reentry programs will reduce crime and victims more
substantially than prison expansion. We know that diverting people from
prison who are not threats to public safety into serious and structured
community based alternatives to prison is more effective than simply
continuing to incarcerate, at huge expense, these same people. In the
same vein, the research shows that increasing high school graduation
rates, neighborhood based law enforcement initiatives and increases in
employment and wages will also more effectively reduce crime than
greater use of prison.
We also know that incarcerating so much of our population and
especially the disproportionate incarceration of people of color also
comes with other costs as well. Hundreds of thousands of people leave
prison annually with no right to vote, no access to public housing,
hugely limited abilities to find employment and high levels of drug use
and mental illness. These unintended consequences of incarceration
ripple through families and communities as those returning home are
overwhelmed by seemingly intractable obstacles. Not surprisingly, many
people wind up returning to prison in astounding numbers, further
draining scarce resources that could be made available to deal with
some of these obstacles themselves.
As someone who used to run the largest city jail system in the
country, I know that most people who leave jail and prison do not want
to come back. It is a miserable and degrading experience and my
colleagues who run these systems and I always marvel about the numbers
of people who are leaving prison who want to make good and do good.
Once they leave however, they are confronted by such overwhelming
barriers on which we currently spend almost no money or attention that
no one should be surprised that these same people are back in prison so
soon.
We know that states can continue to decrease crime and
simultaneously decrease prison populations. New York State, for
example, has for the last seven years seen the largest decrease in its
prison population of any state in the nation--a decline of 14 percent.
The rest of the states increased their prison populations by an average
of 12 percent over the same time period. At the same time, violent
crime decreased in New York State by 20 percent compared to just over 1
percent for the rest of the country. Prison populations can drop along
with crime and victimization.
If we were serious about using our limited resources most
effectively in reducing crime and victimization and increasing public
safety, then we would begin to responsibly and systematically transfer
some of the resources now used to imprison people to community based
prevention, reentry and capacity building. It is important to stress
here that this is an issue of public safety. Even putting aside all
arguments about efficiency and effectiveness, talking only in terms of
public safety, we will all be safer if we begin to reinvest some of the
money that now goes to incarcerate people who do not pose a threat to
public safety (and who become more of a threat to public safety after
they are imprisoned) into other programmatic initiatives both inside
and outside the criminal justice system.
The fact is that almost all the extant research points out that our
prison system is too big, too expensive, drains funds away from other
essential areas that can more effectively increase public safety, and
is harmful to our poorest communities. Despite all this research,
however, we continue to imprison more and more people. There are a host
of reasons for this ongoing trend including: the attraction of prisons
as engines of economic development for rural communities; the financial
incentives for public employee unions as well as for the private prison
industry in more spending on prisons; the ``realities'' of the budget
process and constrained budgets that limit opportunities to make
substantial investments in new initiatives; and the omnipresent hyper-
politics that surround issues of crime and punishment in the United
States.
These are all formidable obstacles but none should be sufficient to
keep us from educating policymakers and the public that there is a
better way to be safe and have less crime.
______
Responses by Dr. Michael P. Jacobson to Questions from
Representative Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott
Question 1. In your testimony, you reference the need to invest in
capacity building. Could you elaborate on what capacity building means
in this context?
Response. The context in which I was using ``capacity building''
was around improving the civic infrastructure in high incarceration
communities. For instance, if you superimposed on the map of New York
City that Dr. Loury brought showing high impact communities in New York
City, you would also find that these same communities generally have
the lowest performing schools, the fewest health and child care
facilities, the fewest financial institutions, community centers,
after-school programs etc. It is no coincidence that the communities
that ``contribute'' the greatest numbers of state prisoners are also so
lacking in adequate civic infrastructure. In addition to directing
funding away from prisons and to alternatives to prisons, community
based reentry programming and treatment, it is important to consider
the essential needs and services of these communities as well.
Question 2. Please describe the essential elements of successful
crime reduction programs.
Response. In terms of the essential elements of crime reduction
programs, any successful crime reduction strategy must consist of more
than simply increased criminal justice resources. We know, for
instance, that targeted investments in education programs (especially
those that increase high school graduation rates), employment programs
and wages, and treatment all have the potential to decrease crime by a
greater amount than just simply more use of prison (where we know the
impact will be minimal) and generally increasing the number of police
(though particular policing strategies can be very effective). The
overall point here is that if we are serious about reducing crime the
research tells us we have to look at investments outside the criminal
justice system in addition to whatever we fund in criminal justice. The
politics may not work as well, but the research tells us that specific
funding in education, employment, wages, and treatment can have a
significant impact on reducing crime. (See Stemen, Don. Reconsidering
Incarceration: New Directions for Reducing Crime, Vera Institute of
Justice, January 2007.)
__________
Prepared Statement of Pat Nolan, Vice President, Prison Fellowship
Mr. Chairman and members, I am grateful for this opportunity to
share with you some thoughts on the cost to our society of the massive
increase in incarceration in the United States. Thank you for holding
this hearing to address this very important topic. Others have
discussed the financial cost of mass imprisonment. I will try to give
you some perspective on the human toll it is taking.
My name is Pat Nolan. I am a Vice President of Prison Fellowship
and lead their criminal justice reform arm, Justice Fellowship. I also
serve on the Prison Rape Elimination Commission and the Commission on
Safety and Abuse in America's Prisons. I bring a unique background to
this work. I served for 15 years as a member of the California State
Assembly, four of those as the Assembly Republican Leader. I was a
leader on crime issues, particularly on behalf of victims' rights. I
was one of the original sponsors of the Victims' Bill of Rights
(Proposition 15) and was awarded the ``Victims Advocate Award'' by
Parents of Murdered Children. I was prosecuted for a campaign
contribution I accepted, which turned out to be part of an FBI sting. I
pleaded guilty to one count of racketeering, and served 29 months in
federal custody.
Now, God has placed me in a position that I can share these
observations with criminal justice officials, using my experiences as a
lawyer, legislator and prisoner to improve our justice system. Justice
Fellowship works with government officials at the federal and state
levels, helping them develop policies that repair the harm done to
victims, reform the hearts of offenders, and, in doing that, restore
peace to communities.
The figures on incarceration are staggering. One in every 32 adult
Americans is in prison or on supervised release. Prisons have become
one of the fastest growing items in state budgets, siphoning off
dollars that that might otherwise be available for schools, roads or
hospitals.
In America today, offenders serve their sentences in overcrowded
prisons where they are exposed to the horrors of violence including
rape, isolation from family and friends, and despair. The best way to I
can describe how it felt to be imprisoned is that I was like an
amputee. I was cutoff from my family, my friends, my work, my church
and my community. Then, with my stumps still bleeding, I was tossed
into a roiling cauldron of anger, bitterness, despair and often
violence.
Most inmates are idle in prison, warehoused with little preparation
to make better choices when they return to the free world. Just one-
third of all released prisoners will have received vocational or
educational training in prison. While approximately three of every four
inmates have a substance abuse problem, less than 20 percent will have
had any substance abuse treatment before they are released. The number
of returning inmates is now four times what it was 20 years ago, yet
there are fewer programs to prepare them return to their communities.
They get little preparation to make better choices when they return to
the free world. On leaving prison they will have great difficulty
finding employment. The odds are great that their first incarceration
will not be their last.
Our large investment in our prisons might be justified if the
inmates released from them were reformed in hearts as well as habits.
However, most inmates do not leave prison transformed into law-abiding
citizens. In fact, the very skills inmates develop to survive inside
prison make them anti-social when they are released.
More than 700,000 inmates will be released from America's prisons
next year. To put this in perspective, that is more than three times
the size of the United States Marine Corps. Even more will be released
the following year, and even more every year thereafter. Each day, over
1,900 offenders leave prison and return to neighborhoods across the
country.
What has been done to prepare these returning inmates to live
healthy, productive, law-abiding lives? What kind of neighbors will
they be? Each of us has a stake in seeing that these men and women make
a safe and successful return to their communities. Yet, very little is
being done to help them make that transition successfully.
The fact of the matter is most of the inmates we have released do
commit more crimes. Over the last 30 years, the rate of rearrest has
hovered stubbornly around 67 percent. If two-thirds of the patients
leaving a hospital had to be readmitted, we would quickly find a new
hospital. So also, we must find a better way to prepare inmates for
their release if we are to have safer communities. One way is through
the Second Chance Act which is now before the Senate. It will provide
the states and our communities help in developing better ways to do
that.
However, we must also examine sentencing laws that put so many non-
violent offenders in prison. Certainly we need prisons to separate
violent and dangerous people from the rest of society. But given the
overcrowding and violence in our prisons, why on earth would we put
people convicted of non-violent crimes in prison? Prisons are for
people we are afraid of, but our sentencing laws have filled them with
people we are merely angry at. Changing our sentences so that low risk
offenders are punished in the community under strict supervision would
reduce overcrowding in prisons and help control violence. It would hold
low risk offenders accountable without exposing them to the violence
and the great difficulties of transition back to the community after
their sentence.
After release from prison, offenders face many barriers, often
called ``invisible punishments'': They are frequently denied parental
rights, driver's licenses, student loans, the right to vote, and
residency in public housing--which is often the only housing that they
can afford.
Further, little is done to change the moral perspective of
offenders. Most inmates do not leave prison transformed into law-
abiding citizens; in fact, the very skills inmates develop to survive
inside prison make them anti social when they are released. Most are
given a bus ticket to their hometown, gate money of between $10 and
$200, and infrequently a new set of clothes. Upon leaving prison
virtually all will have great difficulty finding employment.
The moment offenders step off the bus they face several critical
decisions: Where will they live, where will they be able to find a
meal, where should they look for a job, how will they get to a job
interview, and where can they earn enough money to pay for necessities?
These returning inmates are also confronted with many details of
personal business, such as obtaining identification cards and
documents, making medical appointments, and working through the many
everyday bureaucratic problems that occur during any transition. These
choices prompt feelings of intense stress and worry over the logistics
of their return to the outside world. To someone who has had no control
over any aspect of their lives for many years, each of these problems
can be difficult. In accumulation, they can be overwhelming.
My own experience provides a good example. Shortly after my release
from prison to the halfway house, some friends took me to lunch at a
local deli. The waiter came over to take our orders. Everyone else told
him what they wanted, but I kept poring over the menu. My eyes raced
over the columns of choices. I knew that I was supposed to order, but
the number of options overwhelmed me. My friends sat in embarrassed
silence. I was paralyzed. The waiter looked at me impatiently. I began
to panic. How ridiculous that I wasn't able to do such a simple thing
as order lunch. Finally, in desperation I ordered the next item my eyes
landed on, a turkey sandwich. I didn't even want it, but at least it
put an end to this embarrassing incident.
For two years I hadn't been allowed to make any choices about what
I ate. Now I was having a hard time making a simple choice that most
people face every day. If I had this much difficulty after only a
couple of years in prison, think how hard it is for those inmates who
haven't made any choices for 5, 10, or 15 years. And what about those
who didn't have the wonderful home, the loving family, the strong faith
and the good education that I had? They face a baffling array of
options and little preparation. Is it any surprise that so many newly
released prisoners make some bad choices and end up back in prison?
The choices offenders make immediately after release are extremely
important. Of the ex-prisoners who fail, over half will be arrested
within the first 6 months. That is not much time to turn their lives
around. One study of rearrests in New York City found that the rate was
especially high during the first hours and days following release. This
early window of time is the most intense period for ex-prisoners, when
they may be overwhelmed by the accumulation of large and small
decisions facing them. On average, ex-offenders have only a one-in-
three chance of getting through their first three years without being
arrested.
As the number of people released from prison and jail increases
steadily, we cannot afford to continue to send them home with little
preparation. These policies have harmed too many victims, destroyed too
many families, overwhelmed too many communities, and wasted too many
lives as they repeat the cycle of arrest, incarceration, release and
rearrest. The toll this system takes is not measured merely in human
lives: The strain on taxpayers has been tremendous. As jail and prison
populations have soared, so have corrections budgets, creating fiscal
crises in virtually every state and squeezing money for schools, health
care, and roads from state budgets.
It does not have to be this way. Fortunately, there are many things
that the government in partnership with the community, and in
particular our churches, can do that increase the likelihood that
inmates will return safely to our communities.
One of the most important provisions of the Second Chance Act will
provide grants to community and faith-based non-profits to link
offenders and their families with mentors. Let me tell you why this is
so important.
It is essential that returning inmates have a friend they can turn
to as they take their difficult first steps in freedom. A loving mentor
can help them think through their decisions and hold them accountable
for making the right moral choices.
The importance of mentors to returning prisoners was stressed by
Dr. Byron Johnson in his recent study of the Texas InnerChange Freedom
Initiative (IFI), the reentry program operated by Prison Fellowship
under contract with the state. Dr. Johnson's study found that IFI
graduates were two and a half times less likely to be reincarcerated
than inmates in a matched comparison group. The two-year post-release
reincarceration rate among IFI graduates in Texas was 8 percent,
compared with 20.3 percent of the matched group.
Dr. Johnson emphasized that mentors were ``absolutely critical'' to
the impressive results. The support and accountability provided by
mentors often make the difference between a successful return to
society and re-offending. As these offenders make the difficult
transition back into the community, they need relationships with
caring, moral adults. The greater the density of good people we pack
around them, the greater the chance that they will be successfully
replanted into the community.
IFI recruits members of local churches to give at least 1 hour a
week to mentor the IFI inmates, both while they are still incarcerated
and after they return to their community. In his interviews with the
IFI participants, Dr. Johnson found that the mentors' weekly visits
were very important to the inmates. ``Without exception, IFI
participants have indicated the critical impact volunteers have made in
their lives. The sincerity and time commitment of volunteers has simply
overwhelmed program participants.'' The benefit of these relationships
with their mentors derives not only from the things discussed, but also
for the love conveyed. By faithfully keeping their commitment to the
weekly mentoring sessions, the mentors show a commitment to the inmates
that many have never experienced before in their lives. As Dr. Martin
Luther King, Jr., said, ``To change someone, you must first love them,
and they must know that you love them.''
While many people would never associate the word ``love'' with
prisoners, love is precisely what has been lacking in the lives of many
of these men and women. They have gone through life without anyone
caring about them or what they do, nor caring enough about them to
coach them as they confront life. Many inmates are emotionally
overdrawn checkbooks. We must make deposit, after deposit, after
deposit before we will see any positive balance.
A mentor can help the ex-offenders think through employment options
and tell them what their employer will expect of them on the job. Many
offenders have never had someone in their lives who has held a steady
job. They have no model for being a good employee. A mentor can teach
them that they need to get up on time, go to work each day, and call
their supervisor if they must be late or absent. Offenders may find it
difficult to take direction or may lack skills to cope with a difficult
boss or fellow employees. A mentor can help them with these and other
everyday difficulties of the workplace and teach them the importance of
punctuality, politeness, and diplomacy on the job.
Mentors help returning inmates deal with many of the personal
problems they typically encounter upon leaving prison: no reliable
friends outside their former gang network, marital problems, and no
easy way to get on with life.
Mentors can also help the offenders learn decisionmaking skills and
teach them how to keep track of bills and pay them on time. In prison,
inmates do not have to deal with any of this. On the street such
details may quickly overwhelm them. In short, offenders need to be
taught how to make good choices, handle responsibility, and be
accountable--to make the right choice even when no one is looking.
Corrections staff can't make this kind of commitment to help each
individual prisoner. But volunteer mentors can, and, in fact are,
making this commitment in programs throughout the country.
Most of us can remember a teacher, coach, or neighbor who believed
in us and helped us believe in ourselves. That is exactly what
returning offenders need, yet most have never had someone like that in
their lives. Mentors can fill that void. A loving mentor lets returning
inmates know that the community is invested in their success. And the
Second Chance Act will provide concrete assistance to community and
faith-based groups to recruit and train mentors for this essential
work.
As you work to improve our criminal justice programs, I suggest you
keep several concepts in mind:
The purpose of our criminal justice system is to create safer
communities and reduce the number of victims. There is a tendency to
focus on institutional safety, rather than community safety. Under this
narrow, institutional focus, the surest way to avoid escapes and riots
would be to keep prisoners in their cells 24 hours a day, 7 days a week
However, the public would be in far greater danger after those
prisoners were released. Instead of focusing on institutional
convenience, correctional policy must be judged by whether it makes the
public safer.
Reentry planning should start at intake. Planning for the release
of inmates should start as soon as they are sentenced. Assignment to a
prison should include factors such as the proximity of the prison to
the inmate's family and the availability of needed programs.
Prison policies should strengthen families. Crime not only has a
devastating impact on the direct victims, but also on the families of
offenders. Incarceration puts tremendous stress on the spouses and
children of offenders. These family members have committed no crime.
The stress on the family is exacerbated by policies such as placing
inmates far from their families, frequently treating visiting families
with disrespect, and charging exorbitant fees for telephone calls.
In addition, there are often preexisting issues of drug abuse,
physical abuse, and marital conflict. If these issues are not resolved
during incarceration, reentry will be much more difficult. Programs
such as La Bodega de la Familia in New York, work with the entire
family to strengthen their relationships. A healthy, functioning family
is one of the most important predictors for successful reentry. Our
prison policies must be changed to strengthen families rather than
destabilize them.
Prisons are for people we're afraid of, but many of those filling
our prisons are there because we are merely mad at them. The response
to a technical violation should not automatically result in return to
prison. Obviously, it is important for offenders to learn to live by
the rules. However, if an offender is making good progress it makes
little sense to throw that all away because he didn't file his
paperwork on time or missed a meeting with his probation officer. One
judge told me, ``Right now, I can either send him back to prison or let
him go to the beach. Give me something in between.''
Inmates should be encouraged to participate in faith based
programs. To deal effectively with crime, we must first understand it.
At its root, crime is a moral problem. Offenders make bad moral choices
that result in harm to their victims. To break the cycle of crime, we
must address this immoral behavior. There aren't enough police officers
to stop everyone tempted to do something bad from doing it; inmates
must rely on inner restraint to keep from harming others.
Job training and education alone won't transform an inmate from a
criminal into a law-abiding citizen. For some inmates such programs
merely make them smarter, more sophisticated criminals. It is a changed
heart that can transform a prisoner. Unfortunately, many prison
programs ignore the moral aspect of crime and avoid all discussion of
faith and morality. In doing so, they are missing a significant factor
that has proven very effective at changing criminals' behavior faith.
If inmates are to live healthy, productive, law-abiding lives when they
return to their communities, we must equip them with moral standards to
live up to and a world view that explains why they should do so.
The community should ``own'' reentry. There is a tendency to view
reentry as a program of corrections departments. While our prison
systems are certainly central to the reentry process, it is the
community that has the most at stake. Many corrections policies make it
difficult for community and church groups to be involved in preparing
inmates for release. Many systems ``keep their options open'' on
release dates, often right up to the day of release, making it
impossible to recruit, match and train mentors, locate appropriate
housing, arrange for jobs or welcome the inmates at the bus. For
reentry programs to be a success, community groups and churches should
be viewed as important partners with the state, not as mere
auxiliaries.
An important example of a corrections policy that makes reentry
much more difficult is the so-called ``non-fraternization'' rule. I am
sure you will be shocked to learn that the Federal Bureau of Prisons
and many states DOCs prohibit religious volunteers from being in
contact with inmates after they are released. This policy cuts the
inmates off from the very people most likely to be able to help them
make a successful transition. Corrections policies must be rewritten to
encourage mentoring relationships to begin inside prison and continue
after release. These healthy relationships should be encouraged, not
prohibited. I am told the BOP is considering changes to this policy,
but to make sure the Second Chance Act will overturn this
counterproductive policy.
Programs are important, but healthy relationships are even more
important. The support and accountability provided by mentors often
make the difference between a successful return to society and re-
offending. As offenders make the difficult transition back into the
community, they need relationships with caring, moral adults. The
greater the density of good people we pack around them, the greater the
chance that they will be successfully replanted back into the
community.
I have written a book, When Prisoners Return, which covers all
these issues and is being used by departments of corrections, churches
and community organizations to coordinate their efforts to help
offenders during the difficult transition from prison to the community.
If you and your staff would like copies, I will gladly provide them to
you.
I mentioned that I serve on the Commission on Safety and Abuse in
America's Prisons. Last year we released our report ``Confronting
Confinement''. It concluded that our prisons are breeding grounds for
future crime. The overcrowding and lack of educational and
rehabilitative programming are spawning violence behind bars that
spills over into our neighborhoods once prisoners are released.
The Commission made several recommendations based on a clear
consensus among the experts that to prevent violence in prison we must:
Reduce crowding.
Increase access to meaningful programs and activities.
Encourage a climate of mutual respect between staff and inmates.
Increase the transparency of the institutions by increasing
accessibility to outside agencies and volunteers.
Identify at-risk prisoners and potential predators, and classify
them accordingly.
Make better use of surveillance technology.
Strengthen family relationships by placing inmates close to their
families, encouraging family visits, and lowering the cost of phone
calls.
At Prison Fellowship, an outreach founded by Chuck Colson, we have
had 31 years of experience in seeking the transformation of prisoners'
lives. We have identified six ``best practices'' that we believe are
applicable in almost any prison setting to achieve transformation in
the lives of prisoners resulting in lower recidivism and greater public
safety.
a. Community--men or women living together on a floor, wing, or
building with the intentional purpose of transforming their lives.
b. Consistency--being able to work with prisoners on a frequent and
consistent basis--daily if possible
c. Character--a focus on the moral and personal issues that led to
criminal behavior
d. Comprehensive--holistic in nature and includes spiritual
formation, education, vocational training, substance abuse treatment,
life skills training, parenting training, etc.
e. Continuous--it begins in prison and continues in as they are
released from prison into the community.
f. Collaborative--it is a collaborative process that must involve
many individuals, government agencies, the business community, faith
based institutions, and non-profits.
As a state legislator I made the mistake of thinking that locking
people up made our communities safer. Only when I was in prison did I
realize that most inmates will be released someday, and locking so many
of our people in prison while doing nothing to prepare them for their
release is very dangerous. I commend this committee and your staff for
calling attention to the horrible toll that overincarceration is taking
on American society.
Prepared Statement of Congresswoman Sheila Jackson-Lee, of Texas
Thank you, Chairman Schumer and Vice-Chairwoman Maloney for holding
this important and timely hearing on the exponential growth of the
prison population in the United States. Thank you also for allowing me
to share with the Joint Economic Committee a legislative proposal I
have been advocating for several years which help alleviate this
crisis.
As members of this Committee are fully aware, the United States has
experienced a sharp increase in its prison population in the past 30
years. From the 1920s to the mid-1970s, the incarceration rate in the
United States remained steady at approximately 110 prisoners per
100,000 people. Today, the incarceration rate is 737 inmates per
100,000 residents, comprising 2.1 million persons in federal, state,
and local prisons. The United States has 5 percent of the world's
population but now has 25 percent of its prisoners. There are
approximately 5 million Americans under the supervision of the
correctional system, including parole, probation, and other community
supervision sanctions.
When it comes to the plight of African American and Hispanic males,
the numbers paint an even bleaker picture. Incarceration is not an
equal opportunity punishment. For example, incarceration rates in the
United States by race were:
Blacks: 2,468 per 100,000
Latinos: 1,038 per 100,000
Whites: 409 per 100,000
Gender is an important ``filter'' on who goes to prison or jail,
June 30, 2006. Males are 10 times as likely to end in prison as
females:
Females: 134 per 100,000
Males: 1,384 per 100,000
Looking at just the males by race, the incarceration rates become
even more frightening, June 30, 2006:
Black males: 4,789 per 100,000
Latino males: 1,862 per 100,000
White males: 736 per 100,000
Looking at males aged 25-29 and by race, you can see what is going
on even clearer, June 30, 2006:
For White males ages 25-29: 1,685 per 100,000.
For Latino males ages 25-29: 3,912 per 100,000.
For Black males ages 25-29: 11,695 per 100,000. (That's 11.7
percent of Black men in their late 20s.)
Here is another statistic that I find particularly striking. The
United States locks up its Black males at a rate 5.8 times higher than
the most openly racist country in the world ever did:
South Africa under apartheid (1993), Black males: 851 per 100,000
United States (2006), Black males: 4,789 per 100,000
In Texas, the state from which both President Bush and I hail, the
situation is just as bad. Texas has an African American population of
11 percent but an African American prison population of 44 percent.
Texas also ranks number first in putting citizens to death. It ranks
third in spending on prisons but 20th in education spending. It ranks
15th in incarcerating drug offenders.
Mr. Chairman, this state of affairs is not sustainable. The costs
of maintaining this ``prison-industrial complex'' annually consume an
increasing share of public revenues and adversely impacts society's
ability to make other needed public investments in education, health
care, infrastructure, and economic growth. That is why I am pleased
that the Joint Economic Committee is holding this hearing today to
examine why the United States has such a disproportionate share of the
world's prison population, as well as ways to address this issue that
responsibly balance public safety and the high social and economic
costs of imprisonment.
According to the Urban Institute, ``the social and economic costs
to the nation are enormous.'' With 2.25 million people incarcerated in
approximately five thousand prisons and jails, the combined
expenditures of local governments, state governments, and the federal
government for law enforcement and corrections personnel totals over
$200 billion.
I have reintroduced legislation in this Congress which addresses an
important cause of the prison population explosion, and that is the
continued warehousing of elderly and middle-aged non-violent offenders.
My legislation, H.R. 261, the ``Federal Prison Bureau Nonviolent
Offender Relief Act,'' provides for the early release for non-violent
offenders who have attained the age of at least 45 years of age, have
never been convicted of a violent crime, have never escaped or
attempted to escape from incarceration, and have not engaged in any
violation, involving violent conduct, of institutional disciplinary
regulations.
My bill seeks to ensure that in affording offenders a second chance
to turn around their lives and contribute to society, ex-offenders are
not too old to take advantage of a second chance to redeem themselves.
A secondary benefit of my legislation is that it would relieve the some
of the strain on federal, state, and local government budgets by
reducing considerably government expenditures on warehousing prisoners.
Mr. Chairman, some of those who are incarcerated face extremely
long sentences, and this language would help to address this problem.
Releasing rehabilitated, middle-aged, non-violent offenders from an
already overcrowded prison population can be a win-win situation for
society and the individual who, like the Jean Valjean made famous in
Victor Hugo's Les Miserables, is redeemed by the grace of a second
chance. The reentry of such individuals into the society will enable
them to repay the community through community service and obtain or
regain a sense of self-worth and accomplishment. It promises a
reduction in burdens to the taxpayer, and an affirmation of the America
value that no non-violent offender is beyond redemption.
Mr. Chairman, at a time when tight budgets have forced many states
to consider the early release of hundreds of inmates to conserve tax
revenue and when our nation's Social Security system is in danger of
being totally privatized, early release is a common-sense option to
raise capital.
The rate of incarceration and the length of sentence for first-
time, non-violent offenders have become extreme. Over the past two
decades, no area of state government expenditures has increased as
rapidly as prisons and jails. According to data collected by the
Justice Department, the number of prisoners in America has more than
tripled over the last two decades from 500,000 to 1.8 million, with
states like California and Texas experiencing eightfold prison
population increases during that time. Mr. Chairman, there are more
people in the prisons of America than there are residents in states of
Alaska, North Dakota, and Wyoming combined.
Over one million people have been warehoused for nonviolent, often
petty crimes. The European Union, with a population of 370 million, has
one-sixth the number of incarcerated persons as we do, and that
includes violent and nonviolent offenders. This is one third the number
of prisoners which America, a country with 70 million fewer people,
incarcerates for nonviolent offenses.
The 1.1 million nonviolent offenders we currently lock up
represents five times the number of people held in India's entire
prison system, even though its population is four times greater than
the United States.
As the number of individuals incarcerated for nonviolent offenses
has steadily risen, African-Americans and Latinos have comprised a
growing percentage of the overall number incarcerated. In the 1930s, 75
percent of the people entering state and federal prison were white
(roughly reflecting the demographics of the nation). Today, minority
communities represent 70 percent of all new admissions--and more than
half of all Americans behind bars.
As I have stated, my legislation will ensure that in affording
offenders a second chance to turn around their lives and contribute to
society, ex-offenders are not too old to take advantage of a second
chance to redeem themselves. My legislation will also relieve the some
of the strain on federal, state, and local government budgets by
reducing considerably government expenditures on warehousing prisoners.
For these reasons, I commend to your attention H.R. 261, the
``Federal Prison Bureau Nonviolent Offender Relief Act,'' and ask you
to give this proposal due consideration.
Chairman Schumer, Vice-Chairwoman Maloney, let me express again my
appreciation to you and the members of the Joint Economic Committee for
holding this hearing and allowing me to submit this statement.
Thank you.