25 Ideas For Criminal Justice, 2008

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 Katlyn Leight and Brent Penak, University of Michigan

32

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 Matt McCrea, University of Chicago

58

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 criminal 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 neighborhood 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 evidence. This means, above all, that our institutions of criminal justice are malleable. It will be the difference between thoughtful policy and ideological pandering 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. History U.S. prison and homelessness populations have both grown in the past 30 years, although the exact magnitude of U.S. homelessness is a contested figure. The trend towards criminalizing homelessness has gained much of its momentum in the past decade. A counter trend is evident, as a number of cities have implemented ten year plans to address the root causes of chronic homelessness; such plans represent a distinct break from the theory behind 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. Key Facts • About 20% of adult homeless males at any given moment have been incarcerated for some time, although this figure exceeds 50% when experiences in local jails are included. • 55% of U.S. cities prohibit loitering in public places or all places, leaving few legal options for homeless individuals who have nowhere to go during the day. • There has been a 12% increase in laws against panhandling, nationwide, between 2002 and 2006. • The criminalization of homelessness also frequently includes confiscating homeless people’s belongings, fining charity organizations that feed the homeless, prohibiting sitting and sleeping in some areas, and arresting homeless children under the auspices of curfew laws. • It costs the state about $50 per day to imprison an individual, and between $5.50 and $30 per day to shelter a homeless person.

Analysis Contact with government institutions should not be a traumatic or emasculating experience for any individual, homeless or otherwise. Instead, it should foster understandings of citizenship and participation. In addition to decriminalizing homelessness, courts should proactively assist homeless individuals in taking charge of their recurring legal issues. Talking Points • Homelessness and incarceration are mutually reinforcing conditions. By slowing the flow of individuals from one to the other, the state can reduce both dependent populations. City and state governments should pursue this aim by repealing laws targeting homeless populations, and actively helping homeless individuals deal with their 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 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.

Key Facts • 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 employers 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 without 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 • Currently, employers use any evidence of previous criminal activity as a blanket means of tossing out applications, even those of qualified people who have committed only one petty crime. • The ruling by a judge and jury should constitute justice; denying jobs and other services for an extra 15 years for a felony and 10 for a misdemeanor after parole is not within the spirit or bounds of the law. • CORIs also deny access to credit, student loans, and public housing. • CORIs can also be a device for prejudicial hiring practices because any evidence of past criminal activity can deny a qualified person a job.

History The CORI system was created in Massachusetts in 1973, and was originally only available to certain law enforcement and government agencies. However, in the early 2000s, the visibility of criminal records began to expand, until 4 of every 5 employers in Massachusetts were 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 incarcerhomeless. According to the ated for a full calendar month or longer are no lonCorporation 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 rehistory 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. 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 stable 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 correctional facility staff through the process of collecting medical information on inmates and filing documents with the SSA.

Pre-release agreements, which 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 prerelease 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 disenshould 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 enfransociety. 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 enfranrestricting 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 exfelon 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 exoffenders 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 nonviolent 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 popsentences 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.

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 expanded at a rate incommensurable to the state’s budget, forcing 700 security and administrative layoffs in May of 2008. • Policies that enable inmates to exit the prison system for good and establish lives as productive members of society- as quickly as possible- are the only reasonable solutions to this quagmire. • Conditional release programs can both move individuals out of the prison system and decrease their chances of future criminality, and therefore recidivism.

Because nonviolent drug 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 maribut 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 arhas 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 sentencing cost taxpayers $7.6 billion per year, according to a Jon Gettman report. • A CNN/Time poll found that 76 percent of Americans favor a decriminalized fine over criminal penalties for marijuana possession.

Some cities, such as Denver, have fully decriminalized marijuana, meaning there are no penalties for possession of less than one ounce of the 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 from New York City low income and minority communities. • The Drug War costs taxpayers $35 billion per year.

Given that decriminalization policies do not increase use, there are a number of reasons that marijuana decriminalization 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 overtimebased 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 cocaine created by mixing baking soda with powder cocaine. The use of crack cocaine became popular in the 1980s, a time during which the United States saw a spike in drug usage. Because it is relatively cheap to produce and consume compared to its powder equivalent, crack cocaine became a readily available drug widely distributed within lowincome communities.

Key Facts • More than 80 percent of drug offenders convicted on crack cocaine charges are African-American. However, African-Americans account for less than 33 percent of crack cocaine users. • After Congress passed the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, African-Americans were sentenced to prison terms that were, on average, 49 percent longer than their white counterparts. Before the act was passed, this number was only 11 percent.

History In 1986, Congress passed the AntiDrug 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 enormous strain on poorer Talking Points communities, exacerbating • Crack cocaine and powder cocaine are virtually economic, social, and identical and produce the same physiological effects in humans. Crack cocaine is not more ad- racial tensions. Eliminating the sentencing disparity dictive than its powder form, nor have any studies would place more power shown that it makes users prone to violence. into the hands of the • The sentencing disparity between comparable levels of crack and powder cocaine effectively targets judge, who would be able to consult his or members of the poorest communities, since crack her discretion and apply cocaine is much cheaper than powder cocaine. sentencing times based on • Eliminating this sentencing discrepancy would help the circumstances of the to bridge the vast sentencing disparity between case. African-Americans and other racial groups.

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 nonviolent 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 infocuses 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 rehave 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 communities by allowing them to actively participate in the process of reintegrating offenders into their communities. • Restorative justice focuses on healing relationships, creating responsibility and righting wrongs. • Restorative systems offer high levels of control and support, rather than the high levels of control and low levels of support that accompany incarceration.

History Restorative justice methods have been incorporated into institutional legal systems since the 1970s. These methods aim to include the greatest number of stakeholders in the decision process - including family, friends, community members, 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 • States are charging their poorest groups of citi2003, “It’s the worst fiscal zens millions of dollars in the form of penal fines crisis to confront the state and fees to fund their criminal justice systems. judiciary in 50 years”. Faced • Such fines are not meant to be behavioral dewith these dire financial terrents; justice systems, at the state level, simconditions, states and ply depend upon this funding to function. localities have increasingly • Some states even require the defendant to pay begun to rely on court for the jury. fines and fees as a means 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. Perhaps most troubling, many of the individuals who are assessed criminal fines are already in bad financial shape. Accordingly, the fine- and fee-based funding strategy in effect takes an already disadvantaged group and places it 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 Talking Points • Policies that employ fines and fees to keep down court costs constitute a major regressive tax on low-income individuals. • This increased economic burden, as well as debt-based sanctions, encourages individuals to engage in risky behavior such as involvement in underground economies.

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 everuntil 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 sexoffender 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 • Most of the 250 people who have been unconditionally released from civil commitment centers since the programs began in 1990 have been released for technical or legal reasons, not because of successful treatment. • Civil commitment programs have been unsuccessful at effectively treating their inmates, who often simply “go through the motions” or even skip therapy sessions all together. • The sentencing of former-sex offenders to civil commitment after their prison sentences is equivalent to double-jeopardy or preemptive punishment for crimes not yet committed. • Sex offenders suffer from severe psychological problems and the solution to criminal sexuality should be addressed through both therapy sessions and approved medication.

sex offenders have lower recidivism rates than most other serious criminals, and that abnormal psychology is at the root of sexual crime. This psychology is not fully understood, and a successful medical treatment has not been developed. Records show that civil commitment treatment programs fail miserably. The logical and humane conclusion is to shift government funding away from costly and futile civil commitment programs 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 governmentsupported, 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: . “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 underLEP 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 populafind themselves unprepared to communicate tions of non-English speakers. with community members. Language • Phraselators, one-way handbarriers 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 systhese 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 • Over 7,000 law enforcement agencies bystanders. However, health issues employ more than 140,000 Tasers in and questionable deployment have the United States raised concerns about use. Amnesty • In a 6-year period, Amnesty InternationInternational reports more than al reports over 290 deaths from police 290 deaths in the USA and Canada Taser usage in the USA and Canada following police Taser use. Numerous • Use-of-force policies provide guidance health organizations and police for police officers to follow during spedepartments have questioned Taser cific scenarios safety. We recommend standardized • Two Department of Homeland Security deployment practices across all divisions rejected its use altogether. law enforcement agencies at a high level on the FLETC Use-of-Force Continuum. 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 Houston reveals 63 percent of suspects Talking Points • This is low cost solution that takes were black, but only 25 percent of residents are black. advantage of existing framework to address concerns over Taser use. • This policy ensures that Tasers remain an effective and less-lethal option for law enforcement and promotes strong relations between law enforcement and communities.

History There is growing consensus that Taser use should be limited to dangerous situations, not against passively resistant suspects. A 2005 report from the American Civil Liberties Union

of Northern California recommends, “Tasers should only be used in lifethreatening 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, lesslethal 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 • Wayne County, in southern Illinois, is a prime exv. Wainwright ruling, the ample of the failures of the public defense system. Sixth Amendment right to Consequently, its public defense attorneys are a fair trial partially hinges among the lowest paid in the country, earning beon the universal right of the tween $180 and $420 for a full day of trial work. accused to the assistance • Controlling for other factors, clients of courtof a Counsel. This is the appointed attorneys receive an average of eight basis for public defense months more jail time under the fee-based system. systems everywhere. This is largely due to the attorneys’ unwillingness However, if those public to engage in plea-bargaining, as wage-based pay defense services are likely makes it unprofitable to end trials early. to be of a significantly • A study on Dallas County, Texas indicates that the lower quality, then it is county wastes $7,264,774 due to the elongated prisdoubtful that a fair trial is on terms incurred under the fee-based system. being provided. 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 incentives for the attourney that are not in the interests of the defendant. • The fee-based system comes with enormous financial cost to the public.

The study found that wage-paid, court-appointed private attorneys, the alternative to public defenders, generally have less experience 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 firsthand 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 • The National Fraud Center reports that the ecogreater role in pursuing nomic cost of white-collar crime is well over $100 arbitrators of fraud, billion per year, far more than that of all violent bribery, counterfeiting, crimes combined. embezzlement, insider • The Financial Litigation Unit of the Office for the trading, kickbacks, money United States Attorney found that on average, 98.5 laundering, price fixing, and percent of the financial support for victims’ and similar so-called “whitepublic defenders’ funds came from criminal fines collar crimes.” In order to and that the majority of these fines generally came make the criminal justice from a few large white-collar crime convictions. system more equitable, we • Currently, authorities charged with identifying should ensure that welland prosecuting white-collar crime “do not have financed and well-defended adequate legal, technological, and personnel rewhite-collar criminals are sources to meet their responsibilities,” according brought to justice and that to Sam Antar, an ex-offender and an advocate for the poorest citizens are white-collar crime reform. brought to court with proper 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 • With better training and better equipment, investigators of white-collar crime will increase their scrutiny of offenders and lead to more prosecutions of whitecollar 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.

History Many states and police departments have divisions dedicated to combating specific types of crimes—such as anti-gang, antidrug, 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 whitecollar 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.” 2005-2006 NWCC Annual Report. Published by the National White Collar Crime Center. White Collar Crime Statistics. Online Lawyer Source.

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 antigang and anti-loitering ordinances to ensure due process for all innercity 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 lowcitizen’s right to equal protection income minorities. and due process under the law. • Between 2004 and 2006, Chicago police auIn 2002, Chicago revamped thorities detained over 220,000 under Chiits anti-gang ordinance to cago’s anti-gang ordinance. clarify its definition of “criminal • Between 2004 and 2006, gang-related murgang loitering.” However, this ders increased by 25 percent. ordinance has failed to produce the intended reduction in crime. Talking Points • Vagueness in anti-loitering and anti-vagrancy ordinances effectively legalize the police practice of racial profiling. • Chicago’s revised anti-gang ordinance has failed to reduce gang-related murders in the city. • Under Chicago’s current anti-gang ordinance, citizens are not afforded “fair notice” of police procedures and are therefore not given due process under the law.

Today, Chicago’s revised anti-gang ordinance still fails to meet the vagueness precedent set in Morales. Although it now defines gang loitering as the intent “to establish control over identifiable areas, to intimidate others from entering those areas, or to conceal illegal activities,” it fails to outline explicit procedures for police to accurately identify gang 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, gangrelated 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 staffchallenge to staffing those ing shortages are in rural areas where the prisprisons 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 prissusceptible 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 shortWhen the shortage of guards becomes ages, the safety of the inmates, workparticularly 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 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 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 • Children of inmates are 6 times more likely prison population, which stands than the children of non-offenders to comas the highest of any industrialized mit crime sometime in their life. nation. As incarceration rates rise • Approximately 3.6 million parents are under throughout the United States, so supervision of state or federal authority. too does the number of children • In 2001, the United States spent $22,650 per impacted by the loss of a parent to inmate per year, totaling $38.2 billion overall the prison system. The connection to maintain the correctional system. between parental incarceration— • Prior to arrest, 64% and 84% of mothers inespecially of mothers — and carcerated in state and local prisons respecpsychological problems leading tively lived with their children, as opposed to risky behaviors helps to explain to 44% and 55% of incarcerated fathers, rewhy children of inmates are 6 times spectively. more likely than the children of 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 potentially lead to incarceration Talking Points and other major problems, • The United States currently has the highest states should create programs prison population of any industrialized country. that would allow incarcerated • The increase in parental incarceration drastimothers to maintain bonds with cally affects the lives of their children. their children. • The separation of parent from child upon arrest is known to have adverse affects in the child’s development. • Early childhood education programs in prisons can insure against the threat of multi-generational incarceration.

History From 1991 to 2000 the number of incarcerated parents has 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 preschool 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. 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 • 1.5 million children currently have a SCHIP. Under the pressure of having an parent in prison. incarcerated family member, though, it • Convicts and their families are highly can be especially difficult for a family to likely to be low-income. manage its expenditures and to navigate 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

Talking Points • Inmates’ families experience financial strain and diminished resources, especially as the job of fully supporting and caring for the inmate’s children shifts. • Children are likely to develop severe emotional and behavior problems as a result of the stress of having an incarcerated parent.

History Ongoing Medicaid and SCHIP outreach efforts have targeted low-income and minority populations but do not specifically focus on the families of incarcerated individuals. Further, SCHIP and Medicaid outreach efforts 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 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 . 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 • More than 950,000 women, or about 1% of the U.S. feanother relative or male population, are under some type of correctional suplaced in the foster pervision. Approximately 96,000 women are in prison. care system. The • About 90% of women in prison are single mothers. Apchildren do poorly proximately 167,000 children in the U.S. have mothers in school, have who are incarcerated. behavioral problems, • Female imprisonment in the U.S. has increased by 757% and are more likely since 1977. Women are the fastest-growing group of the to become offenders prison population and have exceeded male prison poputhemselves. The lation growth in all 50 states. majority of women in • Arrests of adult women have increased by 13% overall, prison are nonviolent but arrests for serious offenses, such as murder, rape, roboffenders. They are bery, and arson, have declined by 3%. Arrests of women often arrested for for murder decreased by 12%. The majority of women’s drug violations or arrests, about 82%, are for lower-level offenses, such as economic problems. drug violations, shoplifting, and welfare fraud. Instead of placing 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 nonprofit 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.

Talking Points • Under this policy, mothers and children are not separated and family bonds are strengthened in allowing children to be raised by their birth parent. • Separation of mother and child inadvertently punishes the child, who grows up without a mother and is often placed in the foster care system. • This program also provides education on parenting, health, and life skills, with a focus on obtaining employment. Having children nearby motivates the mother to improve her lifestyle and gives her hope to work for her children. • With a focus on rehabilitation and family, the program seeks to ease the prison burden by providing an alternative to traditional incarceration, lowering the number of women in prison, and preventing repeat offenders.

Analysis Alternative residential facilities allow child and mother to remain together during the mother’s incarceration period. Facilities would only be available to nonviolent offenders, which would eliminate potential harm to the child. This allows children to receive the support needed during their childhood and development. Moreover, mothers do not miss crucial periods in her child’s growth and have the 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. . Accessed 31 Mar 2008.

“Women in Prison.” Prison Activist. . 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 • Because incarceration is considered “voluntary unemployment” in most states, and is not considered sufficient reason to mitigate child support orders in 21 states, a situation is created 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 payments, and less likely to spend time with their children.

Consequently, the average 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 issuein 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 investigareassignment 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 caverdicts of their cases. Rubber rooms pacity of only 26 people. are tightly packed and inadequately • Under New York City’s current reassignsupervised. 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 to satisfy both the Supreme Talking Points Court’s ruling and the demands • New York City’s teacher reassignment cenof unions, reassignment centers ters, commonly referred to as “rubber rooms,” unfairly subject teachers under disciplinary were considered a progressive compromise by the Department investigation to idleness and inactivity. of Education. After numerous • Rubber rooms are literal rooms in which small amendments, the policy teachers under investigation sit, with nothing has existed in its final form since to do, while earning their normal salaries. August 25, 1994. • Investigations of teacher misconduct often last far too long, costing the Department of Education a great deal of money and keeping innocent teachers out of the classroom sometimes for over a year.

Analysis The purpose of reassignment 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 atlarge. 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 • 2.4 million juveniles are indicted annually and adult offenders, putting them even after being released from incarceration, in danger of being abused or 55 percent of juveniles are rearrested within becoming ‘hardened’ criminals. one year. The institutionalization of one• This rate of recidivism reaches up to 76 pertime, often young, offenders cent in highly populated city centers thus perpetuates a vicious cycle 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.

Talking Points • In many states, extreme punitive measures already 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.

Snohomish County, WA has 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 housearrest 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 statespecific 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. Glazer, Carol. “Financing After School Programs: Prospects for Juvenile Justice Funding.” The Afterschool Project *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 rising in mid-sized cities, largely due to a spike in juvenile violence. Along with the rise in violence has been the rise of a policy approach that utilizes institutional coordination to curb crime. Using Orlando, Florida (a quintessential example of this trend) as a model would demonstrate the applicability of this anti-crime approach to other growing metropolises nation-wide.

Key Facts • Between 2004 and 2006, homicides increased 10.21% nationally and robberies increased 12.27%. • Between 2005 and 2006, homicides in Orlando increased over 122.7%. • Orlando experienced a record murder rate of 49 homicides in 2006. • Number of juvenile homicide suspects under 20 jumped from 2 in 2005 to 18 in 2006. • Federal law enforcement grant totals for Orlando Police Dept. declined from over 4 million in 2000, to some 255,000 in 2006. • Critical Byrnes-Justice Assistance Grants to be 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 behind violent crime in Orlando. The Talking Points board would oversee the expansion of • This model makes use of existing local Parramore Kidz Zone (PKZ) to high resources including most staff, community programs, law enforcement crime areas outside of the Parramore district. PKZ, modeled off of New and school activities, making it highly York’s Harlem Kidz Zone, connects cost-effective and portable. • This is a preventative model that fo- minors in the high-crime Parramore cuses on reducing both short and neighborhood to existing community programs across Orlando. The board long term crime trends, saving not would oversee the removal of out-ofjust resources, but lives. school suspension in public schools in • Board would coordinate many already existing efforts under one favor of in-school suspension, as well as promote the retention of aftercentral plan; boosting efficiency and school programs, with an emphasis on effectiveness.

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 midsized 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. The rising costs of staterun juvenile detention centers in the past few years have led to an unprecedented push for privatization. Florida has attempted the privatization of juvenile justice centers since 2002. According to figures released by 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. Key Facts • There is currently no systematic national oversight of private detention centers; investigations into such centers are generally conducted by outside sources, such as newspapers or courts. • According to an Associated Press article, more than 13,000 claims of abuse were identified between 2004 through 2007—roughly 28 percent of the total population of 46,000 detainees in 2007. • A 2004 study of 194 private facilities conducted by the U.S. Justice Department discovered nearly 3,000 sexual abuse allegations by juvenile correction staffers.

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 centers have led to the increased use of private juvenile justice centers. • Accreditation and licensing standards of private juvenile justice centers vary at the state and even local level. The absence of federal oversight makes it difficult to ascertain accurate information about abuse. • This policy would not require a significant amount of funding for sustainability: after the initial infrastructure for the review board is set-up, dissemination of the findings online would provide 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. .

Chapman, Kathleen. “US: Juvenile Detention Center May Be Privatized.” Palm Beach Post. April 12 2006. . “How is Juvenile Detention Organized and Administered From State to State?” National Center for Juvenile Justice. National Center for Juvenile Justice. . Mohr, Hohlbrook. “13K Claims of Abuse in Juvenile Detention Since ‘04.” USA Today. March 2, 2008. . *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 • This policy requires minors to meet with a the better choice, an arrested public defender for counsel regarding their minor would be required rights and case immediately after their arrest. to meet with an attorney • Minors are allowed to refuse counsel after an to discuss the case and the initial meeting with legal representation. minor’s rights as a defendant. • Since public defenders are already waiting After this initial consultation, to represent clients, this policy requires little the minor can exercise his cost to implement. or her constitutional right to 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 convictthe 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 . “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