ideas

25 for
equal
justice
 The Roosevelt Institution
2100 M St, NW
Suite 610
Washington, D.C. 20037

The 25 Ideas Series

Volume 2 • Issue 3 • July 2008
Copyright 2008

Executive Director Policy Director

Nate Loewentheil Caitlin Howarth

Chair of the Editorial Board

Kirti Datla

Managing Editor
Ellen Davis

National Editorial Board

David Carlson
Gracye Cheng
Jonathan Gould
Lauren Henry
Ata Hindi
Frank Lin
Elise Liu
Fay Pappas

Challege Coordinators
Daniel Townsend, Community Development
Matthew Segal, Election Reform
Timothy Krueger, Criminal Justice

Printed by Mount Vernon Printing Co. to responsible forestry standards.

The opinions expressed within the 25 Ideas Series are exclusively those of the individual authors and do not
represent the views of the editorial board, the Roosevelt Institution, or any of the organization’s chapters, centers,
advisors, or affiliates.
 25 ideas

for

Equal Justice

Volume 2 • Issue 3 • July 2008

 Table of Contents
Decriminalizing Homelessness 10
Tim Krueger, Cornell University

Massachusetts CORI Reform: Reducing Stealing Times 12

Sonai Pillay and Jake Grumbach, Columbia University

SSI Benefits to Former Inmates 14

Monica Chu, Cornell University

Reexamining Ex-Felon Enfranchisement 16

Judith Garber, Rutgers University, Matthew Fischler, Northwestern University

Conditional Release 18
Anthony Gomez, Cornell University

Marijuana Decriminalization in New York City 20

Jake Grumbach, Columbia University

Eliminate Sentencing Disparities 22

Max Griffith, Dalia Mortada, and Eric Schneiten, University of Virginia

Sentencing Circles for Non-Violent Drug Offenders 24

Robert Coniglio, Cornell University

The Collateral Consequences of Criminal Fines on Society and the Offender 26

Grant Resick, Cornell University

Research on Medical Solutions to Sex Offender Recidivism 28

Graham Rengert, Cornell University

Interpretive Technology for the Criminal Justice System 30

Riley Wyman, Colorado College

Increasing Taser Deployment Standards for Law Enforcement 32

Katlyn Leight and Brent Penak, University of Michigan
Compensation Reform in the Wayne County Indigent Defense System 34
K Natalie Doss, Paymon Khorrami, Amol Naik, University of Chicago

Create a White Collar Crime Division to Fund Public Defenders 36

David Carlson, The Colorado College

Clarify Ambiguities in Anti-Gang Ordinances to Prevent Racial Profiling 38

Matthew Fischler, Northwestern University

Addressing Prison Guard Shortages through Housing Solutions 40

Nina Coutinho, Cornell University

Early Childhood Eduation in Prisons 42

Simone Philips, the Colorado College

Pathways to Better Health for Convicts’ Families 44

Stephanie Gross,Northwestern University

Prenatal Care in Prison Facilities 46

Jabeen Ahmad, University of North Carolina

Child Support for Convicts’ Children 48

Tim Krueger, Cornell University

Reforming Teacher Disciplinary Procedures in New York City 50

Clare Kelley, Nick Turner, and Raul Mendoza, Columbia University

Community Centered After-School Programs 52

Vrukita Mody, Middlebury College and Grayce Cheng, Harvard University

Coordinate Crime Prevention Efforts in Orlando, Florida 54

Fay O. Pappas, Rollins College

Implement National Board of Review to Oversee Private Juvenile Justice Centers 56

Grayce Cheng, Harvard University

Require Juvenile Offenders to Conduct an Initial Consultation with Legal Counsel 58

Matt McCrea, University of Chicago
 25 ideas
Summer 2008

The 25 Ideas project is a direct extension of the Roosevelt Institution’s mission to

connect students’ ideas to policymakers. Each component has been designed
with the lawmaker in mind: from the two-page, condensed formatting, to the
inclusion of concise sets of key facts and talking points. Both easy to read and
easy to understand, these ideas have been distilled into small bursts of creativity
and thoughtfulness. Though they have been condensed here for the busy reader’s
convenience, several of these Ideas are also available in extended form through
rooseveltinstitution.org or in our upcoming issue of the Roosevelt Review.

While we hope that you will enjoy reading these Ideas, they are not meant to
stay on your coffee table. Some ideas have ramifications for those who work at
the federal policy level; others, at the state or municipal level. Still others focus
primarily on what universities can do. So no matter what level of government you
focus on - or even if you are still a student - there is an Idea in these pages that
you should consider acting on.

• • •

Founded in 2004, the Roosevelt Institution is a national network of campus-based,

nonpartisan student think tanks whose mission is to build a more progressive
society. We seek to develop active, progressive citizens and leaders on college
campuses through the research and writing of public policy and commentary,
disseminating the products of that work to policymakers and elected officials
on the local, state and national level. Through nearly 8,000 members at over
75 campus chapters across the United States, the Institution strives to connect
students to the policymaking process through print and online publications,
direct student-to-lawmaker connections, and annual conferences. We believe
that students learn best through action and can contribute meaningfully to
society while still part of an academic environment. As our members enter
their professional careers, they bring with them the progressive values they’ve
developed, the skills they’ve learned, and the relationships they’ve built with one
another. The Roosevelt Institution has been featured in such publications as The
New York Times, The Chronicle of Higher Education, and Der Spiegel.

In 2008, the Roosevelt Institution merged with the Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt
Institute. The Institute is dedicated to preserving and promoting the legacy of
its namesakes, and through the merger, gained access to a new generation of
scholars and activists. Together, the new Roosevelt Institute will work to bring
the values of Franklin and Eleanor to bear on future policies and leaders alike.
 Letter from the Editors

America’s institutions of justice are outstanding by several measures. They are

largely free of the corruption that impedes justice in so many of the world’s
court systems. They cultivated a liberal respect for the individual at an earlier
point in history than even their European corollaries. Yet our institutions of
justice are also unique in ways that should be troubling to most Americans.
Most visibly, we incarcerate our citizens at rates that are not accompanied by
proportionate reductions in crime, and that exceed incarceration rates in other
developed nations eight times over. Moreover, this tendency means more for
some communities than it does for others, and our incarcerated population
reflects serious and systemic social inequities. Perhaps most troubling, there
is no consensus on why we incarcerate so many Americans, whether it is to
reform criminals, increase public safety, or deter criminal behavior. Goals such
as these are laudable, and therefore it is unfortunate- indeed dangerous- that
our criminal justice system has great difficulty accomplishing them.

Most notable to those involved in crafting government policy, America’s crimi-

nal justice system is rapidly evolving and its costs are rising to record levels. In
Chicago, former gang members funded by the city are using their knowledge
of social networks to try and curb gang violence. In June of 2008, Washington,
D.C. began experimenting with military-style checkpoints in the Trinidad neigh-
borhood in an attempt to address the same problem. While the past year has
broken records regarding the size of our prison population, it has also ushered
new standards for the integration of science and justice by means of DNA evi-
dence. This means, above all, that our institutions of criminal justice are mallea-
ble. It will be the difference between thoughtful policy and ideological pander-
ing that determines whether those institutions make it harder for many to fulfill
their roles as citizens and parents, or whether they increase public safety while
strengthening all of America’s communities.
 Acknowledgments
The Roosevelt Institution recognizes and thanks the following people for their
outstanding dedication to the success of this organization:

Chris Breiseth
David Woolner
Richard E. French, Jr.
Anna Eleanor Roosevelt
Ambassador William vanden Heuvel
Joe Louis Barrow, Jr.
Alison Overseth
Dr. Robert Curvin
Dan Appleman
Neil Proto
David Merchant
Sarah Brown
Marian Breeze
Mattie Hutton
Ted Fertik
Mark Newberg

National Advisory Board

Senator Richard Lugar
Representative Rosa DeLauro
Representative Zoe Lofgren
Representative Tom Allen
Robert Borosage
Richard Celeste
Jon Cowan
Jim Dean
Stephen Elliott
Al From
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Dee Dee Myers
Amy Overton
John Podesta
Robert Reich

Special thanks to Stephan Loewentheil for his early and continued support of the Roosevelt
Institution, and to Michael Stegman and the MacArthur Foundation for making this series possible.

Thank you.
 Special thanks to
Frederick M. Lawrence
for
His lifelong commitment to civil rights
and
His service as
Honorary Chair of this Challenge
25
ideas
Decriminalizing Homelessness
Tim Krueger, Cornell University

The American legal system should constitute a positive institutional

presence for the homeless instead of leaving them predisposed to
incarceration and prolonged homelessness.

The criminalization of homelessness is based in the illogical conceptualization

of homelessness as a spatial problem instead of a problem facing individuals.
While laws that target the homeless prohibit their existence and daily functioning
in certain spaces, they do nothing to create fewer homeless people. Rather,
the state’s conflation of homelessness and incarceration leads to a population of
individuals who are institutionally dependent and in fact less able to function in
mainstream society.

Key Facts History

U.S.
• About 20% of adult homeless males at any given prison and
moment have been incarcerated for some time,homelessness populations
have both grown in the
although this figure exceeds 50% when experi-
ences in local jails are included. past 30 years, although the
exact magnitude of U.S.
• 55% of U.S. cities prohibit loitering in public places
homelessness is a contested
or all places, leaving few legal options for home-
figure. The trend towards
less individuals who have nowhere to go during
the day. criminalizing homelessness
has gained much of its
• There has been a 12% increase in laws against pan-
handling, nationwide, between 2002 and 2006.momentum in the past
decade. A counter trend
• The criminalization of homelessness also fre-
is evident, as a number of
quently includes confiscating homeless people’s
cities have implemented
belongings, fining charity organizations that feed
ten year plans to address
the homeless, prohibiting sitting and sleeping in
the root causes of chronic
some areas, and arresting homeless children un-
der the auspices of curfew laws. homelessness; such plans
represent a distinct break
• It costs the state about $50 per day to imprison
an individual, and between $5.50 and $30 perfrom the theory behind
day to shelter a homeless person. criminalized homelessness.

The first court program to
give special focus to homeless populations was pioneered in San Diego
in 1989. The program employed alternative sentencing and plea bargains.
Seventy five percent of homeless individuals who have participated in this
program demonstrated significant behavioral changes, especially in the level
of comfort with which they were able to interact with courts and police. The
San Diego program is able to resolve 100% of its cases within two years. To
date, twenty similar Homeless Court Programs have sprouted up in various
states, and over 80 programs for homeless legal aid now exist.
 Talking Points Analysis
• Homelessness and incarceration are mutually Contact with government
reinforcing conditions. By slowing the flow of institutions should not be a
traumatic or emasculating
individuals from one to the other, the state can
reduce both dependent populations. City and experience for any individual,
state governments should pursue this aim by homeless or otherwise. Instead,
repealing laws targeting homeless populations, it should foster understandings
and actively helping homeless individuals deal of citizenship and participation.
with their legal issues. In addition to decriminalizing
homelessness, courts should
proactively assist homeless
individuals in taking charge of their recurring legal issues.

Accumulated misdemeanors and the snowballing of procedural faults, such as

missed court dates, explain a large portion of homeless persons’s legal troubles.
By providing a means of escaping this type of downward legal spiral, proactive
court systems would reduce the strain on both prisons and homeless shelters.
Decriminalizing homelessness therefore necessitates not only the repeal of
obviously counterproductive penalizations, but the deconstruction of this
naturally occurring entanglement between homelessness and legal troubles.

Audience
City governments across the country, especially larger metropolitan areas in
which both homelessness and crime are systemic, should seek to reduce both
incarceration and homelessness in these manners. Judges should take their own
initiative on this front as well.

Next Steps
State governments and private interests alike might create grants for Homeless
Court Programs. City officials should take note of decriminalization experiences
in other cities that are their demographic and economic peers.

———————————— Sources ————————————

2007 National Symposium on Homelessness Research.- http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/homelessness/
symposium07/metraux/index.htm

2007 National Symposium on Homelessness Research.- http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/homelessness/

symposium07/metraux/index.htm

Naitonal Coalition for the Homeless/ National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty, Jan
2006 Report.- http://www.nationalhomeless.org/publications/crimreport/report.pdf

Naitonal Coalition for the Homeless/ National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty, Jan
2006 Report.

*A full list of sources is available upon request

11
Massachusetts CORI Reform:
Reducing Sealing Times
Sonali Pillay and Jake Grumbach, Columbia University

By reducing the number of years needed to clear a criminal record,

Massachusetts can stop the unjust denial of jobs and services to
former criminals..

In Massachusetts today, CORIs, or Criminal Offender Record Information, list

misdemeanors for 10 years and felonies for 15 years until they are finally sealed,
which, instead of promoting public safety and suppressing crime, simply hinders
former criminals from reentering society. The time it takes for CORIs to be sealed
should be reduced to 3 years after a misdemeanor and 6 years after a felony.

Legal systems are generally Key Facts

structured to deliver sentencing
from a judge and jury, to serve as
both deterrents and punishments
for crime, but the CORI system
does not fit this philosophy.
In the current CORI situation,
though, the punishment comes
indirectly and from outside
the jurisdiction of the judge
and jury of the specific case,
because simply having a criminal
record obstructs employment
and other opportunities. The
crimes can also be completely
irrelevant to the job in question,
yet it is usually the first thing
the employer checks and can
destroy a candidate’s chance at
employment.
• CORI stands for Criminal Offender Record
Information. The state government holds the
CORIs in a database, and many employers
can view the information when someone who
has committed a crime applies for a job.
• There are 2.8 million CORIs currently kept in
Massachusetts.
• Unlike the current system that allows employ-
ers to see records up to 15 years, research
shows that a person’s likelihood of recidivism
is statistically the same as someone who has
never committed a crime after only 3 years.
• Blacks with criminal records have a 5 percent
chance of being called back for an interview
for an entry level position, while whites with
records have a 17 percent chance. Blacks with-
out records have a 14 percent chance; whites
without records have a 34 percent chance.

In addition, the punishment incurred from criminal records is often grossly

disproportionate to the original crime committed—a simple misdemeanor can
keep a qualified person from obtaining a job for up to 10 years. Imagine an 18
year-old under the current system committing misdemeanor trespassing; he is
subsequently at a great disadvantage in obtaining employment or loans until he
is at least 28.

CORIs can also institutionalize some employers’ racist hiring practices. Currently,
African Americans with criminal records have a 5 percent chance of being called
back for an interview for an entry-level position, and a 14 percent chance without
a record. However, whites have a 17 percent chance with a CORI and a 34
percent chance without one. Such stark statistics, in which whites with records
are more likely to receive callbacks than blacks without records, suggest that
criminal records hide discrimination in hiring; employers can simply use CORIs as
a reason to throw out the application of a qualified black candidate, while hiring
a white person with a similar background.

Talking Points
History
• Currently, employers use any evidence of previous
The CORI system was
criminal activity as a blanket means of tossing out
created in Massachusetts
applications, even those of qualified people who
in 1973, and was originally
have committed only one petty crime.
only available to certain
• The ruling by a judge and jury should constitute jus-
law enforcement and
tice; denying jobs and other services for an extra 15
government agencies.
years for a felony and 10 for a misdemeanor after
However, in the early
parole is not within the spirit or bounds of the law.
2000s, the visibility of
• CORIs also deny access to credit, student loans,
criminal records began
and public housing.
to expand, until 4 of
• CORIs can also be a device for prejudicial hiring
every 5 employers in
practices because any evidence of past criminal ac-
Massachusetts were
tivity can deny a qualified person a job.
analyzing CORIs in hiring
in 2004.

Analysis
Studies show that after 3 years of good behavior, an ex-prisoner’s likelihood
of committing another crime is virtually equal to an individual who has never
previously committed that crime. This 3 year period should be sufficient for the
state to ensure the individual’s true rehabilitation. Beyond this point, his CORI may
in fact increase his likelihood of recidivism as he begins to feel disenfranchised
by his inability to truly re-enter society, with increased difficulty getting jobs, loans
and public housing.

Audience
State legislatures and citizens around the country should look to Massachusetts
as an example of the potentially detrimental effects of excessively long sealing
times of their respective criminal record laws.

Next Steps
Governor Deval Patrick has proposed a bill to reduce the sealing times to 5 years
for a misdemeanor and 10 for a felony, and the legislation looks like it will pass.
This is a step in the right direction, but, as the research on recidivism shown, it
is insufficient. The people of Massachusetts must continue to curtail the sealing
times to open opportunities to rehabilitated members of our society.

———————————— Sources ————————————

*A full list of sources is available upon request

13
SSI Benefits for Former Inmates
Monica Chu, Cornell University

As part of an effort to reduce criminal recidivism and reintegrate former

inmates into society, a pre-release agreement between the Social
Security Administration (SSA) and a state prison system would allow
qualifying individuals to claim their Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
nearing or shortly after their release.

Parolees report that one of the most significant barriers to accessing housing and
reintegrating into society is the difficulty in obtaining a living income upon their
release from prison. Not
surprisingly, ex-offenders are Key Facts
at a greater risk of becoming • Under current regulations, SSI recipients incarcer-
homeless. According to the ated for a full calendar month or longer are no lon-
Corporation for Supportive ger eligible to receive SSI.
Housing, “About half of all • Former SSI recipients will have to wait until release
seeking shelter report a to re-apply for aid; the normal waiting period for re-
history of incarceration.” instatement of cash benefits is anywhere from nine
Since homeless ex-offenders months to two years.
are seven times more likely • A pre-release agreement is a contract between the
to violate their parole than SSA and a state prison system or a county jail that
ex-offenders with stable allows individuals who qualify for SSI to claim their
housing, homelessness benefits nearing or shortly after their release.
and an unstable economic
situation increases the risk
of falling into a perpetual cycle of incarceration. Income is thus a critical factor
in sustaining stability for former inmates. Disabled ex-offenders have even more
trouble maintaining housing stability. SSI is a prerequisite for become eligible for
Medi-Cal, which provides access to healthcare and other services necessary for
stable housing.

Pre-release agreements, which

Talking Points
• The initiation of the pre-release agreement will
allow inmates to receive supplementary income
almost immediately after release.
• SSI creates an opportunity for the mentally or
physically handicapped population to enter sta-
ble housing, ending the perpetual cycle between
homeless shelters and incarceration.
• The SSA encourages pre-release agreements and
will provide staff members who will guide the cor-
rectional facility staff through the process of col-
lecting medical information on inmates and filing
documents with the SSA.
can be written or recorded
verbally, include measures
that facilitate the incarcerated
individual’s application process,
while allowing them to start
receiving their entitled benefits
sooner. These agreements
promote timely entitlement in
allowing inmates to file for SSI
benefits prior to their release,
providing for a smoother
reintegration into society.
 History
The Medical Services Division of the Department of Corrections in
Oklahoma has already partnered with the SSA to connect inmates with
SSA benefits prior to their release in two state facilities, one male-only
and one female-only. Each facility has a reintegration specialist that works
as a liaison between the SSA office and the correctional facility to ensure
that each inmate’s application is processed. Texas has also implemented
such an agreement. It is becoming increasingly apparent that with proper
coordination, the SSA and correctional facilities can work together to
ensure that inmates receive the benefits to which they are entitled.

Analysis
The benefits of pre-release agreements reveal that effective case management is
a very important factor in ensuring that those released from prison and jail do not
re-offend and hopefully become productive members of society. More than 20
percent of people going in and out of prisons and jails are homeless for months
before and after incarceration. More disturbingly, two out of every three people
released from prison in the U.S. are rearrested within three years of their release.
These statistics imply that effective case management can reduce recidivism by
connecting inmates to funds and other means of support that they need so that
they are less likely to re-offend.

Administering and maintaining pre-release agreements means that the prison

and jail staff will require more case management work. However, the hope is
that more attention to reinstating and getting benefits to inmates more efficiently
will reduce repeat offenders and thus, case loads, in the future. Because pre-
release agreements necessarily require that prison and jail officials maintain close
contact with the SSA (i.e. notifying SSA of release dates and relevant medical
records of inmates), this ensures that correctional facilities are doing their part
to “rehabilitate” prisoners by allowing decreased lag times for processing of
the federal aid that inmates are eligible for and increasing awareness amongst
inmates and facility staff of aid that inmates are eligible for.

Next Steps
One of the first steps in brokering an agreement between a correctional facility
and SSA is contacting the prison or jails management staff. They should be
informed of the positive aspects of the pre-release agreement and be informed
of how to set up a pre-release agreement. Once there is a general agreement to
start the process, necessary steps should be taken to contact SSA so that the
correctional facility is provided training by SSA staff. An initial screening should
be done that ensures that all inmates are thoroughly considered for SSI eligibility
so that they are no longer released without necessary benefits. While the two
parties involved in pre-release agreements are the correctional facilities and
SSA, it is important that local and state officials encourage the adoption of such
an agreement.

———————————— Sources ————————————

* A full list of sources is available upon request
15
Reexamining Ex-Felon Enfranchisement
Judith Garber, Rutgers University, Matthew Fischler, Northwestern University

The United States must adopt measures, which let formerly imprisoned
people exercise their right to vote, for the sake of fairness of elections
and the democratic ideal. This will produce added benefits for
communities with a high ex-felon population.

The fairness of elections in a democratic system depends on the citizens’

ability to vote. The disfranchisement of felons and ex-felons in NJ
endangers the validity of our elections and hinders the goal of our criminal
justice system: the integration of former felons into society. Under the 15th
amendment, all citizens are given the right to vote. This is considered our
most important form of political expression, and represents our democratic
ideals of inclusiveness. In the
Supreme Court case Schenck Key Facts
v US, it was decided that there • 5.3 million felons and ex-felons are disen-
should be no reason to deprive franchised in America
American citizens of their rights • 13% of African American men cannot vote
unless there is a “clear and because of felon or ex-felon status
present danger” to American • Over 15 states have modified their enfran-
society. The right to vote should chisement laws to include giving voting
be measured under the same rights to people on probation, on parole,
“strict scrutiny.” Voting rights and off parole.
should be limited in the least • Although 38 states automatically enfran-
restricting ways possible, and chise individuals upon parole, only 13% of
only under dire circumstances. eligible ex-offenders are registered to vote.
As of now, there are no good
reasons to disfranchise felons.

One of the main justifications for disenfranchisement is the idea that

disenfranchising felons is part of the felon’s punishment. This argument is
invalid because taking away one’s right to vote addresses none of the aspects
of punishment- incapacitation, deterrence, rehabilitation, or retribution. It
does not directly prevent the felon from committing the same crime (unless
the crime was voter fraud, for which people are not incarcerated anyway).
If the threat of jail time does not deter criminals from committing crimes,
the threat of losing the right to vote will not either. Losing the right to vote
is contrary to the goal of rehabilitation and integration into society.

History
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was meant to ensure equal access to political
participation for all American citizens regardless of race, gender, religion,
or national origin. Yet criminal disenfranchisement carries on the tradition
of discrimination that started in the late 1800s during Reconstruction
and continued throughout the 20th century with poll taxes and literacy
tests. Criminal justice policies over the past thirty years have created
extreme racial disparities in felon convictions, with Latinos and Blacks
disproportionably affected. The rate of disfranchisement among black men
is seven times the national average. Sixteen percent of Latino men will be in
jail and will face the prospect of disenfranchisement. Discrimination is most
obvious in some southern states such as Florida and Alabama, in which
one third of black men are disenfranchised. For politicians who claim to be
committed to helping end political discrimination, eliminating felon and ex-
felon disfranchisement is a first step.

Analysis
By expanding the voting population, state elections will become more democratic.
Allowing felons to vote will contribute greatly to their rehabilitation by keeping
them politically informed and showing that they have a say in the future of their
country. Giving former criminals the right to vote shows residents’ trust in the
criminal justice system’s abilities of reform. Giving felons and ex-felons the right to
vote restores their confidence in the true promise of democracy in this country.
Enfranchisement is a necessary step to erasing racial discrimination, integrating
convicts back into society, and making them more politically aware, responsible
citizens.

Additionally, registering ex-felons to vote benefits the entire community. Several

studies that all persons with personal ties to disenfranchised ex-felons are likely
to report political apathy. Thus, political participation is a key tool in attacking
the roots of crime and joblessness in communities, as it provides citizens with
a sense of civic obligation, and encourages personal investment in community
issues.

Next Steps
The United States must fulfill its promise to preserve the rights of the citizens
and uphold the democratic ideal by allowing ex-felons to vote. The eleven states,
which have yet to allow former offenders to vote, must consider amending their
state constitutions to allow them this fundamental right. The federal government
should encourage all states to adopt laws discarding restrictions on ex-felon
voting rights, as well as for people on parole.

In order to increase political participation among ex-felons in states in which they

have the right to vote, ex-offenders should be registered to vote through their
parole officers. Using parole officers as the key players in registering eligible ex-
offenders is the most practical and affordable way to enact this plan into action,
as ex-offenders are required to interact with their officers. This program can be
easily implemented on a trial basis in local communities to serve as a model that
can be utilized nationwide.

———————————— Sources ————————————

*A full list of sources is available upon request..
17
Conditional Release
Anthony Gomez, Cornell University

New York State should create a Conditional Release Program for non-
violent drug offenders.

One goal of the New York State Department of Corrections is to give inmates
the opportunities to advance their careers and participate in society in a
non-criminal manner. This goal is not realized for most inmates. Measures
adopted as part of the war on drugs,
such as New York State’s Rockefeller laws
(which establish mandatory minimum Key Facts
• A third of New York’s prison pop-
sentences for drug offenders), have
ulation is currently incarcerated
caused prison populations to balloon.
for drug offenses.
In 1973, the first year that mandatory
• It is clear that these offenders
minimum sentences were in effect for
have a difficult time establishing
convicted drug offenders, the entire
productive lives upon release
incarcerated population of New York
from prison; for the past decade,
State was approximately 12,500. By 1994,
about 30% of drug offenders who
the prison population had more than
were released from prison have
quadrupled, reaching 66,000.] Such a
been rearrested the same year.
dramatic increase in prison population
compromises the amount of time that
corrections personnel- and the system in general- can invest in attending
to or rehabilitating each inmate, undermining the stated mission of the
institution.

Because nonviolent drug

Talking Points
• It has been widely recognized, especially in
recent months, that prison systems across
the U.S. are overburdened. For instance,
the gargantuan Ohio prison system has ex-
panded at a rate incommensurable to the
state’s budget, forcing 700 security and ad-
ministrative layoffs in May of 2008.
• Policies that enable inmates to exit the pris-
on system for good and establish lives as
productive members of society- as quickly
as possible- are the only reasonable solu-
tions to this quagmire.
• Conditional release programs can both
move individuals out of the prison system
and decrease their chances of future crimi-
nality, and therefore recidivism.
offenders experience high
recidivism rates and represent
a plurality of inmates in many
states, they constitute a logical
target group for enhanced
rehabilitation efforts. Moreover,
as nonviolent drug offenses
evince neither pathology nor
addiction, rehabilitation programs
can be expected to work well
among this group. Specifically,
New York State should create a
Conditional Release Program for
non-violent drug offenders.
Under such a system, good
behavior would be incentivized by
sentence reduction. Conditions
for consideration should include:
the participant would need to maintain a drug-free lifestyle after he/she has
been released; mandatory volunteer work in the community; participants
would also be required to demonstrate an effort to obtain and/or maintain
employment while out of prison. Any violation of these requirements would
be considered a violation of parole, and would be dealt with in the same
manner as other parole violations.

The rehabilitation portion of the program is central to its long-term success,

and it is to the future of the prison system in general. Under a Conditional
Release Program, individuals would need to first show evidence of a
strong desire to reform themselves. Such intent would be demonstrated
by interview or written intent. Individuals in the program would also be
assigned a mentor that is further along in the program. Projects involving
work and social skills would be given to the mentor and mentee. Each
participant would be required to attain a high school diploma and at least
three marketable skills before leaving the program.

History
The strongest existing parallel to the Conditional Release Program
described above is the Delancy Street program, based in San Francisco
and downstate New York. The success rate in rehabilitating participants is
ninety percent. At the same time, as a private program, the Delancy Street
program has been known to experience racial imbalances, and is largely
unaccountable to external institutions. Thus, the program suggested here
would be administered by and accountable to existing state-run corrections
systems.

Analysis
The benefits of such a program would be strong in social and monetary value.
Second, the cost for implementing the Conditional Release Program is far lower
than housing a prisoner. The cost of housing a prisoner for one year can range
from $20,000 to $40,000. The Conditional Release Program would cut down the
time an inmate would be housed in a prison cell, thus cutting back costs. Also, if
the prison population continues to increase, New York and other states may be
forced to spend more on building new prisons and hiring more personnel. The
Conditional Release Program would help slow these trends.

Next Steps
States officials should commission individualized research to determine the
magnitude of a financial benefit such a program would offer to their state. Those
who adopt the program early will want to observe non-state programs such as
Delancy Street, and late users will want to observe the successes and failures
of such programs in states that are demographically and economically similar to
their own states.

———————————— Sources ————————————

*A full list of sources is available upon request

19
Marijuana Decriminalization in New York City
Jake Grumbach, Columbia University

Decriminalizing marijuana would save taxpayers millions of dollars,

reduce rates of incarceration, and allow law enforcement to focus on
more serious crimes.

The Giuliani Administration made marijuana enforcement and prosecution a

principle issue in the 1990s, increasing marijuana arrests from about 10,000
to 51,267 annually in just four
years. Marijuana use, of course,
Key Facts
has not increased fivefold,
• New York City has the highest level of mari-
but rather risen by only a few
juana arrests in the world for any city, as
percent since Giuliani began
many as 100 per day.
his first term. This increased
• “Marijuana in public view” crimes made up
focus on marijuana crimes
15 percent of all felony and misdemeanor ar-
has not helped New York City
rests in New York in 2000.
overall, but rather has been a
• African Americans make up 28 percent of
negative force that is not based
New York City, but 54 percent of marijuana
on popular opinion or factual
arrests, even though whites have a higher
evidence.
rate of per capita.
• Marijuana enforcement, processing, and
Some cities, such as Denver,
sentencing cost taxpayers $7.6 billion per
have fully decriminalized
year, according to a Jon Gettman report.
marijuana, meaning there are
• A CNN/Time poll found that 76 percent of
no penalties for possession
Americans favor a decriminalized fine over
of less than one ounce of the
criminal penalties for marijuana possession.
substance for individuals over
21. Others, like San Francisco,
have passed legislation to
officially make marijuana crimes the police department’s lowest priority.
The numerous studies of such
states and cities have concluded
Talking Points that decriminalization creates
• Major studies have shown that marijuana no increase in use; even the
decriminalization has a minimal or negli- broadest estimates show only
gible effect on consumption levels. a 2 percent increase. The data
• Decriminalizing marijuana will save money thereby suggests that “Broken
for New York City taxpayers, help stop Windows Theory” does not apply:
the overcrowding of prisons, and will allow softer and more rational penalties
police to fight more important crimes. do not promote marijuana use.
• Marijuana decriminalization would lower
distrust and antagonism of the NYPD Given that decriminalization
from New York City low income and mi- policies do not increase use,
nority communities. there are a number of reasons
• The Drug War costs taxpayers $35 billion that marijuana decriminalization
per year. has the potential to positively
affect communities. First, police and the justice system can spend more
money and effort on more destructive and violent forms of crime. As it
is, police officers spend hours completing paperwork after each arrest.
That time could be spent far more effectively. Second, national marijuana
enforcement and prosecution wastes an estimated $7.6 billion annually.
Third, the already overcrowded U.S. prison system is further filled by about
27,900 inmates guilty solely of marijuana crimes, according to a report by
King and Mauer.

Fourth, and arguably most importantly, decriminalization eases the tension

between minority and low-income communities and the police department.
Residents would not feel coerced into complying with illegal searches,
and would be more likely to cooperate with the police officers without
unnecessary fear. Violence from unnecessary conflict escalation between
police and citizens would be avoided as a result.

History
In the past few decades, we have seen a steady increase in criminalization
of marijuana on the federal level, while state and local authorities have
opted for decriminalization. Alaska, in 2006, overturned its 1976 law that
had completely legalized possession and use of up to an ounce in a home.
Eleven states (California, Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska,
Nevada, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, and Oregon) have decriminalized
marijuana possession to non-criminal fine penalties for individuals over 21
Mayor Giuliani went against both the electorate and the state legislature,
shown through polls and with the 1975 state decriminalization decision.

Analysis
In short, the American public understands and supports the benefits of deterring
marijuana use and making sure the legal system does not harm our own
communities. Numerous nation and statewide polls have found that Americans
conclusively support medicinal marijuana, and the latest Gallup Poll has found
that 36 percent support complete legalization.
Next Steps
Although there are such strong and obvious benefits to a community by
legalizing marijuana, the legal change should arise democratically. New York’s
local government should promote a ballot measure to decriminalize marijuana,
and there should be a citywide dissemination of facts related to this issue. New
York City must officially make marijuana crimes one of the lower priorities of the
New York Police Department, repeal the citation and $500 penalty for burning
or possessing marijuana in public view, and stop Operation Condor, an overtime-
based mobile police sweep of targeted neighborhoods that has cost New York
City taxpayers from $40 million to $100 million annually.

———————————— Sources ————————————

*A full list of sources is available upon request.

21
Eliminating Sentencing Disparities
Max Griffith, Dalia Mortada, and Eric Schneiter, University of Virginia

Under current federal regulations, the possession of five grams of

crack cocaine triggers a mandatory five-year sentence, while at least
five hundred grams of powder cocaine is required to trigger the same
penalty. This disparity has resulted in a disproportionately higher
percentage of African-Americans being incarcerated, as opposed to
whites or Hispanics.

Crack cocaine is a solid form of Key Facts

cocaine created by mixing baking • More than 80 percent of drug offend-
soda with powder cocaine. The use ers convicted on crack cocaine charg-
of crack cocaine became popular in es are African-American. However, Af-
the 1980s, a time during which the rican-Americans account for less than
United States saw a spike in drug 33 percent of crack cocaine users.
usage. Because it is relatively cheap • After Congress passed the Anti-Drug
to produce and consume compared Abuse Act of 1986, African-Americans
to its powder equivalent, crack were sentenced to prison terms that
cocaine became a readily available were, on average, 49 percent longer
drug widely distributed within low- than their white counterparts. Before
income communities. the act was passed, this number was
only 11 percent.
History
In 1986, Congress passed the Anti-
Drug Abuse Act in response to the increased usage of crack cocaine. This
act established mandatory minimum sentences for individuals convicted of
the possession of drugs. This law also legally mandated a disparity between
the amount of crack cocaine and the amount of powder cocaine needed
to trigger these mandatory minimum sentences, essentially equating five
grams of crack cocaine to five hundred grams of powder cocaine. The
harsh mandatory sentences for the possession of a miniscule amount of
crack cocaine places an
Talking Points enormous strain on poorer
• Crack cocaine and powder cocaine are virtually communities, exacerbating
identical and produce the same physiological ef- economic, social, and
fects in humans. Crack cocaine is not more ad- racial tensions. Eliminating
dictive than its powder form, nor have any studies the sentencing disparity
shown that it makes users prone to violence. would place more power
• The sentencing disparity between comparable lev- into the hands of the
els of crack and powder cocaine effectively targets judge, who would be
members of the poorest communities, since crack able to consult his or
cocaine is much cheaper than powder cocaine. her discretion and apply
• Eliminating this sentencing discrepancy would help sentencing times based on
to bridge the vast sentencing disparity between the circumstances of the
African-Americans and other racial groups. case.
 Analysis
In 1986, African-Americans received federal drug sentences that were 11 percent
higher than those of whites. By 1990, that number soared to 49 percent. Despite
the fact that over 66 percent of American crack cocaine users are either white or
Hispanic, over 80 percent of crack cocaine defendants are African-American.

Further statistics gathered since the inception of the 1986 Anti-Drug Abuse Act
have shown that many of the vaunted benefits of a sentencing disparity proved
to be unwarranted. Crack cocaine has no greater addictive qualities than powder
cocaine, and it generates the same negative impact on unborn children when
used by expectant women as cocaine in its powder form. Additionally, only 2.3
percent of crack offenders have also been convicted of violent crimes. Crack
cocaine usage, therefore, carries no increased risk of violence. Finally, the law’s
original intent of giving higher sentences to upper-level distributors has failed to
produce results. Instead, low-end crack users bear the brunt of the punishment.

Disparities in sentencing guidelines between crack cocaine and powder cocaine

usage offend the ideal of equality in our criminal justice system. While less than
25 percent of crack cocaine users are black, African-Americans make up over 75
percent of federal crack defendants. The result is the perpetuation of a racially
biased sentencing policy within the criminal justice system, responsible for an
800 percent increase in the incarceration of African-American women since
1986 and a jail network that currently retains more African-American males than
institutions of higher education. With no pharmacological difference between
powder and crack cocaine, it is evident that the 100-to-1 sentencing disparity
and the implementation of mandatory minimums for the possession of relatively
small amounts of crack cocaine serve more to punish drug users for their race or
socioeconomic status, rather than the fact that are using illegal drugs.

Next Steps
The United States Sentencing Commission has sent four separate reports to
Congress since 1997, each recommending a decrease in cocaine sentencing
disparities. Although Congress has agreed to adjust its laws based on every
other commissioned report of the USSC, it remains obstinate in its rejection of
changes to the Anti-Drug Abuse Act’s crack cocaine minimum sentencing policy.
In 2007, the Supreme Court ruled in Kimbrough v. United States that federal
judges could use sentencing policies for crack cocaine defendants as advisory
guidelines rather than mandatory restrictions. In light of the Court’s decision,
the Sentencing Commission voted unanimously on December 12, 2007 to allow
nearly 20,000 federal inmates to seek sentence reductions.
With both the USSC and the Supreme Court voicing disapproval for current
crack cocaine sentencing policies, all that is left is for Congress to pass new
laws equalizing the disparity between crack and powder sentences, as well as
eliminating mandatory minimums for crack cocaine offenders.

———————————— Sources ————————————

*A full list of sources is available upon request.
23
Sentencing Circles for Non-Violent Drug Offenders
Robert Coniglio, Cornell University

Sentencing circles designed to bring non-violent drug offenders and

community members together to mutually decide upon restitution
offer a restorative alternative to incarceration and provide a controlled
support system to treat drug addiction.

The United States is the most economically developed country in the world
and incarcerates a larger percentage of its population than any other country
in the world, debilitating the social and economic lives of many communities.
Zero-tolerance policies and minimum sentencing laws, often connected to non-
violent offenses such as automobile
theft or drug possession, have in Key Facts
large part resigned the country • One in ten American adults are in prison.
to this indefensible position. It is In 2007, states spent $44 billion on the
therefore imperative to examine a maintenance of the prison system.
fundamentally different approach • With the implementation of minimum
to fighting crime, an approach that sentencing laws, 80 percent of the in-
focuses on empowering communities coming prison population between 1985
and healing individuals rather than and 1995 was due to drug convictions.
punishing and excluding those who • Restorative justice techniques have re-
have erred. duced youth recidivism in Woodbury,
MN, from 71.2 percent to 33.1 percent.
At the core of the restorative justice
philosophy is the idea of human
bonds. “Sentencing circles” are one
of the most promising manifestations of this relationship-centered philosophy.
The goal of sentencing circles is to bring victims and offenders together to work
out mutually agreed upon restitutions, after the offender has taken personal
responsibility for his or her transgressions. In the case of drug-related offenses,
sentencing circles offer a controlled support system that can treat drug addiction
and its various non-violent
offshoots for what they are-a
Talking Points fundamentally social illness.
• Sentencing circles empower victims and com-
munities by allowing them to actively partici- History
pate in the process of reintegrating offenders Restorative justice methods
into their communities. have been incorporated into
• Restorative justice focuses on healing rela- institutional legal systems since
tionships, creating responsibility and righting the 1970s. These methods aim
wrongs. to include the greatest number
• Restorative systems offer high levels of control of stakeholders in the decision
and support, rather than the high levels of con- process - including family,
trol and low levels of support that accompany friends, community members,
incarceration. and law enforcements.
Significantly, restorative justice understands that the offenders have a
unique obligation to the victims. Such an inclusive system has often been
utilized in juvenile courts. Since 1989, New Zealand has adopted restorative
justice techniques as the norm for its juvenile justice system.

Restorative justice techniques are also widely used across Europe and the
United States. In a Woodbury, MN study of the juvenile restorative justice
program there, over 70 percent of all participants were satisfied with
outcomes, while the recidivism rate decreased from 71.2 percent before the
program was implemented to 33.1 percent after the start of the program.
Restorative justice programs have been tested and are ready to be more
broadly applied.

Analysis
Restorative justice offers a more effective method of combating drug addiction and
drug-related crime than incarceration. Sentencing circles, which is one method
of restorative justice, includes the voluntary participation of victims (when there
are victims in drug-related cases), the victim’s communities of care (family and
friends), offenders and their communities of care, as well as judges, attorneys,
social workers, and community members. Together they work towards creating
a plan that can work for all parties and is based upon the community’s shared
values. Sentencing circles can also meet to monitor and support an offender’s
continuing progress. For addicts, this can mean drug counseling, with the support
and empathy to reinforce it. Such a plan goes a long way towards highlighting
drugs as a community and family issue, while also empowering communities with
the tools to address the problem.

Implementation of such a program would undoubtedly save taxpayers money. In

2007, states spent $44 billion on prisons, and the opportunity cost of emphasizing
incarceration is visible in our crumbling infrastructure and struggling schools.
With sentencing circles, government officials would simply be reassigning
time already paid for and would probably be using their time more effectively.
Sentencing circles allow states to reallocate resources currently spent on the
ever-expanding prison system to other priorities and encourage communities,
families, and individuals to take responsibility for the greater well-being of their
local communities.

Next Steps
This policy can be immediately implemented through revisions in the sentencing
statutes for drug crimes in each state and within federal law. First, it is necessary
to repeal zero-tolerance and minimum sentencing statutes. Afterwards, a state
should begin a pilot program to test the process and refine sentencing circles. If
they are shown to be effective, a policy should be permanently applied through
legislation.

———————————— Sources ————————————

* A full list of sources is available upon request
25
The Collateral Consequences of
Criminal Fines on Society and the Offender
Grant Resick, Cornell University

Replace the regressive practice of fines and fees as a penal strategy

with a more socially progressive means of funding the justice system.

Across the nation, local judiciaries are experiencing financial crisis. As the
Full Court Press reported in 2003, “Oregon courts shut down every Friday
and cut court workers’ pay by 10 percent; Los Angeles County has closed 29
courtrooms and laid off 250 workers; New York has frozen 700 empty court
positions; Colorado is considering unpaid days off for court employees
and cutting court hours.” As Roger Warren, president of the National
Center for State Courts told
the Associated Press in April Key Facts
2003, “It’s the worst fiscal • States are charging their poorest groups of citi-
crisis to confront the state zens millions of dollars in the form of penal fines
judiciary in 50 years”. Faced and fees to fund their criminal justice systems.
with these dire financial • Such fines are not meant to be behavioral de-
conditions, states and terrents; justice systems, at the state level, sim-
localities have increasingly ply depend upon this funding to function.
begun to rely on court • Some states even require the defendant to pay
fines and fees as a means for the jury.
of offsetting their financial
burdens.

Analysis
As the American criminal justice network has expanded dramatically in recent
decades, bureaucrats and policy makers have been forced to scramble in order to
come up with the requisite finances. State and local governments have employed
a variety of strategies to meet these rising financial obligations such as increasing
taxes and privatizing corrections services. Unfortunately, placing large financial
obligations on offenders as a means of punishment produces significant negative
social externalities.

Talking Points Perhaps most troubling, many of

the individuals who are assessed
• Policies that employ fines and fees to keep
down court costs constitute a major re- criminal fines are already in bad
gressive tax on low-income individuals. financial shape. Accordingly,
• This increased economic burden, as well the fine- and fee-based funding
as debt-based sanctions, encourages indi-strategy in effect takes an already
disadvantaged group and places it
viduals to engage in risky behavior such as
involvement in underground economies. at risk of much deeper debt. Raising
criminal fines and fees constitutes
a massive regressive tax on the
poor, thereby creating a financial climate that not only makes it more difficult
for individuals to provide for their basic needs, but also increases the risk of
recidivism cycles. In short, by expanding the population and therefore cost of
America’s criminal justice system, this fine and fee system worsens the quagmire
that led to its inception in the first place.

First, putting offenders into debt ruins their credit. Because relatively good credit
is increasingly a pre-requisite to gainful employment, a criminal policy that ruins
an offender’s credit score decreases chances of societal reintegration. Second,
if financial obligation is sufficiently burdensome, the offender may opt to not
even attempt to pay off those fines and drop out of the traditional economy. A
criminal policy that encourages individuals to seek under the table work to avoid
repayment of their debts is clearly undesirable. While there is no guarantee that
such a result will occur in any given incidence, the wide spread phenomenon
of dead-beat-dads (individuals who do not make there required child support
payments and avoid doing so by not declaring income) shows that this is a real
concern. Third, because there are often children and other dependents who rely
upon the indebted offenders income, a policy of harsh fines and fees can have
negative material consequences on individuals aside from the offender.

Audience
State legislators should be made aware of the implications of a fine- or
fee-based funding strategy. The environment of rising state-imposed
financial obligations exists largely in response to budgetary shortcomings;
alternative sources of funding should thus be made available if the problem
is to be fixed in a lasting manner. Additionally, all forms of media should
be very interested in the problems associated with the current structure of
funding.

Next Steps
State legislators in states currently engaged in this practice should introduce
legislation to repeal this policy. States should employ progressive instead of
(effectively) regressive taxes to fund their justice systems, which will in turn
benefit from lower recidivism rates.

———————————— Sources ————————————

Olson, David and Ferard Ramker. “Crime Does Not Pay, But Criminals May: Factors Influencing the
Imposition and Collection of Probation Fees.” The Justice System Journal, vol 2, no 1, 2001.

Washington Courts, “Board of Judicial Administration”, http://www.courts.wa.gov/programs_orgs/

pos_bja/?fa=pos_bja.cftf&cftf=news200307

“Task Force Reviews Trial Court Funding”, http://www.courts.wa.gov/programs_orgs/pos_

bja/?fa=pos_bja.cftf&cftf=news200307

*A full list of sources is available upon request.

27
Medical Solutions to Sex Offender Recidivism
Graham Rengert, Cornell University

Instead of transferring former sex offenders to civil commitment centers

to receive unsuccessful “treatments” after their prison sentences end,
governments should channel funds towards increasing research efforts
into the development of medical responses to predatory recidivism.

In more and more states across the US, convicted sex offenders are being
transferred to expensive civil commitment centers after their prison
sentences. Many of them will never be released from the civil commitment
centers, despite having served their court-mandated prison sentences.
Some who are released will be rearrested for sex crimes despite having
completed the treatment
programs. Despite the abysmal Key Facts
record of civil commitment • Civil commitment centers are facilities that
centers, politicians continue hold former-sex offenders after their prison
to establish and expand these sentence has expired to receive treatment
programs as part of their ever- until they are deemed safe for release into
important “tough-on-crime” society.
strategy. It would better • Nationally, almost 3,000 former-sex offenders
serve these inmates, potential are currently serving indefinite terms in civil
future-victims, public good, commitment centers in 20 states.
and taxpayers if these millions • The programs often cost taxpayers $10-20
of dollars were applied to million annually in each state, roughly 4 times
scientific research that could more expensive than prison per individual.
result in a truly effective • The Johns Hopkins Sexual Disorders Clinic,
medical treatment for criminal the only major scientific research program
sexuality. As investment is dedicated to creating effective treatments,
a sum-zero game, these two receives no government funding.
strategies are in direct tension
with each other.

History
Since the first civil commitment center was established in Washington
State in 1990, these programs have continued to expand and spread to new
states. Conversely, scientific research on effective treatments has received
almost no public support or government funding. Dr. Fred Berlin, founder
of the Johns Hopkins Sexual Disorders Clinic and adamant critic of civil
commitment programs, believes that the government does not invest in
solid scientific research “because so many Americans believe that the only
investment in sex offenders should be punitive.”

Analysis
Scientific research is a far more logical path towards an effective solution to sex-
offender recidivism. Studies on sex-offender recidivism are plentiful, though their
data and conclusions are quite diverse. Two points of consensus are that former
 Talking Points sex offenders have lower
• Most of the 250 people who have been uncondi- recidivism rates than most
tionally released from civil commitment centers other serious criminals, and
since the programs began in 1990 have been re- that abnormal psychology
leased for technical or legal reasons, not because of is at the root of sexual
successful treatment. crime. This psychology
• Civil commitment programs have been unsuccessful is not fully understood,
at effectively treating their inmates, who often sim- and a successful medical
ply “go through the motions” or even skip therapy treatment has not been
sessions all together. developed. Records show
• The sentencing of former-sex offenders to civil com- that civil commitment
mitment after their prison sentences is equivalent treatment programs fail
to double-jeopardy or preemptive punishment for miserably. The logical and
crimes not yet committed. humane conclusion is to
• Sex offenders suffer from severe psychological prob- shift government funding
lems and the solution to criminal sexuality should be away from costly and futile
addressed through both therapy sessions and ap- civil commitment programs
proved medication. to productive research
efforts.

Next Steps
In addition to changing laws and reallocating funding, elected officials and the
general public alike should be made more aware of the futility of civil commitment.
Individuals must let their politicians know that they demand real solutions, not
costly and superficial treatment programs. They must demand government-
supported, scientific research towards an effective treatment for former-sex
offenders that will protect the rights and safety of all citizens. Politicians must
inform their constituents of the poor record of civil commitment programs
instead of just hitching an easy ride on public moral panic. Finally, universities
and scientific institutions must develop and support research initiatives directed
at finding a real solution to sex crime.

———————————— Sources ————————————

Davey, Monica and Abby Goodnough. “Doubts rise as states hold sex offenders after prison.” The
New York Times: Sunday, March 4, 2007. New York, NY. 2007.

Meloy, Michelle L. Sex Offenses and the Men Who Commit Them. Lebanon, NH: Northeastern
University Press. 2006.

Wakefield, Hollida and Ralph Underwager. “Assessing violent recidivism in sexual offenders.” The
Institute for Psychological Therapies, Vol 10, 1998. copyright 1989-2006. Accessed on March
20, 2007 from: <http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume10/j10_6.htm>.

“Wrong turn for sex offenders.” (Editorial desk). The New York Times: Tuesday, March 13, 2007.
New York, NY. 2007.

29
Interpretive Technology for the Justice System
Riley Wyman, The Colorado College

Each sector of the criminal justice system should create and implement
a language access plan that uses interpretive technology to provide
non-English speakers a way to navigate the justice system.

As immigration rates rise rapidly, the already large number of non-English

speakers living in the United States is growing. The 2000 Census found that
20% of individuals speak a language other
than English and 8% qualify as “limited Key Facts
English proficient” (LEP). Those considered • 8% of US inhabitants under-
LEP can understand little to no English. stand little to no English.
As this demographic shift has occurred, a • Both rural and urban areas
growing number of criminal justice agencies have large, centralized popula-
find themselves unprepared to communicate tions of non-English speakers.
with community members. Language • Phraselators, one-way hand-
barriers within the justice system prevent held devices, sell for $2,300
governmental entities such as the police, a unit.
the courts, and correctional institutions
from delivering justice, ensuring individual
rights, and protecting public safety. These problems are exacerbated in rural
areas with little governmental ability to address LEP citizens’ needs. As the
problem grows in size and impact, agencies must find methods to address
the language barriers and overcome them in cost-effective, efficient, and
just ways.

State legislatures should mandate that all legal institutions create and
implement a language access plan to ensure everyone can navigate the
criminal justice system. These plans should offer a breakdown of necessary
technologies and funding, methods for informing the public, along with
procedures, policies, protocols, and training for staff.

Various technologies available to help close the language gap are still in
development, yet two distinctly useful
products that have emerged have
Talking Points
been tested in multiple cities and have
• Overcoming language barriers
demonstrated incredibly promising
leads to increased justice and
results. The first, one-way handheld
public safety.
devices, are useful in situations where
• Technology is available for both
two way discourse is unnecessary, such as
short, one-way communication
in routine traffic stops and other various
and extensive court proceedings.
police activities. These devices have
• Virginia, Maryland, and Arkansas
thousands of translatable phrases stored
have all seen positive results.
in many languages, and communicate
• Technology leads to increased sys-
these phrases electronically through
tematic efficiency and lower costs.
a speaker. “Remote simultaneous
interpreting technology” is another tested, useful technology greatly needed
in courtrooms and interrogations. This technology allows an interpreter to
almost instantaneously provide an oral interpretation from another location
by telephone. Neither speaker using this technology hears one another,
but instead hears the interpreter’s translation. With increased use of this
technology, incentive grows to develop better, more cost-efficient methods,
and as technology improves, agencies’ needs can be met more specifically.

History
Law enforcement and court systems across the country have been using
these various technologies with positive results. In Virginia and Maryland,
agencies have found tremendous use for the one-way devices in county jails,
traffic stops, arrests and in the reading of Miranda rights, and probationary
meetings. While the devices are impractical for extensive conversations,
their use expedites basic communication. “Remote simultaneous interpreting
technology” is much like the technology used in the United Nations for
translation and, as Arkansas courts have found, is great at building trust
and rapport in courtrooms where it is important for judges and lawyers to
communicate with defendants and victims seamlessly.
Analysis
The technology available shows great promise and serves a myriad of purposes,
yet is simple and cost-effective. One-way device prices continue to fall as the
technology continues to develop. “Remote simultaneous interpreting technology”
simply requires a pair of cell or land phones to connect to the remote location.
The largest cost of technologies is the maintenance of a group of interpreters, as
skilled interpreters are rather expensive. Training would also be a cost, though
the technology is easy to use and most manufacturers have special training for
law enforcement and courts. However, though these costs exist, implementing
the use of these technologies would actually be a cost-effective solution. The
technology leads to greater efficiency in the criminal justice system, thereby
decreasing operational costs. Also, the technology can be shared among agencies
and jurisdictions. Rather than having individual translators commute between
agencies and locations—making availability difficult—the centralized interpreters
would be instantaneously available to numerous agencies. Organizations could
also learn from one another as technology is implemented and changes are made,
again ensuring increased efficiency.

Next Steps
As technology continues to be developed and perfected, agencies can find an
increased selection to meet their specific needs. Finding funding and support for
the technology is a critical first step to implementation, but the language access
plan itself must first be created to ensure proper recognition and understanding
of agency needs. Plans can be developed specific to geographic areas, as
language needs vary across rural, suburban, and urban locations. Interagency
dialogue is also crucial for ensuring that needs are met across the many facets of
the justice system.
———————————— Sources ————————————
*A full list of sources is available upon request
31
Tightening Taser Deployment Standards
Katlyn Leight and Brent Pencak, University of Michigan

Preventing unnecessary death and injuries related to Taser use and

strengthening community perception of law enforcement personnel by
universally limiting deployment to the “Harmful” level on the FLETC
Use-of-Force Continuum.

The Taser is an effective police weapon, which, when used appropriately,

has the potential to minimize injury
and death to law enforcement Key Facts
personnel, suspects, and innocent
bystanders. However, health issues
and questionable deployment have
raised concerns about use. Amnesty
International reports more than
290 deaths in the USA and Canada
following police Taser use. Numerous
health organizations and police
departments have questioned Taser
safety. We recommend standardized
deployment practices across all
law enforcement agencies at a high
level on the FLETC Use-of-Force
Continuum.
• Over 7,000 law enforcement agencies
employ more than 140,000 Tasers in
the United States
• In a 6-year period, Amnesty Internation-
al reports over 290 deaths from police
Taser usage in the USA and Canada
• Use-of-force policies provide guidance
for police officers to follow during spe-
cific scenarios
• Two Department of Homeland Security
divisions rejected its use altogether.

Questionable Taser usage on suspects, such as non-violent or previously

restrained suspects, damages community perception of law enforcement
personnel. Shocking and provocative videos circulate at rapid speed on
Youtube depicting questionable Taser usage and are seen not just by
members of a single community, but are viewed by millions around the world
Community response to Taser incidents echoes outrage expressed following
police shootings and brutality. In 2007 a San Jose, California coalition
marched on City Hall in protest, releasing 291 black balloons: One for every
death stemming from a Taser incident. Concerns among minorities are most
severe, as they feel Taser use on minorities is disproportionately high. A
study of 1,000 Taser deployments in
Talking Points Houston reveals 63 percent of suspects
• This is low cost solution that takes were black, but only 25 percent of
advantage of existing framework to residents are black.
address concerns over Taser use.
• This policy ensures that Tasers re- History
main an effective and less-lethal op- There is growing consensus that Taser
tion for law enforcement and pro- use should be limited to dangerous
motes strong relations between law situations, not against passively
enforcement and communities. resistant suspects. A 2005 report from
the American Civil Liberties Union
of Northern California recommends, “Tasers should only be used in life-
threatening situations.” British governmental standards restrict Taser use to
an alternative to deadly force. Representatives from the U.S. Department of
Justice (DOJ) and about 80 police departments recommended new usage
restrictions at a 2005 conference. Within the DOJ the Office of Community
Oriented Policing Service (COPS) developed 52 guidelines on operating
conducted energy devices (CED), including Tasers, for law enforcement
consideration. The first guideline states, “CEDs should only be used against
persons who are actively resisting or exhibiting active aggression, or to
prevent individuals from harming themselves or others. CEDs should not
be used against a passive suspect.”

Analysis
Current placement of Tasers as an acceptable response on the use-of-force
continuum varies by agency. The use-of-force continuum has five levels, ranging
from ‘Strategic’ situations, in which the officer may use such responses as
cooperative controls, to ‘Lethal’ situations, where response includes deadly
force. Universally elevating Taser usage to the “Harmful” level on the Use-of-Force
Continuum narrows the circumstances of use, decreasing frequency of Taser
deployments. This effectively lowers risk of injury or death. (Refer to figure in
endnotes) Elevated circumstances will placate community fear of abusive Taser
use. Community perception can change if citizens view Tasers only being used in
dangerous situations. In this manner, Taser usage can be seen as a positive, less-
lethal alternative to a firearm or impact weapon, i.e. baton or nightstick.

Next Steps
The protection of law enforcement personnel remains a high priority and the
Taser remains an important weapon. While it is not necessary to ban Tasers, it is
important to restrict its usage. With this goal in mind, it is in the interest of law
enforcement agencies to promote safer usage. This goal can be met by increasing
the Taser response to a higher level on the FLETC Use-of-Force Continuum and the
universal endorsement of the COPS Office CED Guidelines by law enforcement
agencies. While most effective at a national level, these recommendations can be
enacted and carried out at the state and local level. To inform and help facilitate
the adoption of higher Taser standards by law enforcement agencies, the DOJ
COPS department should provide Taser information on their online Resource
Information Center. COPS and IACP may consider developing instruction for
Taser deployment within their training programs in the future.

———————————— Sources ————————————

Government Accountability Office. “Use of Tasers by Selected Law Enforcement Agencies.” May
26, 2005. Accessed February 23, 2008. www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-464 pg 1.

Government Accountability Office. “Use of Tasers by Selected Law Enforcement Agencies.” May
26, 2005. Accessed February 23, 2008. www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-464 pg 7.

*A full list of sources is available upon request

33
Compensation Reform in the Wayne County
Indigent Defense System
K Natalie Doss, Paymon Khorrami, Amol Naik, University of Chicago

In order to better incentivize excellence in public defense, counties with

fee-based systems should switch to yearly salary structures.

In Wayne County, public defense is of a markedly lower quality than

private defense. In
accordance with the U.S. Key Facts
Supreme Court’s Gideon
v. Wainwright ruling, the
Sixth Amendment right to
a fair trial partially hinges
on the universal right of the
accused to the assistance
of a Counsel. This is the
basis for public defense
systems everywhere.
However, if those public
defense services are likely
to be of a significantly
lower quality, then it is
doubtful that a fair trial is
being provided.
• Wayne County, in southern Illinois, is a prime ex-
ample of the failures of the public defense system.
Consequently, its public defense attorneys are
among the lowest paid in the country, earning be-
tween $180 and $420 for a full day of trial work.
• Controlling for other factors, clients of court-
appointed attorneys receive an average of eight
months more jail time under the fee-based system.
This is largely due to the attorneys’ unwillingness
to engage in plea-bargaining, as wage-based pay
makes it unprofitable to end trials early.
• A study on Dallas County, Texas indicates that the
county wastes $7,264,774 due to the elongated pris-
on terms incurred under the fee-based system.

Analysis
Harvard Professor Radha Iyengar’s study (2007) on the efficacy of different
types of federal district-court indigent defenders highlights the advantages
of a salary-based compensation structure for public defenders. It is
important to note that this study does not concern itself with the level
of compensation for attorneys. Rather, while controlling for the absolute
level of pay, Iyengar considers the
differences between fee-based
Talking Points and salary-based pay structures. In
• Given the difference in the quality of her analysis, use of salaried public
public defense one receives under defenders leads to better quality of
yearly salary systems and fee-based service for the defendant at a lower
systems, the constitutionality of the cost to the public.
former is, at best, blurry.
• The fee-based system produces in- The study found that wage-paid,
centives for the attourney that are not court-appointed private attorneys,
in the interests of the defendant. the alternative to public defenders,
• The fee-based system comes with generally have less experience
enormous financial cost to the public. and have attended “lower quality”
law schools than salaried public
defenders. Iyengar shows that the less experienced, less qualified
court-appointed attorneys are more likely to get a guilty verdict for most
defendants. This inefficiency means that it is possible for some innocent
defendants to be convicted unfairly. Clients of court-appointed attorneys
also receive eight months more jail time, on average, partially due to the
attorneys’ unwillingness to engage in plea-bargaining, as wage-based pay
makes it unprofitable to end the trial early. The increased jail time is often
disproportionate to the crime.

Court-appointed private attorneys are also associated with higher costs

that must be borne by the public. The eight months of additional jail time
leads to higher aggregate prison costs for the county and state government.
The hourly wage pay system also causes higher court costs, approximately
$5800 extra per case, because of the correlation between longer cases and
court-appointed defenders.

Audience
Public Officials nationwide- not only from counties with fee-based public
defense systems- should be strongly interested in this policy, as the rate
of incarceration from one county’s courts affects entire state corrections
budgets. Judges especially should apply their political capital and first-
hand experience to realizing the above changes.

Next Steps
Implementing this policy will require a local law be passed in applicable
counties, mandating the reform of compensation systems. Carrying out the
law will require some one-time administrative operations, which will include
replacing contract attorneys in applicable ounties with public defenders,
and changing the public defenders’ salary structure from a fee-based one
to a yearly salary.

———————————— Sources ————————————

“Trial Assigned Counsel Fees by Circuit”, 2007, http://www.sado.org/publicdefense/2007trial.pdf

Iyengar, Radha, “An Analysis of the Performance of the Federal Indigent Defense Counsel”, 2007,
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/national/20070712_indigent_defense.pdf

“Evidence for the Feasibility of the Public Defender Offices in Texas,” 2006, http://www.courts.
state.tx.us/tfid/pdf/PD%20Feasibility_Final.pdf

Legal Aid and Defender Association, http://www.ladadetroit.org/index.htm>

35
Create a White-Collar Crime Division
To Counsel Public Defenders
David Carlson, Colorado College

To alleviate the rising cost of maintaining the criminal justice system,

especially the costs associated with public defenders, states should
create a white-collar crime division within their judicial branches to
counsel public defenders.

It is the government’s
obligation to take on a Key Facts
greater role in pursuing • The National Fraud Center reports that the eco-
arbitrators of fraud, nomic cost of white-collar crime is well over $100
bribery, counterfeiting, billion per year, far more than that of all violent
embezzlement, insider crimes combined.
trading, kickbacks, money • The Financial Litigation Unit of the Office for the
laundering, price fixing, and United States Attorney found that on average, 98.5
similar so-called “white- percent of the financial support for victims’ and
collar crimes.” In order to public defenders’ funds came from criminal fines
make the criminal justice and that the majority of these fines generally came
system more equitable, we from a few large white-collar crime convictions.
should ensure that well- • Currently, authorities charged with identifying
financed and well-defended and prosecuting white-collar crime “do not have
white-collar criminals are adequate legal, technological, and personnel re-
brought to justice and that sources to meet their responsibilities,” according
the poorest citizens are to Sam Antar, an ex-offender and an advocate for
brought to court with proper white-collar crime reform.
legal representation—an
obligation that often goes
unmet. Currently, public defenders are financed largely by criminal fines, the
majority of which come from a handful of high-stakes convictions. A white-collar
crime division can work with state and local police in their efforts to prevent,
investigate, and prosecute financial and technological crimes, in addition to
providing greater social equity across the spectrum of criminal activity.

Talking Points History

• With better training and better equip-
ment, investigators of white-collar crime
will increase their scrutiny of offenders
and lead to more prosecutions of white-
collar criminals.
• Many states and police departments have
divisions dedicated to combating specific
types of crimes, yet white-collar crimes are
tackled with limited resources, inadequate
staffing, and insufficient legal teams.
Many states and police departments
have divisions dedicated to
combating specific types of
crimes—such as anti-gang, anti-
drug, and special victims units. Yet
far more economically pernicious
white-collar crimes are tackled with
relatively limited resources. State
and federal law enforcement have
been left far behind as white-collar
crime rapidly escalates throughout the country.

The National Fraud Center reports that the economic cost of white-collar
crime is well over $100 billion per year, far more than that of all violent
crimes combined. The broad economic impact of white-collar crime effects
everyone and should be a major priority of policing agencies. According
to the 2004-2009 Federal Bureau of Investigation Strategic Plan, the FBI
is currently investigating over 189 major corporate frauds, 18 of which have
losses over $1 billion.

Analysis
Better-trained, better-equipped investigators of white-collar crime will generate
more scrutiny of offenders and lead to more prosecutions of white-collar
criminals. Currently, authorities charged with identifying and prosecuting white-
collar crime do not have adequate legal, technological, or personnel resources to
meet their responsibilities, writes Sam Antar, a former criminal and an advocate
for white-collar crime reform. With professionals dedicated to prosecuting
specific aspects of white-collar crime, law enforcement officials would have the
resources necessary to track sophisticated crimes committed by highly educated
criminals.

Audience
The creation of white-collar crime divisions would be most effective at
the state level, where criminal fines collected in wealthy areas could be
redistributed to criminal justice funding in poorer areas, though county and
city governments could move to form their own white-collar crime units.

Next Steps
States should move to create white-collar crime divisions under current state
Bureaus of Investigations that would work closely with departments of revenue,
gaming, and accountability to identify and prosecute perpetrators of white-collar
crime. Professional staffs of experts in all pertinent fields should be employed to
combat the destructive and often impenetrable threat of white-collar criminals.

———————————— Sources ————————————

Antar, Sam. “A Former Fraudster Speaks Out About White Collar Fraud.” <http://www.
whitecollarfraud.com/946562.html>

2005-2006 NWCC Annual Report. Published by the National White Collar Crime Center.

White Collar Crime Statistics. Online Lawyer Source. <http://www.onlinelawyersource.com/

criminal_law/white_collar/statistics.html>
37
Clarify Ambiguities in Anti-Gang Ordinances
To Prevent Racial Profiling
Matthew Fischler, Northwestern University

Many local ordinances continue to contain verbal ambiguities that

could be exploited by law enforcement to unjustly detain citizens.
Local governments should clarify vague legal language in all anti-
gang and anti-loitering ordinances to ensure due process for all inner-
city residents.

In its 1999 decision Chicago v. Morales, the Supreme Court ruled a controversial
city ordinance to be unconstitutional because it failed to explicitly outline
behaviors that would warrant arrest, and because it also failed to provide “fair
warning” about the nature of
“illegal behaviors” to individuals Key Facts
detained under the ordinance. • Many anti-gang and anti-loitering ordinances
According to the Supreme Court, in Chicago only apply to designated areas
the city ordinance violated the of the city predominantly populated by low-
citizen’s right to equal protection income minorities.
and due process under the law. • Between 2004 and 2006, Chicago police au-
In 2002, Chicago revamped thorities detained over 220,000 under Chi-
its anti-gang ordinance to cago’s anti-gang ordinance.
clarify its definition of “criminal • Between 2004 and 2006, gang-related mur-
gang loitering.” However, this ders increased by 25 percent.
ordinance has failed to produce
the intended reduction in crime.

Talking Points Today, Chicago’s revised anti-gang

• Vagueness in anti-loitering and anti-va-
ordinance still fails to meet the
grancy ordinances effectively legalize the
vagueness precedent set in Morales.
police practice of racial profiling. Although it now defines gang loitering
• Chicago’s revised anti-gang ordinance has
as the intent “to establish control
failed to reduce gang-related murders in
over identifiable areas, to intimidate
the city. others from entering those areas, or
• Under Chicago’s current anti-gang ordi-
to conceal illegal activities,” it fails
nance, citizens are not afforded “fair no-
to outline explicit procedures for
tice” of police procedures and are there-
police to accurately identify gang
fore not given due process under the law.
members. This ambiguity results in
detention of innocent individuals
by police. Individuals who share the
physical characteristics of gang members may be subject to racial profiling and
excluded from due process of the law.
History
In an attempt to crack down on rising gang-related violence in the city,
Chicago’s City Council passed Municipal Code 8-4-150, giving law enforcement
in designated areas of the city the power to detain any “person[s] whom he
reasonably believes to be criminal street gang members loitering in any public
place” if they do not “disperse and remove themselves from the area.” According
to the ordinance, those who “do not promptly obey such an order” would be
subject to arrest. Over 90,000 individuals were detained annually under this
ordinance, many of which were innocent of any crime.
Analysis
The anti-gang and anti-loitering ordinance has not resulted in any correlating
reduction of violent gang-related crimes; in fact, there has been a rise in violent
crime since the institution of the ordinance. Between 2004 and 2005, gang-
related murders in Chicago increased by 15.2 percent, just as Chicago increased
dispersal enforcement by 107 percent, detaining 55,537 more individuals than
in previous years. Between 2005 and 2006, gang-related murders continued to
rise by 7.2 percent as dispersal orders increased by 16.9 percent, leading to a
reported total of 127,001 individuals to be temporarily detained. Furthermore,
statistics suggest that anti-gang and anti-loitering ordinances not only serve to
complicate police-community relations, but also move violent crimes further out
of the watchful eye of law enforcement.

Next Steps
Municipalities across the country can ensure that anti-gang and anti-loitering
ordinances do not violate civil liberties by (1) explicitly defining illegal forms of
loitering that directly contribute to gang-related violence, (2) explicitly defining
the qualifications police officers may use to identify gang members, and (3)
ensuring that the identification of neighborhood “hot spots” for crime is based
on empirical data and that residents living within a newly-designated “hot spot”
are informed of the new legal procedures that apply to them.

The city of Chicago should reexamine its approach to reducing gang violence by
placing a higher emphasis on empowering community members to take active
roles in restoring order to their community by promoting community programs,
while reducing the polarizing practices of loitering dispersals. Community
policing programs have strengthened ties between community members and law
enforcement officials.

Additionally, anti-gang and anti-loitering ordinances should more explicitly define

how quickly a person must react before a police officer believes that his or her
order has not been “obey[ed] promptly.” Further protections must be added to
give legal recourses to individuals unfairly dispersed under the law, in order to
protect them from incurring penalties that applied to repeat offenders. Vague
loitering ordinances should continue to be subjected to judicial review to remedy
the unequal protection under the law that residents of “hot spot” communities
experience every day.

———————————— Sources ————————————

*A full list of sources is available upon request

39
Addressing Prison Guard Shortages through
Housing Solutions
Nina Coutinho, Cornell University

Because the shortage of prison guards is caused in part by a lack of

affordable housing in the communities where prisons are located, a
policy is needed to decrease the travel burden facing guards.

State and local governments have attempted to raise pay, increase benefits,
and create better working
conditions for guards, but in Key Facts
states like Texas and Wyoming • Nationwide, there is a prison guard shortage.
where rural areas are targeted • In Texas, 17% of prison positions are unfilled.
as sites for prisons, a real Many of the prisons with the most severe staff-
challenge to staffing those ing shortages are in rural areas where the pris-
prisons is the lack of housing on is larger than the town.
available to guards. These areas • A lack of affordable housing and the high price
should refund of a percentage of gasoline are a disincentive for trained guards
of transportation costs to work to serve in such areas.
for guards as an alternative
to pay raises (which have
proven ineffective) or creating
politically controversial affordable housing.

Prison guard shortages affect prisoners, other prison staff, and the surrounding
community. Prisoners are often subject to harsh conditions when an adequate
guard to prisoner ratio is not maintained. In such instances, prisoners are
forced to share spaces meant for a smaller number of prisoners, in order to
be more easily guarded, according to a 2001 report by the Texas Commission
on Jail Standards. They are given less time outside or in recreational activities
for the same reason. The conditions
within the prison also become unsafe
Talking Points for prisoners for obvious reasons. The
• The Texas prison system, where the guards at understaffed prisons work in
prison building boom of the late unsafe conditions in which they are more
1990s saw the creation of rural pris- susceptible to being overwhelmed by
ons in the state, can serve as a test prisoners. The community too is at risk
case for the nation. when prison guard ratios are not met.
• When there are prison guard short- When the shortage of guards becomes
ages, the safety of the inmates, work- particularly acute, prisons are closed or
ers, and communities is at risk. parole releases are accelerated. This
• Addressing the lack of housing for increases the risk that communities will
those guards who do wish to serve be faced with parolees who are not
understaffed areas is a solution that ready to return to society.
will increase economic development
in rural areas over the long term.
 History
The late 1990s saw a prison-building boom in Texas and other states. The
prisons were built in rural areas to stimulate economic development and
avoid political opposition. As a result, in Texas over 80% of prisons with the
most severe guard shortages are in towns with fewer than fifteen thousand
people. The rural nature of these towns makes attracting development
challenging, even with tax incentives or zoning allowances.

Analysis
The high cost of has only adds to the travel burden facing prison guards.
Assuming a prison guard in a state like Texas has to drive 50 miles to work,
gas prices of $4 a gallon, and an average fuel economy of 23 miles a gallon,
he or she guard would spend $17 a day in fuel costs. That’s 120 dollars a
week and over $5,500 a year.

Audience
This policy is directed at state legislatures in states that face a pervasive
prison guard shortage. It is most applicable to legislators in states that face
a shortage of prison guards in rural, rather than urban areas, and that have
recently raised pay scales without seeing a decline in the shortage.

Next Steps
Before implementing a policy to ease the travel burden of prison guards,
states should make sure that other options have been examined or
attempted. Pay raises, increases in benefits, and increased enforcement of
safety standards are compelling incentives for potential guards and should
be pursued first.

———————————— Sources ————————————

Langford, Terri, “State prison guards tough to keep,” Houston Chronicle, March 26, 2005.

Neary, Ben, “Wyo. prison officials say housing key to attracting, retaining staff,” Rocky Mountain
News, May 8, 2007.

Sunset Advisory Commission, “Staff Report: Department of Public Safety,” May 2008. Available at
<http://www.sunset.state.tx.us/81streports/dps/dps.pdf>

Texas Commission on Jail Standards, “Texas County Jails 2001: A Status Report.”

United States Department of Labor, “Occupational Employment and Wages, May 2007,” Last
modified April 3, 2008. Available at <http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes333012.htm>

Ward, Mike, “Speeding release of parolees could ease prison guard shortage, lawmakers say,”
Austin American Statesman, January 11, 2008.

41
Early Childhood Education in Prisons
Simone Phillips, The Colorado College

To combat rising rates of generational incarceration, prisons should

implement early childhood education programs for the children
of inmates to ensure that healthy parent-child relationships are
developed.

Policy measures must be taken

to confront the astronomical Key Facts
prison population, which stands • Children of inmates are 6 times more likely
as the highest of any industrialized than the children of non-offenders to com-
nation. As incarceration rates rise mit crime sometime in their life.
throughout the United States, so • Approximately 3.6 million parents are under
too does the number of children supervision of state or federal authority.
impacted by the loss of a parent to • In 2001, the United States spent $22,650 per
the prison system. The connection inmate per year, totaling $38.2 billion overall
between parental incarceration— to maintain the correctional system.
especially of mothers — and • Prior to arrest, 64% and 84% of mothers in-
psychological problems leading carcerated in state and local prisons respec-
to risky behaviors helps to explain tively lived with their children, as opposed
why children of inmates are 6 times to 44% and 55% of incarcerated fathers, re-
more likely than the children of spectively.
non-offenders to commit a crime
sometime in their life. While direct
causality cannot be definitively linked, this statistic is telling of the connection
between inter-generational incarceration patterns.

Considering the significant federal and state costs of imprisonment, addressing

the educational needs of children of offenders may be one way to financially
relieve the prison system in the long run. According to statistics from the Bureau
of Justice Statistics in 2001, the United States spent $22,650 per inmate per year,
totaling $38.2 billion overall to maintain the correctional system. Considering that
the separation of mothers and children due to parental incarceration, along with
other lifestyle variables, can
Talking Points potentially lead to incarceration
• The United States currently has the highest and other major problems,
prison population of any industrialized country. states should create programs
• The increase in parental incarceration drasti- that would allow incarcerated
cally affects the lives of their children. mothers to maintain bonds with
• The separation of parent from child upon arrest their children.
is known to have adverse affects in the child’s
development. History
• Early childhood education programs in prisons From 1991 to 2000 the number
can insure against the threat of multi-genera- of incarcerated parents has
tional incarceration. almost doubled. According to
a 2000 study, approximately
3.6 million parents are under the supervision of a state or federal authority, and
of these, 1.1 million parents are currently incarcerated by local, state or federal
jails. “The impact of a mother’s arrest and incarceration on a family is often more
disruptive than that of a father’s arrest and incarceration,” wrote Charlene Wear
Simmons in a report for the California State Assembly. Prior to arrest, 64%
and 84% of mothers incarcerated in state and local prisons respectively lived
with their children as opposed to 44% (state) and 55% (federal) of incarcerated
fathers. Considering that a greater number of children lived with mothers rather
than fathers prior to incarceration, it is alarming that the number of mothers in
prison grew by 87% between 1991-2000, whereas the number of incarcerated
fathers grew by 61%.

Analysis
States should enact programs that enable children of inmates to receive early
childhood education at the place of their parent’s incarceration. Incarcerated
parents would play an active role in interacting with their child in his or her pre-
school classroom. The child’s incarcerated caregiver would benefit by learning
from trained professionals in the classroom the best ways to interact with their
children. The Coffee Creek Correctional facility, in Wilsonville, Oregon has
recently implemented an on-site early childhood education program for the
children of incarcerated mothers.

By placing early childhood education programs in the prison, parents can maintain
bonds with their children as well as receive parenting instruction from specialists.
States should invest in on-site early-childhood education programs, which will
serve children and parents by helping them to maintain strong bonds as well as
give pre-kindergarten aged children the ability to develop the skills necessary to
succeed in school.

Next Steps
States should budget money for these programs. Currently president Bush
has allotted 45 million dollars for mentoring programs for the children of the
incarcerated. Rather than spending money on outside mentors, it makes sense for
federal and state governments to invest in preserving and enhancing the existing
bonds between parents and children. In addition, there is much support from
law enforcement as well as other communities to create head-start programs to
serve low-income children.

———————————— Sources ————————————

“Children of Incarcerated Parents Project”. DOC Workforce Development. <http://www.
oregon.gov/DOC/TRANS/PROGMS/oam_children.shtml>

Favro, Tony. “Up to 10 million American children suffer the consequences of convicted
parents”. City Mayors Society. 2007.

Key, Tori. “Cost Effective Criminal Justice: A Survey of National Issues and Trends”.
Wisconsin Sentencing Commission. Mar. 2005.

*A full list of sources is available upon request

43
Pathways to Better Health for Convicts’ Families
Stephanie Gross, Northwestern University

Social workers should make direct contact with the families of

convicts while they are currently in prison to help clarify the family’s
eligibility for Medicaid and other health-related benefits in order to
mitigate the negative effects of incarceration on low-income families.

It is estimated that on any given day, 1.5 million children have a parent in prison;
as the incarceration rate continues to rise, this number will only grow. Families of
convicts are very likely to be in the lowest income bracket—half of incarcerated
parents report a monthly income of under $1000 before their arrest. Low-income
and incarcerated individuals are both likely to experience health inequality, as
well as physical and mental health problems.

Families at a certain level of income

might be eligible for Medicaid and Key Facts
SCHIP. Under the pressure of having an • 1.5 million children currently have a
incarcerated family member, though, it parent in prison.
can be especially difficult for a family to • Convicts and their families are highly
manage its expenditures and to navigate likely to be low-income.
the oftentimes-complicated process of
obtaining the benefits of Medicaid and
SCHIP. In addition, when a parent leaves for prison and children are put under
new care, their eligibility might change rapidly without the caregiver or parent
even being aware.

Thirty-two states have taken steps to expand eligibility and use of Medicaid and
SCHIP in low-income families in the last year, including efforts to simplify and
streamline enrollment and renewal processes. The simplest and most effective
way to expand the use of Medicaid by those who qualify is through the guidance
of a social worer. In families with an incarcerated parent this sort of intervention
is crucial, as the trauma and stress of having an incarcerated parent can trigger
severe emotional and behavioral problems in a child, and health benefits may
provide a crucial venue for reducing this impact

History
Ongoing Medicaid and
Talking Points SCHIP outreach efforts have
• Inmates’ families experience financial strain and targeted low-income and
diminished resources, especially as the job of minority populations but
fully supporting and caring for the inmate’s chil- do not specifically focus on
dren shifts. the families of incarcerated
• Children are likely to develop severe emotional individuals. Further, SCHIP
and behavior problems as a result of the stress and Medicaid outreach efforts
of having an incarcerated parent. on the state and local level
have generally been somewhat uncoordinated, and funding for outreach
efforts is often cut in times of financial strain, leading to inconsistency and
discontinuity in programming.

Analysis
Social workers who already deal with present convicts’ families, or those who act
as parole officers and work with convicts after they leave prison, might take on this
new role. This policy might require new, targeted funding, especially as funding
for other modes of outreach have been cut—the federal agency responsible for
Medicare and Medicaid recently cut administrative funding for outreach and
enrollment personnel. Because of discontinuities between federal, state and
county jails, implementation of the policy would require some coordination on
the federal level to ensure success.

Audience
Those families who are already suffering under the burden of an absent parent
would benefit from the attention and reliability of a social worker. This policy not
only applies to households of mothers and their own children, from which an
incarcerated father is absent, but also extends to any children of an incarcerated
parent who have been placed under the care of grandparents, friends, relatives,
or any other caregiver who may not have the resources to provide fully for
them.

Next Steps
Funding for Medicare and Medicaid outreach must be increased in order to
target programs such as this. Training at the state and possibly federal level
should be provided for social workers who agree to be the contact person for
families with regard to benefits. Additionally, a coordinated oversight program
should be implemented at either the state or federal level to ensure that inmates
within different prison systems are all covered by the program.

———————————— Sources ————————————

The Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured. “Health Coverage for Children and
Families in Medicaid and SCHIP: State Efforts Face New Hurdles.” Kaiser Family Foundation.
January 28, 2008. Available at http://www.kff.org/medicaid/7740.cfm

Hammet, Theodore M., Cheryl Roberts, and Sofia Kennedy. “Health-Related Issues in Prisoner
Reentry.” Crime Deliquency 2001; 47; 390. Available at <http://cad.sagepub.com/cgi/content/
abstract/47/3/390>

La Vigne, Nancy G., Elizabeth Davies, and Diana Brazzell. “Broken Bonds: Understanding and
Addressing the Needs of Children with Incarcerated Parents.” Urban Institute Justice Policy
Center. Available at <http://www.urban.org/publications/411616.html>.

45
Parental Care in Prison Facilities
Jabeen Ahmad, University of North Carolina

By allowing infants and children to live with their mothers in special

facilities during their incarceration periods, women can serve their
sentences, maintain strong bonds with their children, and develop the
skills for future employment and family care.

With greater rates of incarceration of women, the children of women

prisoners have increasingly become victims as well. Without maternal
support and guidance,
many children are
either raised by Key Facts
another relative or • More than 950,000 women, or about 1% of the U.S. fe-
placed in the foster male population, are under some type of correctional su-
care system. The pervision. Approximately 96,000 women are in prison.
children do poorly • About 90% of women in prison are single mothers. Ap-
in school, have proximately 167,000 children in the U.S. have mothers
behavioral problems, who are incarcerated.
and are more likely • Female imprisonment in the U.S. has increased by 757%
to become offenders since 1977. Women are the fastest-growing group of the
themselves. The prison population and have exceeded male prison popu-
majority of women in lation growth in all 50 states.
prison are nonviolent • Arrests of adult women have increased by 13% overall,
offenders. They are but arrests for serious offenses, such as murder, rape, rob-
often arrested for bery, and arson, have declined by 3%. Arrests of women
drug violations or for murder decreased by 12%. The majority of women’s
economic problems. arrests, about 82%, are for lower-level offenses, such as
Instead of placing drug violations, shoplifting, and welfare fraud.
these women in
traditional jails
and prisons, where they are more likely to become repeat offenders,
these women can be placed in an alternative correctional facility that
allows children to live with their mothers and provides educational and
rehabilitation programs.

History
The model of an alternative family residential facility comes from a non-
profit North Carolina organization called Our Children’s Place. Through
combined efforts of educators, politicians, and advocates, Our Children’s
Place has plans for a facility that will house ten female prisoners and
twenty children (under kindergarten age). The facility is equivalent to a
minimum-security prison and is a voluntary program. Our Children’s Place
will take children from all over the state and will provide residents with
educational programs and job training while they serve out their sentences.
The facility has not yet been built, but is set to open in 2009. Another
model of alternative family residential facilities comes from a California
organization called Center Point, Inc., which provides a similar residential
program called Family Foundations. Family Foundations houses pregnant or
parenting mothers in a community-based program. Women in the program
receive twelve months in-facility care and twelve months out-facility care
after parole.

Analysis
Talking Points Alternative residential
• Under this policy, mothers and children are not facilities allow child and
separated and family bonds are strengthened in al- mother to remain together
lowing children to be raised by their birth parent. during the mother’s
• Separation of mother and child inadvertently pun- incarceration period.
ishes the child, who grows up without a mother and Facilities would only be
is often placed in the foster care system. available to nonviolent
• This program also provides education on parent- offenders, which would
ing, health, and life skills, with a focus on obtaining eliminate potential harm
employment. Having children nearby motivates the to the child. This allows
mother to improve her lifestyle and gives her hope children to receive the
to work for her children. support needed during their
• With a focus on rehabilitation and family, the pro- childhood and development.
gram seeks to ease the prison burden by providing Moreover, mothers do not
an alternative to traditional incarceration, lowering miss crucial periods in her
the number of women in prison, and preventing re- child’s growth and have the
peat offenders. constant motivation needed
to become better.

Audience
Alternative residential facilities are beneficial to female prisoners, children,
social programs, and states. The facility would help to alleviate the number
of women in prison and prevent repeat offenders. Children remain with
their mothers and out of the foster care system, providing relief for social
workers and social programs.

Next Steps
Implementation of alternative residential facilities requires a location and staff
for security, training and programming. The five-part program covers: 1) funding,
2) location, 3) staff, 4) educational and rehabilitation programming, and 5) job
training.

———————————— Sources ————————————

“The Punitiveness Report – HARD HIT: The Growth in Imprisonment of Women, 1977-2004.”
Women’s Prison Association. <http://www.wpaonline.org/institute/hardhit/index.htm>.
Accessed 31 Mar 2008.

“Women in Prison.” Prison Activist. <http://www.prisonactivist.org/women/women-in-prison.html>.

Accessed 31 Mar. 2008.
*A full list of sources is available upon request
47
Child Support for Convicts’ Children
Tim Krueger, Cornell University

Courts and Child Support Enforcement Agencies need to combine

information and take simple steps to ensure that children with
incarcerated or recently incarcerated parents get the child support
money they deserve.

Attempts to match Child Support Enforcement Agency records with

incarceration records
have only been Key Facts
made in seven states, • Inmates who are noncustodial parents have child
demonstrating a general support obligations that average over $200 per
lack of collaboration month, but can only earn about $50 per month while
between CSEA agencies in prison.
and court systems. Those • Inmates with child support orders can expect to
seven attempts indicate accumulate between $10,000 and $20,000 of child
that between 21 and 28 support arrears by the time they are released.
percent of inmates have • In Colorado, which ranks 23rd for prison population
child support orders in nationwide, parents with child support debt from
most states. Two extensive having been incarcerated owe $212 million to their
studies were published in children and to the state.
2002, profiling the state
of child support and
incarceration in Colorado and Massachusetts. While in prison, monthly child
support obligations averaged $227 for noncustodial parents in Massachusetts
and $269 for those in Colorado. With average wages of 4 cents per hour while
in prison, those parents can typically earn between $45 and $50 per month
while incarcerated; far less than the amount they would need to pay their child
support. If this system is designed to benefit children or custodial parents, it
is designed poorly.

Talking Points Consequently, the average

• Because incarceration is considered “volun-
tary unemployment” in most states, and is not
considered sufficient reason to mitigate child
support orders in 21 states, a situation is cre-
ated in which inmates accumulate substantial
child support debt.
• This means that kids don’t get the money they
deserve, and noncustodial parents emerge
from prison with financial situations that leave
them far more predisposed to violate parole.
• Fathers with excessive child support debt are
less likely to make regular child support pay-
ments, and less likely to spend time with their
children.
inmate who is a noncustodial
parent can be expected to
accumulate child support
arrears in the range of $6000
to $10,000 by the time he is
released. Much is also owed to
the state for “welfare that had
been paid to their children”.
Adding $6,254 in interest and
$3128 in late fees to this figure,
prison saddles noncustodial
parents in Massachusetts
with an average debt of
$19,300. In both Colorado
and Massachusetts, about half of all child support-related debt is owed
to the state, and half to the noncustodial parent. Using even the most
conservative estimates of average debt, this accrues to be a monumental
amount of money that states and children will never receive. In small states
like Montana, with the nation’s eighth smallest prison population at 3,509
in 2005, this means kids and the state will be owed a combined $8.1 million
by the current prison population. In large states like New York, with the
4th largest prison population at 62,743 in 2005, kids and the state will be
owed a combined $144.3 million. Of course, this does not include the child
support debt from those who have already gone through the prison system,
in Colorado estimated at $212 million in 2001. A study of Washington
state shows that unpaid child support owed by incarcerated or previously
incarcerated parents constitutes 30.6% of all unpaid child support in the
state.

Of course, the debt that noncustodial parents emerge from prison with
is in addition to other debt from any court fees or collateral damages
they may have accumulated, as well as any previously outstanding child
support arrears. In 2001, average outstanding child support arrears at the
time of incarceration were $10,249 for parents with child support orders in
Colorado, and $10,543 for those parents in Massachusetts.

History
This situation has arisen primarily as a result of court cases that delineate the
circumstances under which child support orders can be changed. Currently,
21 states do not consider incarceration sufficient circumstances for altering
a child support order, while 13 states plus the District of Columbia do
consider it sufficient reason, and 11 states will consider incarceration status
in conjunction with other factors. Two recent court cases on the issue-
in Montana and Wisconsin- have upheld the notion that incarceration is
“voluntary unemployment.” Recently, some states, such as Texas and Ohio,
have begun to incorporate parenting programs into pre-release community
reentry programming.

Analysis and Next Steps

A number of steps can be taken to move past the current catch 22 situation.
First, states can run simple data checks using Social Security numbers
to determine the size of overlap between the child support system and
the prison system. Second, legislators should open the competition for
employment within prisons so that incarcerated parents can earn the
money their children deserve. Third, judges should seriously consider the
consequences of declaring incarceration a voluntary condition. Finally,
all states should incorporate counseling on debt and child support into
community reentry programming. Such steps will result in higher quality
parents who are less likely to end up back in prison.

———————————— Sources ————————————

*A full list of sources is available upon request.
49
Guilty until Proven Innocent:
Reforming NYC Teacher Discipline
Clare Kelley, Nick Turner, and Raul Mendoza, Columbia University

By expediting investigations into teacher misconduct and providing

alternative employment options for teachers under investigation, New
York City could ensure that innocent teachers are not unduly penalized
by the investigation process itself.

New York City’s Department of Key Facts

Education has chosen to address • The total cost of rubber rooms, including
State Education Law 3020a by funding for suspended teachers’ salaries,
placing teachers under disciplinary exceeds $25 million annually. This figure
investigation in temporary does not include the cost of the investiga-
reassignment centers. In these tions themselves.
reassignment centers, or “rubber • Between 600 and 900 teachers occupy
rooms,” teachers are forced to one of twelve rubber rooms at any given
remain inactive while awaiting time, while each room has a suggested ca-
verdicts of their cases. Rubber rooms pacity of only 26 people.
are tightly packed and inadequately • Under New York City’s current reassign-
supervised. Teachers have ment program, some teachers have spent
described conditions as oppressive, up to 10 years in rubber rooms before a
regimented, and unhappy. verdict has been reached.
Furthermore, investigations are
often slowly processed, with some
cases lasting multiple years. Alternative employment opportunities should be
offered to those being investigated and the period of investigation should be
limited by State Education Law.

History
Since the 1930s, the Supreme Court has upheld the unconstitutionality of
summarily dismissing tenured public employees who have not been found guilty of
wrongdoing. Created as a means
Talking Points to satisfy both the Supreme
• New York City’s teacher reassignment cen- Court’s ruling and the demands
ters, commonly referred to as “rubber rooms,” of unions, reassignment centers
unfairly subject teachers under disciplinary were considered a progressive
investigation to idleness and inactivity. compromise by the Department
• Rubber rooms are literal rooms in which of Education. After numerous
teachers under investigation sit, with nothing small amendments, the policy
to do, while earning their normal salaries. has existed in its final form since
• Investigations of teacher misconduct often August 25, 1994.
last far too long, costing the Department of
Education a great deal of money and keeping Analysis
innocent teachers out of the classroom some- The purpose of reassignment
times for over a year. centers is to provide teachers
under investigation with fair and just alternatives to being in the classroom.
However, New York City’s current reassignment program fails to do so. Without
work or any other activity, teachers sit idly in rubber rooms for seven hours each
working day, contributing nothing to children’s education or the community at-
large. Common activities include listening to iPods, playing cards, and sleeping.
As of 2007, personal items are not allowed to be kept overnight in rubber rooms,
further limiting the range of activities permitted by the Department.

Effects of spending time in rubber rooms have often been described as

psychologically and emotionally damaging. According to one source, teachers
“often report feelings of being deprived of their dignity and a sense of their self
worth,” making it even more difficult for those found innocent to return to their
classrooms with the same fervor and confidence they once had. Additionally,
the reputations of teachers who return to their original workplaces have been
severely tarnished. There have been many cases reported in which innocent
teachers have been unfairly shunned by their peers.

Lengthy investigations can also inhibit smooth transitions back to classrooms.

Some cases have been known to last as long as ten years, displacing qualified
teachers for far too long. Charges are sometimes trivial and should not require
the reassignment of qualified teachers. Although serious offenses and crimes
might require the displacement of those under investigation, cases of disciplinary
misconduct as trivial as disagreements over curricula, or general incompetency
should be handled in a far more appropriate and timely manner.

Rubber rooms and the reassignment programs place a substantial financial

burden on the Department of Education. Total costs have been estimated at $25
million annually, not including the costs for investigative procedures themselves.
This figure becomes all the more significant when considering the loss of several
hundred teachers still on full pay and the need for several hundred more to
replace them. While it is legally and ethically necessary to pay full salaries to
teachers under investigation, those salaries should pay for a productive use of
teachers’ time.

Next Steps
Concern for the high cost and minimal benefits of New York City’s rubber rooms
is beginning to surface, though further steps must be taken by the Department of
Education to ensure that teachers under investigation are fairly treated. Two major
changes should be made to the current policy. First, the Department’s Office
of Special Investigations should look further into expediting the investigation
process, as lengths of some current cases have been longer than teachers’
tenures in the first place. Second, alternative employment opportunities for
these teachers could take the form of either administrative duties within the
Department or community service projects in and around the five boroughs.

———————————— Sources ————————————

*A full list of sources is available upon request

51
Community Centered After-School Programs
Vrutika Mody, Middlebury College and Gracye Cheng, Harvard University

By instituting community centered after-school programs, states can

reduce juvenile recidivism while simultaneously supporting long-term
improvement in the areas that most need resources.

Consigning one-time offenders to correctional facilities or jails often

compromises rehabilitation.
Children in their early teens
are often incarcerated with Key Facts
adult offenders, putting them • 2.4 million juveniles are indicted annually and
in danger of being abused or even after being released from incarceration,
becoming ‘hardened’ criminals. 55 percent of juveniles are rearrested within
The institutionalization of one- one year.
time, often young, offenders • This rate of recidivism reaches up to 76 per-
thus perpetuates a vicious cycle cent in highly populated city centers
of crime in the community.
Community–centered
rehabilitation programs should be alternatives to detention centers or at
least, a significant periodic substitute to serving time.

History
After-school programs have proved successful in deterring juvenile crime.
Unsupervised teens are three times more likely than supervised youth to
engage in criminal behavior. A joint report from the US Department of
Education and Department of Justice illustrates that students involved in
after-school programs demonstrate reduced behavioral problems, a better
ability to handle conflicts, and improved self-confidence.

After-school programs, as one constructive alternative to detention, will

provide young teenage offenders an outlet to develop new skills and
hobbies, interact with peers through organized sports, and receive mentoring
from older students. Positive options instead of absolute punishment will
discourage youth from relapsing to delinquency.

Snohomish County, WA has

Talking Points
• In many states, extreme punitive measures al-
ready try youth under the age of 18 as adults.
Connecticut, New York and North Carolina
treat 16 year olds as adults.
• Nationally, the cost to serve youth offenders
in a correctional facility averages between
$37,000 to $60,000 per year. Each after-school
program costs $3000 to $4000 annually.
instituted the A.S.A.D. Program
(After-School Alternative
to Detention) to reduce
recidivism rates. Juvenile
offenders are held accountable
to their sentence but have an
alternative to secure detention.
In a supervised environment
after school, these youth
engage in study–sessions and
work study programs. Instruction covers anger management, violence
prevention and drug/alcohol issues. Work study and community activities
follow, such as trail maintenance, painting fire curbs and constructing wood
toys. After school, youth are picked up by their parents and are on house-
arrest in the evening and monitored through voice-verification systems.
Similar after-school programs in Ottawa, Canada offered recreational
activities to low-income children and led to a 75% drop in the juvenile arrest
rate.

Analysis
After-school programs have successfully averted students from turning to
crime. Students who do not participate in extracurricular activities are 49
percent more likely to use drugs than students who spend one to four
hours weekly in an after-school program. Students with mentors through
after-school programs are 46% less likely to take drugs, 27% less likely to
drink alcohol and one-third less likely to physically attack another person.

Next Steps
Community-based programs should be set up via a system similar to
Title V of the JJDP Act. Title V provides states with funding, based on
a calculation of youth population and community need, to support state-
specific delinquency prevention strategies. The funding is supervised
and distributed by state advisory groups to local governments, where
comprehensive plans tailored to community needs can be developed.
This same structure can be applied with great effect to community-based
programs.

———————————— Sources ————————————

“After School Programs Fact Sheet.” Apr 2008. National Youth Prevention Resource Center. <
http://www.safeyouth.org/scripts/facts/afterschool.asp>

“America’s After-School Choice: Juvenile Crime or Safe Learning Time.” Fight Crime: Invest in
Kids. <http://www.fightcrime.org/issue_aftersch.php>

Glazer, Carol. “Financing After School Programs: Prospects for Juvenile Justice Funding.” The
Afterschool Project <http://www.theafterschoolproject.org/uploads/FinalJJPaper1022v2.pdf>

*A full list of sources is available upon request

53
Coordinate Florida’s Crime Prevention Efforts
Fay O. Pappas, Rollins College

A permanent, local anti-crime strategy that could eliminate

inefficiencies in police, community and school efforts as well as revive
joint-partnerships for crime prevention in Orlando, Florida will serve
as a model for other mid-sized cities experiencing rising levels of
youth violence—all while federal law enforcement funding continues
to plummet.

Nationally, violent crime is

Key Facts
rising in mid-sized cities,
• Between 2004 and 2006, homicides increased
largely due to a spike in
10.21% nationally and robberies increased
juvenile violence. Along with
12.27%.
the rise in violence has been
• Between 2005 and 2006, homicides in Orlando
the rise of a policy approach
increased over 122.7%.
that utilizes institutional
• Orlando experienced a record murder rate of
coordination to curb crime.
49 homicides in 2006.
Using Orlando, Florida (a
• Number of juvenile homicide suspects under 20
quintessential example of
jumped from 2 in 2005 to 18 in 2006.
this trend) as a model would
• Federal law enforcement grant totals for Or-
demonstrate the applicability
lando Police Dept. declined from over 4 million
of this anti-crime approach to
in 2000, to some 255,000 in 2006.
other growing metropolises
• Critical Byrnes-Justice Assistance Grants to be
nation-wide.
cut additional 68% to all jurisdictions in Federal
FY 2008 Budget.
Established by mayoral
authority, a permanent
Juvenile Crime Prevention Board would oversee the implementation of a
three-prong policy initiative that would turn existing community programs,
public schools and law enforcement into equal partners to end the rise
in juvenile violence; the largest force
Talking Points behind violent crime in Orlando. The
• This model makes use of existing board would oversee the expansion of
resources including most staff, com- local Parramore Kidz Zone (PKZ) to high
munity programs, law enforcement crime areas outside of the Parramore
and school activities, making it highly district. PKZ, modeled off of New
cost-effective and portable. York’s Harlem Kidz Zone, connects
• This is a preventative model that fo- minors in the high-crime Parramore
cuses on reducing both short and neighborhood to existing community
long term crime trends, saving not programs across Orlando. The board
just resources, but lives. would oversee the removal of out-of-
• Board would coordinate many al- school suspension in public schools in
ready existing efforts under one favor of in-school suspension, as well
central plan; boosting efficiency and as promote the retention of after-
effectiveness. school programs, with an emphasis on
extended tutoring and the arts. These initiatives would work in concert to
keep unsupervised minors off of the streets, while providing stable learning
environments and positive alternates to crime. Lastly, this board would
provide seed grants to foster crime prevention efforts in the community
and community policing initiatives within the Orlando Police Dept.

Making use of mostly existing resources, including staff, community programs,

officers and school activities, this board would coordinate efforts under one
central plan, boosting efficiency and the effectiveness of crime prevention
efforts in Orlando. As a result, this model requires low investment and is a
portable approach to reducing juvenile crime levels in cash-strapped mid-
sized cities nation-wide.

History
From the “crime epidemic” of the period from 1985-1994 came many
community-oriented efforts to not merely solve crimes, but prevent them.
Boston’s Operation Ceasefire approached an unprecedented rise in juvenile
violence by facilitating joint-partnerships between law enforcement, schools
and community actors such as churches and community organizations. A
coordinated preventative model drastically reduced gun crimes between
1995 and 1999.

Analysis
A lack of a centralized review process makes it difficult to ascertain exact figures.
For example, authorities confirmed only 1,343 of the abuses initially identified by
the AP. The lack of authoritative numbers makes it difficult for any reforms to take
place. This policy would not require a significant amount of money to implement;
after the initial infrastructure for the review board is set up, dissemination of the
findings of the board online would provide valuable information at a relatively
low cost.

Next Steps
This Board would be in the best position to compile a report on the effects of
federal funding cuts upon anti-crime efforts in Orlando. Such findings would
aid in Florida U.S Congresspersons’ efforts to restore national law enforcement
grants to Orlando and elsewhere in the long-term.

———————————— Sources ————————————

Blumstein, Alfred, Frederick P. Rivara and Richard Rosenfeld. “The Rise and Decline of Homicide
and Why.” Annual Review of Public Health. Pgs 505-41, 2000.

Corzine, Jay and Lin Huff-Corzine. Homicides in Orlando, 2000-2006: A Descriptive Report.”
Prepared for Orlando Police Department and Mayor’s Safe Orlando Task Force, Jan. 2007.

*A full list of sources is available upon request

55
Implement National Board of Review to
Oversee Private Juvenile Justice Centers
Gracye Cheng, Harvard University

A national board of review that oversees private juvenile justice centers

could curb the abuse and mistreatment of minors that would otherwise
occur unchecked and unrecorded.

Key Facts The rising costs of state-

run juvenile detention
• There is currently no systematic national oversight of
centers in the past
private detention centers; investigations into such cen-
few years have led
ters are generally conducted by outside sources, such
as newspapers or courts. to an unprecedented
• According to an Associated Press article, more thanpush for privatization.
13,000 claims of abuse were identified between 2004Florida has attempted
the privatization of
through 2007—roughly 28 percent of the total popula-
tion of 46,000 detainees in 2007. juvenile justice centers
since 2002. According
• A 2004 study of 194 private facilities conducted by the
to figures released by
U.S. Justice Department discovered nearly 3,000 sexual
abuse allegations by juvenile correction staffers. the Associated Press,
Alabama has as many
as 26 private centers.
While the use of private juvenile justice centers may cut state and federal
costs, this practice eludes government oversight, which only keeps track of
state-run facilities. In 16 states, the administration of detention centers is
a task given to a separate juvenile corrections agency, a rising trend since
the late 1980s that may lead to even less oversight. There is no national
committee to standardize or oversee private detention centers.

History
This lack of review is,
without a doubt, a major
factor in the rise of human
rights abuses within
private detention centers,
as evidenced by a recent
spade of court cases and
investigative reports. Minors
have reported allegations
of sexual abuse, including
sexual coercion by guardians,
physical intimidation, and
psychological intimidation.
More than 13,000 claims of
abuse were filed between
2004 through 2007, roughly
Talking Points
• Rising costs of state-run juvenile detention cen-
ters have led to the increased use of private ju-
venile justice centers.
• Accreditation and licensing standards of private
juvenile justice centers vary at the state and
even local level. The absence of federal over-
sight makes it difficult to ascertain accurate in-
formation about abuse.
• This policy would not require a significant
amount of funding for sustainability: after the ini-
tial infrastructure for the review board is set-up,
dissemination of the findings online would pro-
vide valuable information at a low cost.
equating to 28 percent of the 46,000 detainees in private juvenile justice
centers in 2007. A 2004 study of 194 private facilities conducted by the U.S.
Justice Department discovered nearly 3,000 allegations of sexual abuse
by staffers of these private facilities. Lawsuits pursued by the U.S. Justice
Department have detailed brutalization that included instances where
detainees were stripped naked, tied in chains, raped, and even forced to
eat their own vomit.

Analysis
A lack of a centralized review process makes it difficult to ascertain exact figures.
For example, authorities confirmed only 1,343 of the abuses initially identified by
the AP. The lack of authoritative numbers makes it difficult for any reforms to take
place. This policy would not require a significant amount of money to implement;
after the initial infrastructure for the review board is set up, dissemination of the
findings of the board online would provide valuable information at a relatively
low cost.

Audience
The policy should be implemented at a national level by assembling a
review board that incorporates representatives from government, media,
and independent organizations.

Next Steps
The federal committee should begin a process that would allow for the assessment
of every private detention center in the country. This review would most likely
require self-reported documents from private juvenile detention centers that
detail the conditions of the center and reveal any and all previous allegations
of abuse. Furthermore, the private center would have an opportunity to
respond to such allegations. The committee should build on the work of existing
organizations such as the American Correctional Association, which has already
created national standards of operations for private juvenile justice centers. The
goal of the committee would be to publish an annual report that would be widely
disseminated.

———————————— Sources ————————————

“Alternative Programs for Children and Youth.” Lingle Directory: Alternative Programs for
Children and Youth. Lingle Directory. <http://www.lingledirectory.org/>.

Chapman, Kathleen. “US: Juvenile Detention Center May Be Privatized.” Palm Beach Post. April
12 2006. <http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=13475>.

“How is Juvenile Detention Organized and Administered From State to State?” National Center
for Juvenile Justice. National Center for Juvenile Justice. <http://www.ncjj.org/>.

Mohr, Hohlbrook. “13K Claims of Abuse in Juvenile Detention Since ‘04.” USA Today. March 2,
2008. <http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-03-02-juveniledetention_N.htm>.

*A full list of sources is available upon request.

57
Require Juvenile Offenders to Conduct an
Initial Consultation with Legal Counsel
Matt McCrea, University of Chicago

Since juveniles are less likely to take advantage of legal counsel after
an arrest, this policy ensures their full protection under the law while
retaining their right to refuse counsel after an initial meeting with a
defense attorney.

The mandate requiring minors to take advantage of legal counsel is nothing

new; in fact, more than twenty states have already enacted laws of this kind.
However, many states are still without these provisions and improvements
are needed even in states with mandated legal representation. Under the
theory of “libertarian paternalism,” whereby a society recognizes that citizens
should have the freedom
to choose but nevertheless
encourages citizens to make Key Facts
the better choice, an arrested • This policy requires minors to meet with a
minor would be required public defender for counsel regarding their
to meet with an attorney rights and case immediately after their arrest.
to discuss the case and the • Minors are allowed to refuse counsel after an
minor’s rights as a defendant. initial meeting with legal representation.
After this initial consultation, • Since public defenders are already waiting
the minor can exercise his to represent clients, this policy requires little
or her constitutional right to cost to implement.
refuse legal counsel for the
remainder of the criminal
proceedings.

History
The Miranda rights form a crucial part of the criminal justice system, however,
many juvenile defendants are not likely to take advantage of an essential
right contained within, the right to legal
counsel. Research shows that in some
Talking Points areas, over half of juveniles appearing
• Research shows that approximately in court stand without representation,
80 percent of juveniles do not un- which makes them more likely to
derstand the Miranda rights, includ- enter guilty pleas in cases lacking
ing the right to legal representation. material evidence and also subject
• Defendants represented by counsel to longer prison sentences. Often,
are less likely to be wrongly convict- the minors appearing in court simply
ed and are more likely to take plea do not understand the constitutional
bargains. guarantees of the Miranda rights, and
• At a relatively low implementation are therefore not equipped to deal
cost, juveniles are ensured their full with the consequences of a criminal
protection under the law. trial.
 Analysis
Any nudge in the direction of taking legal counsel is certainly one worth considering.
With such grim statistics shown in the case of juvenile representation, change is
necessary. A mandate requiring minors to hold legal counsel is a much better
policy than having no policy for minors in this matter, as it would mitigate all of the
aforementioned problems, bringing a measure of equality in the criminal justice
system for minors by giving them at least a fair chance in court. However, this
comes at a cost, the cost of freedom of choice. Just as Miranda rights guarantee
certain rights, they also implicitly guarantee the right to refuse those rights, such
as the right to remain silent. However, within the juvenile justice system the
right to freedom of choice has frequently been made subservient to the need
to protect minors, as seen in the rules for questioning suspects, witnesses and
victims in cases involving juveniles.

Audience
By and large, justice systems are determined differently in each state, with
some legislating on the state level and others leaving it to their counties.
However, much of the previous legislation on this topic has been done at the
state level, and should thus be directed to state legislatures. Additionally,
organizations like the National Juvenile Defender Center have begun working on
this, so it would be helpful to coordinate efforts with these organizations.

———————————— Sources ————————————

“Libertarian Paternalism.” The University of Chicago Law School Faculty Blog <http://uchicagolaw.
typepad.com/faculty/2007/01/libertarian_pat.html>.

“Waiver of Counsel: Issue Summary.” National Juvenile Defender Center.

Sunstein, Cass R. and Thaler, Richard H. “Libertarian Paternalism Is Not An Oxymoron.” University
of Chicago Law Review. Forthcoming.

59
Notes