HOME  » NEWSROOM  » Press Releases  » 2006 Press Releases

For Immediate Release: December 5, 2006
Contact: Laura Jones, 202-558-7974 ext. 307


On December 4, the Justice Policy Institute released Models for Change: Building Momentum for Juvenile Justice Reform at the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Roll-Out Conference held in Washington, D.C. The report tells the story of how innovative state leaders from across the country are working to develop a new path toward fair, rational, effective and developmentally appropriate models for juvenile justice reform. It also details specific changes being made in the four core states of MacArthur's Models for Change Initiative: Pennsylvania, Illinois, Louisiana and Washington.

JPI's report explains how each of the four core states have developed plans to reduce racial and ethnic disparities, improve mental health services, expand alternatives to incarceration, and collaborate with other agencies to help those being released from secure confinement to successfully
transition back into the community.

Commenting on the report in the Pittsburgh-Post Gazette, Jim Rieland, director of probation said, "The kid coming back from a residential placement needs to be welcomed back.... That may be a new concept for some
people."

The report was covered in The Pittsburgh Post Gazette, the Associated Press (in Pennsylvania and Illinois), The Chicago Tribune, and the Christian Science Monitor.

For more information on MacArthur, please visit www.modelsforchange.net.


The Justice Policy Institute is a Washington, D.C.-based think tank dedicated to ending society’s reliance on incarceration and promoting effective and just solutions to social problems.

For immediate release: November 28, 2006
Contact: Laura Jones 202-558-7974, ext. 307


NEW ORLEANS — Inappropriately incarcerating youth in secure detention centers across the country can contribute to their future delinquent behavior and harm their education, employment and health, according to a new policy brief to be released on Nov. 28 at a major national conference promoting alternatives to detention.

The Dangers of Detention: The Impact of Incarcerating Youth in Detention and Other Secure Facilities shows that rather than promoting public safety, detention — the pretrial “jailing” of youth not yet found delinquent — may contribute to future offenses. Studies from around the country show that incarcerated youth have higher recidivism rates than youth supervised in other kinds of settings.

A study conducted by the Wisconsin legislature found that “placement in secure detention…does not deter most juveniles,” and that in the four counties studied, 70 percent of the youth held in secure detention were arrested or returned to detention within one year of release. Another study on youth sent to a detention diversion program in San Francisco found that youth diverted from detention had half the recidivism rate of young people who remained in detention or in the juvenile justice system. Studies in Florida that controlled for the severity of young people’s offenses showed that detained youth are more likely to receive formal judicial intervention and be committed to state care than their peers who committed similar offenses but were not detained.

Detention is widely misapplied, according to the report by the Justice Policy Institute, a Washington, D.C.-based group that studies adult and juvenile justice policies. Although detention facilities are meant to temporarily house those youth who are likely to re-offend before their trial or who are unlikely to appear for their court date, many of the youth in this country’s 769 detention centers do not meet these criteria. Seventy percent of youth in detention are held for nonviolent charges. More than two-thirds are charged with property offenses, public order offenses, technical probation violations, or status offenses (like running away or breaking curfew). Youth of color are impacted disproportionately by the overuse of detention. In 2003, African-American youth were detained at a rate 4.5 times higher than whites; and Latino youth were detained at twice the rate of whites. In the same year, black youth were four times more likely to be incarcerated in Louisiana than whites and received longer dispositions than white youth even though there was little difference in the severity of offenses committed or in prior offense histories.

“Not only does inappropriately detaining youth cost taxpayers millions of dollars a year, but the overuse of detention generally does not make our communities any safer,” said Bart Lubow, head of JDAI (Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative), a project of the Annie E. Casey Foundation that works to build better futures for disadvantaged children and their families. “Across the country, jurisdictions are looking for more effective policies and practices to promote community safety and better outcomes for youth. JDAI sites have reduced adolescent detention, strengthened juvenile justice systems and saved money -- all without compromising public safety. Detention reform is a catalyst for system-wide change that is working to build better futures for communities and youth.”

The recent recipient of the prestigious National Council on Crime and Delinquency’s Katie Nichols Award for meaningful achievements in improving juvenile justice systems and empowering communities across the country, Casey’s JDAI has proven that simple changes can result in reduced detention populations and money saved, while maintaining public safety. JDAI uses objective admissions criteria to replace subjective decisions that inappropriately place low-risk youth in custody. Core reform strategies include: collecting standardized data on the detained population to help officials monitor problems and develop solutions; establishing objective screening instruments to ensure that only high-risk youth are detained; and expanding effective alternatives that provide youth with the supervision and services they need.

JDAI reforms are transforming juvenile justice systems across the country. The average daily populations in Multnomah (Portland, Ore.) and Santa Cruz (Calif.) counties have been reduced by 65 percent, and New Jersey’s rates have fallen by 41 percent since the introduction of JDAI. By multiple measures, JDAI improved public safety in its model sites. As juvenile detention populations fell in Cook (Chicago, Ill.), Multnomah, Santa Cruz, and Bernalillo (N.M.) counties, juvenile arrests fell between 37 percent and 54 percent—similar to or larger than those decreases experienced in the rest of the country. JDAI sites have made progress reducing the disproportionate use of secure detention for youth of color. Santa Cruz, for example, opened a neighborhood evening center for high-risk Latino youth and reduced its average minority population in juvenile hall from 64 percent to 47 percent.

Reducing the use of costly detention beds is saving tax dollars. Cook County, Ill. will save approximately $240 million over 20 years by avoiding construction of a detention center, and Multnomah County will redeploy more than $12 million over a six-year period.

New Orleans has been selected as a JDAI site and is hosting the 2006 JDAI National Inter-Site Conference held Nov. 28-30. The conference will convene practitioners from throughout the country to share successes, skills, innovations and challenges in reducing detention. With reform efforts underway in approximately 75 jurisdictions in 19 states and the District of Columbia, JDAI will be operational in those places responsible for almost 75 percent of the country’s detained population by the end of 2006.

To learn more about JDAI, visit: http://www.aecf.org/initiatives/jdai

For immediate release: September 29, 2006
Contact: Laura Jones 202-558-7974, ext. 307



Crime Statistics and the Washington D.C. “Crime Emergency:” What is the “real crisis,” and how should we respond?

Crime, the causes of crime, and potential solutions to the District's crime problems are more complicated and nuanced than they have been portrayed by law enforcement and politicians during the “crime emergency” debate. Criminologists, and most law enforcement officials would agree that the reasons why crime rise and fall in a jurisdiction are complicated, and rarely does one factor explain the whole story. While Metropolitan Police Department releases crime statistics all the time, only during this crime emergency did we see weekly and monthly changes in crime used as a evidence of the “success” of these policies. Some DC neighborhoods still experience unacceptable levels of violent crime even after we’ve witnessed big declines in crime since the 1990s. The crime emergency hasn’t changed that reality.

What the police and politicians were saying, and the broader context.

#1: Is juvenile crime, particularly, juvenile robberies, driving crime trends in DC?

Most crime is not committed by youth: Data from the Metropolitan Police Department shows that 94 percent of all arrests and 82 percent of violent arrests in 2006 were committed by adults. Among robberies—a specific area of concern in Washington, D.C.—sixty percent of the arrests were adults, not juveniles.

Juvenile robberies are not driving crime in DC: In the days before the crime emergency bill vote at council, the Chief of Police, the Mayor and others continued to refer to a “82 percent increase” in juvenile robberies. While the figure is correct, the increase in juvenile arrests represented a small number, 60 more robbery arrests (from 70 in first six months of 2005, to 134 in the first six months of 2006). This, in a city that is annually witness to 30,000 reported crimes. A comparison of juvenile robbery arrests over the last six months of 2005 and the first six months of 2006 show that the number of arrests has remained consistent.

#2: Are more and more people in the National Mall being victimized?

The crime in the Mall is a fraction of the city’s crime problem: Police District 104—the region of the Mall—accounted for just one percent of the robberies citywide in 2005. Districts 101 (downtown) and 102 (the Capitol, and Union Station) were responsible for around 7 percent of the reported robberies across the city. While most violent crimes fell in 2005, there were about 200 more robberies last year than the year before. Where did the growth in robberies happen last year?: Northeast (65%) Southeast (45%): Not the Mall, and not downtown.

#3: Since the crime emergency was declared, crime has fallen, so have these policies worked?

Did homicides decline because of the crime emergency measures?: Prior to the crime emergency being declared—even with the spate of deaths in July—homicide arrests were already down for the year.

Did violent crime decline during the crime emergency?: By time the $8 million police overtime funds were to be fully spent (September 3, 2006), there were 143 fewer violent crimes reported in this six week period than there were in the similar six week period in 2005. This represents $55,944 in police overtime spending for every violent crime that was allegedly averted. Other jurisdictions, such as New York—which do not have any of the DC crime emergency measures—also experienced a decline in crime during roughly the same period.

Did the curfew deter juvenile crime?: At a recent council meeting on the “results” of the juvenile curfew (from July 31 to August 22nd ), the Chief of Police said that the curfew was making a difference by looking at two measures: 1) Fewer juvenile victims, 2) fewer juveniles committing violent crimes.

Fewer juvenile crimes?: While the Chief says that juvenile arrests fell 46 percent between 10 pm and 6 am, that belies the fact that DC already had a midnight to 6 am curfew. Between the hours of 10 pm and midnight, the number of arrests fell from 15 to 13—two fewer arrests.

Fewer juvenile victims?: What the Chief said is factually true: “there have been no reports of juvenile victims of violent crime on public space during the curfew hours.” This is a drop from 5 victimizations, to zero, during the 23 day period measured. Again, these are extraordinarily small numbers, and again, this belies the actual change in hours of the curfew (lowering the start to 10 pm): Of the decline from 5 to zero, two of the fewer arrests occurred during the hours of 10 pm to midnight.

#4: What is the true nature of the District’s serious crime problems?

With DC residents obviously more anxious, it is worth reminding residents, that serious and violent crime—the kind of crime that people are most afraid of--doesn’t impact DC neighborhoods equally. Police districts 5, 6 and 7, Northeast and Southeast represent nearly 70 percent of the violent crime arrest (robbery is an exception, but not much of an exception). Of the 195 homicides in 2005, half occurred South of the Anacostia river, and none were reported in East of Rock Creek Park. It is regrettable, and certainly a cause concern when pockets of robberies and assaults occur anywhere in the city, but it simply isn’t the same for public officials, and the media to treat the crime problems some residents and neighborhoods experienced as if they were the same. Public officials, including law enforcement, and elected officials have an obligation to make that point clear to DC residents, particularly when they encounter concerns about rising crime.


#5: If not police overtime, curfews, juvenile confidential records or cameras, what are the real solutions to DC’s real crime problems.

In 2004, approximately one-third of DC youth lived in poverty and over fifty percent of youth lived in a household where no parent had a full-time, year-round job, according to the Annie E. Casey Foundation’s Kid Count. Also in 2004, over ten percent of DC teens qualified as “disconnected” youth, meaning that they weren’t working or in school. These young people are the mostly likely to have negative life outcomes.

At recent presentation to a group of DC non-profits, the Chief of Police said, this city needs to address the underlying “drivers” of crime. He identified the major drivers as,
lack of quality education, poverty, unemployment / underemployment, family dysfunction, lack of recreational opportunities. We should take this opportunity to get the council, law enforcement, and DC non-profits working together on a positive youth development agenda that seeks to deal with the drivers of crime, and seeks to reconnect disconnected youth.

Finally, this city, and this council needs to read the results of the recent mayoral primary very carefully. There was an attempt to politicize the issue of the councils’ crime emergency vote—an attempt to portray one of the candidates as putting city’s public safety at risk by voting against the measures you are discussing today. The results of the primary are in, and we should all heed the less.

I recommend that council let the crime emergency lapse. Instead, let’s focus the city on dealing with real solutions to the city’s crime problems.

For immediate release: September 19, 2006
Contact: Laura Jones 202-558-7974, ext. 307


MARYLAND— Many Maryland jurisdictions are making progress toward the goal of providing “treatment, not incarceration” for nonviolent substance abusers – a policy shift that is strongly supported by both research and public opinion – according to a new report from the Justice Policy Institute. As the nation recognizes National Alcohol and Drug Addiction Recovery Month, the report also finds that Maryland investments in treatment have not kept the pace with demand, and that the state spends far more to imprison people convicted of drug offenses than it spends to treat drug abusers referred by the criminal justice system.

According to Progress and Challenges: An Analysis of Drug Treatment and Imprisonment in Maryland from 2000 to 2005, the number of drug treatment admissions referred by the criminal justice system grew by 28 percent between 2000 and 2004, while the number of people sentenced to prison for drug offenses fell by seven percent. Most regions witnessed an increase in criminal justice referrals to drug treatment and a decrease in prison admissions for drug offenses over the period. The report attributes the change to significant treatment funding increases which took place between 2000 and 2003 but notes that, for every dollar spent on drug imprisonment, the state of Maryland invests an estimated 26 cents in the treatment of drug abusers referred by the criminal justice system.

Despite progress in most regions, the use of drug treatment and drug imprisonment varies widely across Maryland with some jurisdictions relying heavily on treatment and others making extensive use of imprisonment for people convicted of nonviolent drug offenses. Reliance on treatment was associated with crime drops – eight of the 12 jurisdictions that made greater use of treatment have seen crime fall by 10 percent or more since 2000 compared to just two of the 12 jurisdictions that relied more on imprisonment. Fact sheets are available with data for each county in Maryland.

“Researchers have consistently found that treatment reduces drug use and drug-related crime more effectively than incarceration,” said Kevin Pranis, a policy analyst who conducted the research for JPI. “These findings suggest that, by prioritizing treatment over incarceration, policymakers can improve outcomes and reduce costs without compromising public safety.”

Opinion polls have revealed overwhelming support for the use of substance abuse treatment as an alternative to incarceration for people convicted of nonviolent drug offenses. In a recent opinion survey of more than 1,000 registered voters, OpinionWorks, an Annapolis firm, found that 69 percent of voters view treatment as an effective way to help people overcome their addictions, and 67 percent view drug treatment as being more effective than incarceration.

Two years ago, Maryland lawmakers enacted a set of reforms that were designed to make “treatment, not incarceration” expand the options available to judges, prosecutors, and the state’s parole commission for placing addicted defendants in community-based treatment rather than prison. JPI’s report offers several recommendations for further reforms that could speed the transition from imprisonment to treatment. These recommendations include:

• Changing the state’s harsh mandatory minimum drug laws and sentencing guidelines for drug offenses, lowering barriers to the use of treatment as a sentencing option and freeing up to $20 million for substance abuse treatment;
  
• Making the expansion of treatment a top priority by committing at least $30 million more to the fiscal year 2008 budget for substance abuse treatment; and
  
• Creating incentives to help local jurisdictions expand treatment alternatives to incarceration rather than encouraging local jurisdictions to send people to prison and let the state pick up the tab.
  

"Maryland is clearly headed in the right direction, but more work needs to be done," said Joy Gill, Executive Director of the National Council on Drug and Alcohol Dependency - Maryland Affiliate. "As we celebrate national recovery month, this report is an important reminder of the need to increase funding support for treatment programs, especially in the jurisdictions where little is available. Lawmakers should recognize these programs favoring treatment over incarceration benefit not only the persons receiving treatment, but clearly have societal benefits as well."

Other key findings from the report:

• The Lower Eastern Shore (Dorchester, Somerset, Wicomico, and Worcester counties) led the trend in growth of criminal justice drug treatment admissions (75 percent) and reduced use of imprisonment (17 percent) since 2000. Southern Maryland (Calvert, Charles, and St. Mary’s counties) followed close behind with a 74 percent increase in treatment admissions and a corresponding 14 percent decline in use of imprisonment. Western Maryland (Allegany, Garrett, and Washington counties) saw a smaller growth in treatment (21 percent) and a larger drop in drug prisoner admissions (31 percent). The Baltimore region (Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Carroll, Harford, and Howard counties) moved in the opposite direction: criminal justice treatment admissions fell by 15 percent while prison admissions grew by 12 percent.
  
• Baltimore’s criminal justice-referred drug treatment rate—841 admissions per 100,000 residents—was about four times the state median in 2005. While the city has made progress referring people to drug treatment, and seen some decline in drug prison admissions, Baltimore’s drug imprisonment rate was still more than eight times the state average. The typical Maryland jurisdiction admitted 10 people to drug treatment for every person serving a prison sentence for a drug offense, while the ratio in Baltimore was eight-to-one.
  
• Garrett and Howard counties are the only jurisdictions where the state currently invests more in drug treatment for people referred by the criminal justice system than it spends on drug imprisonment. Even Baltimore, which accounts for roughly 45 percent of state treatment expenditures, received between 21 and 26 cents for criminal justice drug treatment for every dollar spent to house the city’s drug prisoner population.
  
• The use of imprisonment for drug offenses varies widely in Maryland: The typical jurisdiction imprisons 56 people for drug offenses per 100,000 residents but Montgomery County imprisons just five people for every 100,000 residents while state prisons hold 181 people sentenced in Washington County for drug offenses per 100,000 county residents.
  

For Immediate Release: July 18, 2006
Contact: Laura Jones, 202-558-7974, x307 or cell: 202-425-4659


WASHINGTON, D.C.—The Mayor’s emergency proposal to crackdown on D.C. youth through an historic erosion of youth protections, and increased surveillance and policing is not justified by crime data or best practices for enhancing public safety, according to law enforcement, youth, civil rights and policy groups. Despite several high-profile violent crimes impacting tourist destinations and affluent neighborhoods, D.C. youth are not committing most of the city’s violent crime, which reached a five-year low in the last calendar year. Evidence does not show that curfews reduce crime, but employment and youth development programs, which have experienced massive funding cuts nationally and in D.C., are proven to be effective at reducing delinquent behavior among young people.

Analysis of data does not indicate the kind of significant increase in violent crime that has been used to justify emergency measures, according to the Justice Policy Institute. Between 2004-2005, overall crime declined 6.7 percent in Washington, D.C. While the short-term increase in adult and juvenile robberies is cause for concern, the analysis of small numbers over short time exaggerates shifts, and does not reveal a trend in rising youth crime. Overall, youth crime has not changed significantly for categories other than robberies and weapons, which increased by small numbers of actual arrests.

“There are many good reasons to enhance safety in D.C., but opening up juvenile records, extending curfews, expanding surveillance cameras, and adding millions more to police budgets won’t solve our real crime problems,” said Jason Ziedenberg, executive director of the Justice Policy Institute. “Exaggerating youth involvement in crime does not make for sound public policy. Instead of adding more funds to the police budget, the city should invest in the kinds of effective employment and youth development programs that have been shown to reduce crime in other jurisdictions.”

The Mayor’s proposal overplays youth involvement in crime, with young people making up only a small fraction of arrests in D.C. Data from the Metropolitan Police Department shows that 94 percent of all arrests in 2006, and 82 percent of all violent arrests in 2006 were of adults.

“Legislation that opens up confidential youth records will not stop the violence, or make our communities safer,” said Arja Nelson, an organizer with the Justice for DC Youth Coalition, an organization comprised of youth, parents and community activists working to promote education and youth development instead of punishment and incarceration. “Rather than criminalizing D.C.’s youth and communities, the Mayor should follow the recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Commission report on juvenile justice, which called for investing in community-based programs and alternatives to incarceration, and closing Oak Hill.”

Expanding curfews, as the Mayor proposes, is not likely to reduce crime. A JPI analysis on the curfew policies of California found no evidence that curfews reduce youth crime. For the entire state of California there was no category of crime (misdemeanors, violent crime, property crime, etc.) which significantly declined in association with use of youth curfews. Overall, counties with strict youth curfews witnessed no decrease in youth crime relative to counties without strict curfews. Four large counties (Los Angeles, Santa Clara, Fresno, and Ventura) displayed a racial bias in curfew enforcement.

The Mayor also proposes to dismantle a fundamental protection of the youth justice system by eroding the confidentiality of youth records. While there is plenty of reason to believe that young people will suffer from more open records, there is no evidence to suggest that diminishing youth protections will enhance public safety. The confidentiality of youth records did not prevent juvenile crime in D.C. from falling by 30 percent between 1995 and 2005, while adult crimes fell by a much smaller 7 percent.

“The city needs to respond to crime with a more balanced approach,” said Ron Hampton, executive director of the National Black Police Association. “These proposals are short-sighted, and won’t serve the best serve the public. Rather than investing overwhelming amounts in suppression, the city needs to develop thoughtful and long term approaches that address the historic needs of D.C.’s communities.”

Below is a statistical overview of JPI's recently released fact sheet DC Crime Emergency In Context.

Crime declined last year: Between 2004 and 2005, overall crime actually declined 6.7 percent in Washington, D.C, and homicide, sexual assault and assault with a weapon reached the lowest point in five years. Because of an increase in robberies, overall violent crime rose 5 percent. The increase in robberies represents less than one percent of all crimes reported in D.C. in 2005. The “95 percent” in juvenile robbery arrests is a measure of the change from the first six months of this year to the first six months of 2005. A comparison of juvenile robbery arrests of the last six months of 2005 and the first six months of 2006 show that the number of arrests stayed about the same.

Youth underrepresented in arrests: JPI also warns against the exaggeration of youth involvement in D.C.’s crime. The latest figures from the Metropolitan Police Department show that 94 percent of all arrests in 2006, and 82 percent of all violent arrests in the city in 2006 were adults. As of June, 2006, one of 36 homicide arrests, 93 of 829 aggravated assaults, and one of 10 rape/sexual abuse arrests were of juveniles. Of the 343 robbery arrests made in D.C.—a particular concern raised by law enforcement—209 arrests were adults, and 134 were juveniles.

Spending on police and public safety outpaces spending on other areas
The crime “emergency” was called during a week that the Washington, D.C. Council approved a plan to increasing the policing budget, resulting in an increase of 450 new officers at a cost of $28 million. [1]

The Mayor’s budget plan for 2007 would see the Metropolitan Police Department budget rise by $66 million, from $365 million in 2005 to $432 million (or 18 percent increase in General Fund spending on MPD) [2] . Just the increase in the Mayor’s budget plan for police would represent:

· More than what the city spends on the University of the District of Columbia ($59 million);

· More than what the city spends on the DC Public Library system ($41 million);

· More than what the city spends on the Parks and Recreation ($44 million);

According to the D.C. Fiscal Policy Institute [3], the Mayor’s budget plan saw public safety and justice spending rise nearly three times faster (10.8 percent) than spending on human support services (3.8 percent), and public education (3.7 percent).

Youth crime correlates with rise and fall of youth employment. A near decade-long trend in Washington, D.C., shows that youth unemployment closely tracked youth referrals to the juvenile justice system (see graph below). Employment for young people may be an effective way to reduce crime. Between 1997 and 2000, the youth unemployment rate in DC (ages 16-19) fell from 42.4 percent, to 30.4 percent, a decline of 28 percent in youth unemployment. During that same time, the rate at which youth were referred to DC courts for violent and property crimes declined by 18 percent, and for all crimes, there was a 16 percent decline in youth referrals to court per 100,000 youth.

------

[1] Klein, Allison. “Robberies on the Mall a Trend, Chief says,” The Washington Post, July 13, 2006
[2] FY 2007 Proposed Budget and Financial Plan, June, 2006. The budget is still awaiting Congressional approval.
[3] What’s in the FY 2007 Budget Request, DC Fiscal Policy Institute, May, 2006.

The Justice Policy Institute is a Washington, D.C.-based think tank dedicated to ending society’s reliance on incarceration and promoting effective and just solutions to social problems.

For Immediate Release: April 13, 2006
Contact : Laura Jones 202-558-7974, ext. 307


Washington, DC---According to a new report from the Justice Policy Institute (JPI), drug treatment legislation enacted in California was followed by a greater decrease in the number of individuals incarcerated for drug possession and drug charges than any other large state prison system.

According to Proposition 36: Five Years Later, researchers found that since 2000, among the nation’s largest prison systems that track those incarcerated for drug offenses, California reduced its drug-possession prison population by the largest number (over 5,400 prisoners). California also experienced the largest numerical decline in the number of drug prisoners of the 10 largest states. Only New York saw a greater percentage drop in the number of those imprisoned for drug crimes.

“Since Proposition 36 came into effect, drug imprisonment in California fell, and this has saved Californian taxpayer hundreds of millions of dollars,” said Jason Ziedenberg, co-author of the report, and executive director of JPI. “In a state that has struggled with corrections and sentencing reform, Proposition 36 stands out as a successful way to reduce drug imprisonment.”

Another important aspect of the research’s findings was the questionable evidence of jail or incarceration serving as a deterrent to drug use or possession. The California Society of Addiction Medicine has said, “there is no evidence for the efficacy of jail sanctions.” However, the report shows that jail may affect people’s ability to get a job, to stay healthy, and can expose people to higher risks of communicable diseases, and increase jail costs.

Some of the key findings by researchers are:

• The rate of incarceration for drug-possession offenses has gone from 89 per 100,000 California adults in December 2000 to 58 in December 2005—a 34.3 percent decrease.

• While opponents of the initiative warned that Proposition 36 might lead to an increase in violent crime, California’s violent crime rate has declined since 2000 at a rate higher than the national average.

• Since 2000, spending on drug treatment in California doubled.

• Since 2000, California has experienced a larger increase in drug treatment clients than the rest of the country.

• Proposition 36 and drug court completion rates are comparable.

• The effectiveness of using incarceration to prevent drug use and treatment relapse is not conclusive.

• Proposition 36 is saving the state hundreds of millions of dollars.

The JPI study follows a UCLA study showing that Proposition 36 saved California $173 million in its first year of enactment, and $2.50 for every dollar invested in the program. Researchers at JPI, using a different methodology, estimated that 14,000 fewer people were admitted to prison for drug possession due to Proposition 36, and the state saved hundreds of millions of dollars from reduced prison admissions since its enactment.

“The new UCLA report confirms, Proposition 36 is a great investment for the people of California, and we recommend the state consider increasing its investments in the initiative, and divert additional resources away from incarceration and into substance abuse treatment,” says Scott Ehlers, report co-author.


The Justice Policy Institute is a Washington, D.C.-based think tank dedicated to ending society’s reliance on incarceration and promoting effective and just solutions to social problems. This report was supported by a generous grant the Fund for Nonviolence, and generous donations from people around the country. For more information, visit our website, www.justicepolicy.org

For Immediate Release: March 23, 2006
Contact: Laura Jones  202-558-7974, x307


Washington, D.C. – Laws that heighten penalties for drug activity near schools, public housing and other designated locations fail to protect youth, according to a new report from the Justice Policy Institute (JPI). Several states are considering proposals to either eliminate or narrow the scope of the drug-free zone laws, in order to enhance public safety and minimize unintended consequences.

“The school zones laws don’t work the way we want them to – we are not actually giving criminals an incentive to stay away from schools,” said William Brownsberger, a drug policy expert and former Assistant Attorney General for Narcotics for Massachusetts. “If we reduced the size of the zones, we would actually protect kids better.”

The report, Disparity by Design: How Drug-Free Zone Laws impact Racial Disparity-and Fail to Protect Youth, examines drug-free zone laws in a variety of states through a national policy lens. Building on research from New Jersey and Massachusetts, the report also reviews data and recent developments in Connecticut, Washington, Utah, Texas, and considers the history of the laws as well as the growing chorus of criticism from lawmakers, law enforcement, prosecutors and advocates. The JPI report, authored by Judith Greene, Kevin Pranis and Jason Ziedenberg, was commissioned by the Drug Policy Alliance.

“For two decades, policymakers have mistakenly assumed that these statutes shield children from drug activity,” said report author Judith Greene. “We found no evidence that drug-free zone laws protect children, but ample evidence that the laws hurt communities of color and contribute to mounting correctional costs.”

Drug-free zone laws provide heightened penalties for drug offenses that occur within restricted areas – generally 1,000-foot zones, roughly the length of three football fields – surrounding schools, public housing projects, parks, playgrounds, and other locations. Many drug-free zone statutes require mandatory minimum prison terms, denying judges the discretion to determine the appropriate penalty on a case-by-case basis.

The laws blanket densely-populated areas with overlapping zones and are frequently applied to transactions that take place in private residences, far from schools, and with no children present. In one instance, a man received an enhanced sentence for selling marijuana to a police officer in his second-floor apartment, simply because his building happened to be 950 feet away from the property line of the nearest school.

Key findings on the failures of drug-free zone laws include:

Drug-free zone laws do not serve their intended purpose to protect youth from drug activity. A Massachusetts study of drug enforcement in three cities found that less than one percent of the drug-free zone cases actually involved sales to youth. Analysis of hundreds of Connecticut drug-free zone cases identified just three such cases – all involving students arrested on school grounds. In Connecticut and Massachusetts researchers found that most of the sales occurred outside traditional school hours. Contrary to fears of drug dealers on playgrounds, Utah’s Sentencing Commission found that most sales actually occur within a residence that simply happens to be located with in a zone. “The purpose of drug-free school zones was to protect children and schools by insulating them from drug activity,” said New Jersey Assistant Attorney General Ron Susswein. “Our intention was to create a safe harbor for children by pushing the pushers away. Unfortunately, the current 1,000-foot zones have failed to achieve that objective.”

Communities of color are disproportionately impacted by drug-free school zone laws. Densely populated urban neighborhoods, where people of color are more likely to live, are blanketed by prohibited zones, while rural and suburban neighborhoods are less affected. In New Jersey, three-quarters of Newark, and over half of Jersey City and Camden, falls within a zone compared to just six percent of rural Mansfield Township. The result of this “urban effect” is what New Jersey’s sentencing commission terms “a devastatingly disproportionate impact on New Jersey’s minority community.” In Connecticut – which has been ranked number one in terms of racial disparity in incarceration – cities where the majority of residents are nonwhite have ten times more zones per square mile than localities where less than 10 percent of residents are black or Hispanic.

Unequal enforcement contributes to sharp racial disparities in incarceration rates. The racial disparity that results from the “urban effect” of drug-free zone laws appears to be exacerbated by disparate drug enforcement patterns. In Dorchester, Massachusetts researchers found that nonwhites were more likely to be charged with an offense that can carry a drug-free zone enhancement than whites who engaged in similar conduct. Blacks and Hispanics account for just 20 percent of Massachusetts residents but 80 percent of drug-free zone cases. In New Jersey, blacks in suburban and rural areas are far more likely than their white counterparts to be arrested and convicted of drug-free zone offenses. New Jersey devotes a larger share of beds to drug prisoners than any other state corrections system. Blacks and Hispanics make up just a quarter of the state’s resident population, while they comprise 96 percent of prisoners serving time for drug-free zone offenses. National studies have found that whites, blacks and Hispanics use illegal drugs at similar rates, and also that most users obtain drugs from people with their own racial or ethnic background.

Drug-free zone laws do not deter drug sales. In New Jersey, sentencing commissioners could find no deterrent effect of the drug-free zone law. Fewer than one in 10 arrests takes place just outside the zones. Moreover, the number of drug-free zone arrests has risen since the law was enacted, rather than falling – as would be expected if drug sellers had moved their activity to avoid prohibited zones. The commission concluded that the size of the zones erodes their deterrent effect. According to Judge Barnett E. Hoffman, chair of the commission, “Giant unbroken drug-free zones…actually dilute the special protection the laws are supposed to offer”

Drug-free zone laws erode the constitutional right to trial by forcing defendants to plead guilty or risk long prison terms. At least half of the 46 individuals arrested in an infamous drug sweep in Tulia, Texas faced enhanced prison terms under the state’s drug-free zone statute. In Washington state, prosecutors acknowledge that the principal function of drug-free zone enhancements is not to deter drug activity near schools but to “clear the trial calendar” and the data support that contention.

Several states are reconsidering drug-free zone laws. Last year, Illinois legislators reformed their drug-free zone laws to remove a provision that required that 15- and 16-year old drug sellers be automatically tried as adults. Officials in four states have proposed reforms to drug-free zone laws that range from reducing the size of the zones to replacing them with a more narrowly tailored law to protect children.

Connecticut – A hearing is being held on Friday, March 24, on a bill (HB 5780) that would reduce the scope of the zones from 1,500 to 200 feet, and would require postings to mark the boundaries.

New Jersey – The state’s sentencing commission recommends that zones be narrowed from 1,000 to 200 feet – a proposal that enjoys the support of prosecutors and police chiefs – and a bill incorporating their recommendations has been introduced (S 278).

Washington –A bill to decrease the zones to 200 feet and limit the hours of application was introduced this year and advocates expect the issue to return in the next legislative session.

Utah – The state’s parole board recommends replacing the drug-free zone enhancement with an enhancement for only those convicted of selling or manufacturing drugs in the presence of children.

New Jersey’s sentencing commissioners and other proponents of reducing the size of prohibited zones believe that the reform will accomplish two objectives: more effectively deter drug activity that occurs within sight of schools and other protected locations; and lessen the impact of mandatory sentencing on urban communities, thereby reducing racial disparities.

“The findings in this report confirm what we’ve known for years – that the current drug-free school zones don’t deter illicit drug sales or use in our communities,” said Connecticut State Rep. Marie Lopez Kirkley-Bey (D-Hartford), Deputy Speaker of the House. “Where the laws have failed to increase public safety, they’ve been wildly successful in promoting terrible racial disparities. This is why I’ve introduced legislation to reform these laws, because effective drug policies will bring us safer communities, safer schools, and safer kids.”


The Justice Policy Institute (www.justicepolcy.org) is a national nonprofit organization dedicated to ending society’s reliance on incarceration as a solution to social problems.

For Immediate Release: March 23, 2006
Contact: Jim Bray 217-793-8416


SPRINGFIELD, IL -- Illinois is one of five states that have become models for other states trying to reduce inefficient and ineffective juvenile justice systems, according to a new study released today by the Justice Policy Institute (JPI).

JPI cited Redeploy Illinois as example of the kind of program other states should embrace as a way to reduce prison costs and prevent young offenders from falling into futures dominated by criminal behavior and incarceration.

Redeploy Illinois, which began in 2004, gives financial support to counties that provide comprehensive services to delinquent youth in their home counties. Four Redeploy Illinois pilot sites are in operation in Macon County, Peoria County, St. Clair County and in the 2nd Judicial Circuit, which covers 12 counties in southeastern Illinois.

“Where there are no local services, judges have few options and often sentence young offenders to the Illinois Department of Corrections,” said Judge George Timberlake, who is Chief Judge of the 2nd Judicial Circuit. “That drives up the cost of running state prisons, but it also is costly to juveniles who often are not rehabilitated but return to their communities and commit even more crimes.

“Redeploy Illinois can break that cycle of crime and higher prison costs,” added Judge Timberlake, who is a member of the board of the Juvenile Justice Initiative.

In addition to the Illinois program, the national report highlighted similar reforms in Pennsylvania, California, Wisconsin and Ohio. The full report, Cost-Effective Youth Corrections: Rationalizing the Fiscal Architecture of Juvenile Justice Systems, can be found at www.justicepolicy.org. JPI is a non-profit organization dedicated to promoting safe, fair and effective alternatives to incarceration that protect public safety and benefit communities.

“This new report confirms what we see everyday in our community based programs throughout Chicago,” said David Whittaker, Executive Director of the Chicago Area Project. “Exposing young people to the negative pressures of prison produces hardened criminals, but exposing young people who get off track to positive role models in the community produces better outcomes for kids.

“We need Redeploy to be expanded in Chicago and throughout the state so that all young people in Illinois can benefit from community based programming,” said Whittaker, who runs the nation’s first community-based delinquency prevention program.

“Redeploy Illinois is a very necessary juvenile justice policy breakthrough,” said Gary Leofanti, President, Illinois Collaboration on Youth. “It has resulted in closer coordination between the juvenile court and the local youth services system. Young lives are being turned around.”

About $1.4 million was spent in the first year of Redeploy Illinois, and the state projects a 33 percent drop in commitments to the Department of Corrections. The projected three-year savings for the four pilot sites, based on the first year of operation, would be approximately $3 million.

Continuation of the four pilot sites will require an appropriation of $1.5 million in FY 2007, the same as the current fiscal year. However, expansion of Redeploy Illinois to assist other parts of the state could be accomplished for an additional $1.5 million.