Incarceration prevention in the United States: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m clean up and fixes, typo(s) fixed: , → , using AWB |
←Blanked the page |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Use dmy dates|date=February 2014}} |
|||
{{ course assignment | course = Education Program:University of Michigan/Social Work Practice with Community and Social Systems (Winter 2014) | term = 2013 Q3 }} |
|||
'''Incarceration prevention''' refers to a variety of methods aimed at reducing prison populations and costs while fostering enhanced social structures for the betterment of society. Due to the nature of incarceration in America today and the many variances throughout society, there are many modes and methods aimed at preventing the incarceration of at risk populations. This article focuses on a few of those approaches as well many of the associated factors leading to issues of increased incarceration rates in America today. |
|||
== Prison Population and Cost to Society== |
|||
Prison populations have risen dramatically over the past few decades resulting in overcrowded facilities and an increasing expense to taxpayers, running the risk of crowding out important public safety priorities.<ref>{{cite book|title=Examining growth in the federal prison population, 1998 to 2010|url=http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412720-Examining-Growth-in-the-Federal-Prison-Population.pdf|year=2012|publisher=Urban Institute|location=Washington, D.C.|author1=Kamala Kane |author2=Barbara Parthasarathy|accessdate=24 February 2014}}</ref> At years end in 2012, about 2,228,400 individuals were incarcerated in jails and prisons, according to the [[Bureau of Justice Statistics]].<ref name=bjs>{{cite web|title=Correctional Populations in the United States, 2012|url=http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cpus12.pdf|work=Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin|publisher=U.S. Department of Justice|accessdate=24 February 2014|author1=Lauren Glaze|author2=Erinn Herberman}}</ref> Additionally, about 4,781,300 were under some form of community supervision such as probation or parole. In total, about 6,937,600 individuals were under some form of correctional supervision (1 in 35 adults).<ref name=bjs /> The [[Vera Institute of Justice]] (2012) estimates that the cost to taxpayers for each inmate is about $31,286 on average and ranges from $14,603 to $60,076 per inmate.<ref>{{cite book|title=The Price of Prisons: What Incarceration Costs Taxpayers|date=January 2012|publisher=The VERA Institute of Justice Center on Sentencing and Corrections|location=New York|url=http://www.vera.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/Price_of_Prisons_updated_version_072512.pdf|author1=Christian Henrichson|author2=Ruth Delaney|accessdate=24 February 2014}}</ref> In 2007, the total corrections expenditures totaled over $74 billion, and increase of over 250% since 1982.<ref>{{cite book|last=Kyckelhahn|first=Tracey|title=Justice Expenditures and Employment, FY 1982-2007|date=December 2011|publisher=Bureau of Justice Statistics|url=http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/jee8207st.pdf}}</ref> |
|||
In 2010, 61,423 youth were in detention facilities according to the [[Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention]].<ref>{{cite web|title=National Center for Juvenile Justice|url=http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezacjrp/asp/selection.asp|publisher=Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.|accessdate=24 February 2014}}</ref> |
|||
{{See also|Incarceration in the United States}} |
|||
== Contributing Factors to Incarceration == |
|||
==== Substance Use Disorder prevention or treatment ==== |
|||
Between 1980 and 2005, the number of inmates incarcerated for drug related crimes increased by 1,000%<ref>{{cite book|last=Stemen|first=Don|title=Reconsidering Incarceration: New Directions for Reducing Crime|date=January 2007|publisher=VERA Institute of Justice Center on Sentencing and Corrections|pages=8|url=http://www.vera.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/veraincarc_vFW2.pdf}}</ref> 65% of inmates reported a substance addiction or dependence issue in 2012.<ref name = casa>{{cite book|title=Shoveling Up II: The Impact of Substance Abuse on Federal, State and Local Budgets|date=May 2009|publisher=The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University|location=New York, NY|url=http://www.casacolumbia.org/modal_forms/nojs/webform/161}}</ref> In addition, 78% of violent crimes and 83% of property crimes involved drugs.<ref name=casa /> There is a disproportionate amount of money spent on tertiary measures compared to prevention and treatment despite drug treatment being far more cost effective than the price of incarceration. According to the [[National Institute on Drug Abuse]], full year of drug treatment cost approximately $4,700 compared to over $30,000 for a year imprisonment.<ref>{{cite web|title=Is drug addiction treatment worth its cost?|url=http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/principles-drug-addiction-treatment-research-based-guide-third-edition/frequently-asked-questions/drug-addiction-treatment-worth-its-cost|publisher=National Institute on Drug Abuse}}</ref> |
|||
==== Mental health access/treatment ==== |
|||
According to statistics produced by the [[U.S. Dept. of Justice]] in September 2006, over 56% of State Prisoners, 45% of Federal Prisoners, and 64% of Jail inmates are diagnosed with mental health problems.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/mhppji.pdf |title=Mental Health Problems of Prison and Jail Inmates |deadurl=no |accessdate=25 February 2014}}</ref> This further complicates the process of rehabilitations and suggests a direct correlation between a decrease in mental health services and facilities, and in an increase in the proportion of mental health diagnosis in the prison system. A decrease in mental health funding has taken place on both the statewide and federal level, especially noted in changes in block grant funding as part of the [[Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1981]]. The statewide support for mental health services has also seen significant cuts and has rarely accounted merely for annual inflation.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.bazelon.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=GzmAbAweikQ%3D&tabid=436 |title=Funding for Mental Health Services and Programs |deadurl=no |accessdate=25 February 2014}}</ref> |
|||
==== Education ==== |
|||
68% of state prison inmates did not receive a high school diploma.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ecp.pdf |title=Education and Correctional Populations |deadurl=no |accessdate=25 February 2014}}</ref> Research indicates that schooling significantly reduces criminal activity. A significant portion of the effect of education on crime can be attributed to the increase in wages associated with schooling.<ref>{{cite book|title=The E®ect of Education on Crime: Evidence from Prison Inmates, Arrests, and Self-Reports|date=October 2003|url=http://emlab.berkeley.edu/~moretti/lm46.pdf|author1=Lance Lochner|author2=Enrico Moretti|accessdate=25 February 2014}}</ref> Theoretically, policies aimed at subsidizing education will pay off in the long run by increasing skill level and building social capital. |
|||
{{See also|School-to-prison pipeline}} |
|||
==== Factors involving Race ==== |
|||
There are many factors that have direct connections with the rises in the incarcerated population, many of which relate to structural and societal biases that exist in America today. As it relates directly to race, the practice of racial profiling regards policies and personal biases that target minority racial groups and contribute to a greater proportion of minorities being incarcerated compared to the general population. These practices have existed in the American Criminal Justice system for decades and although may have gained attention in recent years, still find ways to increase the likelihood of certain demographic groups receiving negative attention from the likes of law enforcement. |
|||
See also: |
|||
*[[War on Drugs]] |
|||
*[[Stop-and-frisk in New York City]] |
|||
*[[Arizona SB 1070]] |
|||
== Incarceration Prevention - The EDJ Model == |
|||
Incarceration prevention refers to a variety of methods aimed at reducing prison populations and costs while fostering enhanced social structures for the betterment of society. Incarceration prevention can be separated into three main categories: Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.edjj.org/prevention/LevelsPrevention.html |title=Levels of Prevention |deadurl=no |accessdate=25 February 2014}}</ref> |
|||
=== Primary Prevention (or just “prevention”) === |
|||
Primary prevention is an attempt to reduce the risk of behaviors that potentially lead to incarceration. |
|||
===== Safety nets ===== |
|||
Studies suggest that crime and violence are likely to be a byproduct of, among other things, economic inequality and poverty. Economic theory shows how property crime and violent crimes may partly be consequences of excessive inequality and poverty. Not only do crime rates increase with inequality, but propensity to commit crimes increases with greater income inequality or poverty.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Yusuf|first1=ed. by Shahid|title=Facets of globalization international and local dimensions of development|year=2001|publisher=The World Bank|location=Washington, DC|isbn=0-8213-4742-X|url=http://elibrary.worldbank.org/doi/pdf/10.1596/0-8213-4742-X#page=187|author2=F. Bourguignon|edition=1|author3=Evenett, Simon|author4=Wu, Weiping|accessdate=25 February 2014|format=print|chapter=10}}</ref> It follows that programs that elevate families out of poverty therefore decrease risks behaviors associated with crime. National data indicates that a 10% increase in real wages lowers the crime index by 13%.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Steman|first=Don|title=Reconsidering Incarceration: New Directions for Reducing Crime|journal=FEDERAL SENTENCING REPORTER|date=April 2007|volume=19|issue=4|pages=221–233|doi=10.1525/fsr.2007.19.4.221|url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/fsr.2007.19.4.221 |accessdate=25 February 2014}}</ref> |
|||
===== Youth Outreach Programs? ===== |
|||
=== Secondary Prevention (or just “diversion”) === |
|||
Secondary prevention is an attempt to circumvent incarceration and correct problem behaviors after an offense has been committed through alternatives to incarceration. |
|||
===== Deferred sentencing/Jail diversion ===== |
|||
Including but not limited to: |
|||
*[[Alternative sentencing|Community Service]] |
|||
*[[Drug courts in the United States|Drug courts]] |
|||
*[[Mental health court]]s |
|||
*[[Domestic violence court]]s |
|||
*[[Problem-solving courts in the United States|Problem-solving courts]] |
|||
*[[Restorative justice in social work|Restorative justice]] |
|||
*[[Ankle monitor|Electronic Monitoring]] |
|||
*[[Deferred prosecution|Fines/Probation]] |
|||
see also: [[Diversion program]]s |
|||
=== Tertiary Prevention or just “reduced recidivism” === |
|||
Tertiary prevention takes place after incarceration and seeks to reduce risk of recidivism and eventual return into the prison system. |
|||
===== Prison reform ===== |
|||
internal policies to allow rehabilitation to take place within prisons |
|||
===== PRI ===== |
|||
prisoner reentry initiatives |
|||
{{See also|National Criminal Justice Association#Prisoner Reentry|l1=Prisoner Reentry}} |
|||
http://www.vera.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/Price_of_Prisons_updated_version_072512.pdf |
|||
== Juvenile Confinement Rates on Steady Decline == |
|||
A study published by the Pew Institute found that there has been a significant decline in at least 37 states for juvenile commitment and violent crime arrest rates between 1997 and 2010.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.pewstates.org/news-room/press-releases/latest-data-show-juvenile-confinement-continues-rapid-decline-85899480842#four |title=Latest Data Show Juvenile Confinement Continues Rapid Decline - Pew States |deadurl=no |accessdate=25 February 2014}}</ref> These decreases in juvenile commitments can be a result of many different factors, including unique programs like the Ohio RECLAIM (Reasonable Equitable Community and Local Alternatives to the Incarceration of Minors) program. This program provides financial incentives that encourage juvenile courts to find and develop community based strategies and programs options that seek to meet the needs of juvenile offenders or at risk offenders.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.dys.ohio.gov/dnn/Community/ReclaimOhio/tabid/131/Default.aspx |title=RECLAIM Ohio |deadurl=no |accessdate=25 February 2014}}</ref> This program works to focus the most critical resources for the most serious offenders, such as those committing violent crimes and the most serious of offenses, while encouraging courts to look into community and restorative program placements for the youth who commit crimes not fitting such severe categories. As a result, Ohio has seen a significant decrease in institutional crowding and an 80% decrease in Department of Youth Services (DYS) caseloads from its peak in 1997 to 2012. |
|||
== Other Methods of Incarceration Prevention == |
|||
*[[Prison abolition movement]] |
|||
*[[Drug liberalization]] |
|||
*[[Decriminalization]] |
|||
*[[Crime prevention]] |
|||
==References== |
|||
{{reflist}} |
|||