Corrections Community

  "How can we safely and systematically reduce the correctional population by half in eight years?"

    The Population Reduction Topic Team has been formed as part of the National Institute of Corrections Norval Morris Project, a project designed to expedite the circulation of innovations and knowledge throughout the field of corrections.  The project brings together people both inside and outside the field of corrections by developing interdisciplinary teams to develop, refine, and expand upon critical challenges facing corrections.  As discussed below, this topic team is focusing on the issues surrounding reducing by half the total number of people incarcerated in prisons or jails and supervised in the community.  To date, the initial work group has begun examining the main drivers of increasing populations, including the factors influencing admissions and readmission, length of supervision, and the role corrections may play in prevention.  This document is a follow up to a previous invitation to participate in this topic team and provides further background and an update of progress.        

Background

      In 1980, there were 1.84 million persons in the U.S. under some form of correctional supervision, either incarcerated in a prison or jail or being supervised in the community by probation or parole agencies. Today, nearly 30 years later, over 7.5 million people are incarcerated or being supervised in the community. This includes over 1.5 million prisoners and another 780,000 jail inmates. Based on a U.S. population of 303 million, this means the U.S. incarceration rate is 762 inmates per 100,000 in the population. By comparison, the most recent available estimates indicate there are more than 9.8 million people incarcerated worldwide. Based on a world population of 6.7 billion people, the world incarceration rate is 145 inmates per 100,000 in the population. No other country, including many that have higher victimization rates, has a higher incarceration rate than the United States.i

      In 2007, the Pew Charitable Trusts released a report estimating that the U.S. prison population would reach 1.7 million by 2011 and that the prison incarceration rate for the same year would be 550 inmates per 100,000 population.ii   Incarceration rates have continued to rise even though sentence lengths have become shorter, because offenders spend more time under correctional supervision due to decisions made after adjudication.iii  This Norval Morris Project Population Reduction Topic Team, in keeping with the spirit of Norval Morris' work, will focus on pragmatic approaches to problem solving and strategies available to corrections practitioners to reduce the total correctional population by half iv.   

      Estimates of the national cost of corrections routinely exceed $50 billion a year. In January 2009, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities reported that two-thirds of the states, as well as the District of Columbia, are facing serious budget shortfalls, even after making major cuts last year. That number will no doubt grow in the coming months as additional states have indicated that they will also face budget crises this year.v As leaders at all levels and in each branch of government deal with the effects of the finical crisis, they are also reexamining policies that have driven the extraordinary growth of the corrections population.vi While we may have differing perspectives on the philosophy of justice that should motivate the corrections system, all recognize that the system should calibrate punishments to fit both the crime and the offender while remaining effective and humane.  A key question is how much punishment is required to serve justice and how much, beyond that level, is now being imposed that is both too costly and very often counterproductive.      

      Ironically, against the backdrop of the continuing growth of correctional populations is the fact that crime rates in the U.S. have been dropping for over a decade. In its last release of Uniform Crime Reports data, the FBI reported that the violent crime rate in the U.S. had fallen to the lowest rate since the early 1970s, while property crime rates have fallen to their lowest levels since the late 1960s. The incapacitation effects of high levels of incarceration were partly responsible for this historic drop in crime, but the question remains whether it is still the appropriate strategy in an era of declining crime rates.vii  Added to this is the fact that the current level of incarceration carries with it both enormous social costs and substantial opportunity costs as resources that states and local jurisdictions could use for other purposes are diverted to corrections.viii

NIC's Norval Morris Project

      In September 2008, the Keystone Group of the National Institute of Corrections' Norval Morris Project met to discuss the ways we could, in keeping with the spirit of Dr. Morris's vision, move toward a more "just, efficient, and humane" correctional system. This group of experts and leaders within and outside of corrections explored the challenges and trends facing corrections today.   Instead of presenting their own answers, the Keystone group posed two provocative questions;
      
1.     "How can we safely and systematically reduce the correctional population by half in 8 years?"
2.     "How can we transform correctional leadership and the workforce to empower staff to prevent recidivism and promote prevention?"

     Initial working groups for each topic teams have been formed and work has begun, but now is the time to engage others who have specific expertise in these areas and are willing to help develop strategies around the topics, implement them, and foster communication about them.

Reducing Corrections Populations Topic Team

    The working group that met to develop this topic during the Keystone Group's September 2008 meeting discussed several aspects of the corrections population, including such areas as public policy, legislation and government, race, gender, families and communities, and public safety. The team set a goal of working to reduce the U.S. incarceration rate by 50 percent, using as its initial inspiration a recommendation from the 2007 report entitled "Unlocking America: Why and How to Reduce America's Prison Population." ix  Shortly after the Keystone Group meeting, the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) commissioned  James Austin, the lead author of "Unlocking America", to produce "Reducing America's Correctional Population: A Strategic Plan."  In it, Austin notes that "all correctional populations are the result of two key factors-admissions and length of stay (or LOS)." These two factors have driven the growth of correctional populations in the past and will be the keys to population reductions in the future.ix

    As a practical matter, this means that reducing correctional populations overall will require a change at each decision point in the criminal justice system away from the practices of the recent past.  In recent years, there has been a trend toward a greater likelihood that a conviction will result in a sanction involving correctional supervision (in the community or by incarceration) and for a longer period of time. The challenge in reversing these trends will be to reduce the likelihood that decision makers throughout the criminal justice system will "step up" to greater levels of supervision and for longer periods when they have the option.  Instead, at each decision point in the system, greater weight would be given to decisions that produce a "step down" to less supervision for shorter periods. Relatively small changes at key decision points in the system, applied systematically over time, will reduce the total correctional population by 50 percent within the proposed timeframe and without jeopardizing public safety. 

    The key to the success of such strategies is that they must be data driven. Correctional agencies can analyze their past practices to estimate what their long range impacts have been on population growth.  Existing, legally relevant defendant/offender and case characteristics can form the basis of such data. Armed with such precise information, an agency could estimate how the long-term affect of new decision making practices compare to their past choices.  For example, a diversion program could be kept from "widening the net" if those offenders who otherwise would have been brought into the criminal justice system or been "stepped up" to incarceration could be precisely identified.  Combining this analysis with validated risk assessment tools and existing population projection techniques would amplify the power of this type of evidence-based decision making.

    Ultimately, the solution to reducing correctional populations is to reduce the number of offenders by preventing crime. This addresses the second question the Keystone group posed: "How can we transform correctional leadership and the workforce to empower staff to prevent recidivism and promote prevention?" It is an essential companion to the population reduction topic. Reducing the correctional population is not an end in itself if it does not involve reorienting corrections toward a different role. For example, the siblings and children of incarcerated people are known to have a very high risk of becoming offenders. Corrections is well positioned to use strength-based approaches that give equal weight to the skills and resources offenders and their families have or can develop in working with them to reduce recidivism by the offender and prevent involvement in the criminal justice system by others. For instance, the Oklahoma Department of Corrections and Family Justice have partnered to create a strength-based approach for family-focused community supervision that provides a model for other agencies.x

    The bold question that opened this topic description, "How can we safely and systematically reduce the correctional population by half in 8 years?" became the focal point for the Keystone Group and the departure point from which work has proceeded.  In his report, Austin estimates the long term impact of specific strategies to influence the two drivers of correctional populations; admissions and length of stay.  To those could be added prevention, including first admissions to any part of the criminal justice system and readmissions as a result of new sentences or revocations.  The next step is to engage others to help develop strategies and share results with the widest possible audience. The products of this phase include:

·     Drafting comprehensive position papers on effective ways to safely and systematically reduce the correctional populations.
·     Identify relevant research and bodies of knowledge from many different fields to inform the process.
·     Develop strategies for sharing this knowledge with wider audiences to build support for the work.
·     Engage policy makers and others across the country.

Summary

    An effort of this magnitude touches on every aspect of correctional policy and practice. It means a qualitative change in the mission of corrections, a fundamental reorientation of its operations and practices, and a transformation of its workforce similar to what has occurred internationally.xi It requires redefining corrections' relationship to families and communities, other governmental and nongovernmental human service organizations or systems, and the private sector. Such an undertaking demands the full support of legislative and judicial bodies as well as executive leadership in every state, including those at the local level. The purpose of the Norval Morris project is to develop the framework to find pathways corrections can follow to lead the country to a future very different from the one implied by current projections.

We look forward to your comments and discussion.

_______________________

iWalmsley, R., "World Prison Population List, Eight Edition", International Centre for Prison Studies, King's College London; Van Dijk, J., van Kesteren, J., and Smit, P.,  Criminal Victimisation in International Perspective, Key findings from the 2004-2005 ICVS and EU ICS, United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice
Research Institute, 2008.
ii Public Safety Performance Project. (February 2007) Public Safety, Public Spending: Forecasting America's Prison Population, The Pew Charitable Trusts.
iiiBureau of Justice Statistics, Prison Statistics Online, http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/njs/prisons.htm.
iv Morris, N. and Hawkins, G., The Honest Politician's Guide to Crime Control, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1969.
v Johnson, N. January (2009) Budget Cuts or Tax Increases at the State Level: Which is Preferable During a Recession? Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
vi Crary, D. (January 10, 2009) Budget woes prompt states to rethink prison policy. Associated Press.
vii  See "The Impact of Incarceration on Crime: Two National Experts Weigh In", Pew Public Saftey Performance Project, April, 2008; Spelman, W. "The limited importance of prison expansion", in Blumstein, A. and Wallman J. (Eds). The Crime Drop in America, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2006
viii Clear, T., Imprisoning Communities, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2007.
ix Austin, J., et al. (2007) Unlocking America: Why and How to Reduce America's Prison Population. The JFA Institute.
x Jones, J. and Shapiro, C. (Winter 2007). The Oklahoma Family Justice Project: Improving Community Supervision Outcomes One Family at a Time. Perspectives - American Probation and Parole Association.
xi McNeill, F., et al., 21st Century Social Work: Reducing Re-Offending: Key Practice Skills, G.S.o.S. Work, Editor. 2005, Scottish Executive: Edinburgh.






 


 


 

 Breaking News!  Reducing the Corrections Population

Reducing the corrections population is a very timely topic - the lead article in Sunday's, March 29th, Parade magazine, 'Why We Must Fix Our Prisons' - www.salon.com's "Jim Webb's courage v. the "pragmatism" excuse for politicians" on Saturday, March 28th - come to mind.  For those of you who want more in depth information, the attached white paper by Jim Austin, ‘Reducing America's Correctional Population', may be just the thing to read today.  

"The past three decades have witnessed a dramatic increase in all forms of correctional supervision (see Table 1). These increases have been fueled by increased arrests, a higher conviction rate, and longer periods of incarceration.  To reverse these trends will require reductions in some of these key decision points. This report outlines a strategy for reducing all forms of correctional supervision over an 8 year period. Furthermore, the specific reforms would be based on existing or historical practices that have shown to reduce correctional populations without jeopardizing public safety. . . . . ."

From Mike Haddon, Deputy Director, Utah Department of Corrections:

The Austin article summarizes, and perhaps in some areas overstates, what many of us have been considering for years.  Issues such as the United States incarceration rate compared globally, the disconnect between incarceration rates and crime rates, and the cyclical nature or self-feeding extant in the system.

I believe there is room for discussion on this topic in our state.  While it is true that many of our public officials consider crime and punishment as essential campaign fodder, we also live in a fiscally conservative state with a tremendous number of school age children.  They are beginning to realize that more prison facilities mean less money per pupil in our public schools.  Our legislature is invested in the concept of treatment and rehabilitation, both in terms of humanity and fiscal responsibility.  That said, I do think our state would at least consider some level of reform if the outcomes do not diminish public safety and if funds can be diverted into more productive programs.

Utah is an indeterminate sentencing state.  We have a sentencing commission and use guidelines both for sentencing and release decisions.  Much of what is discussed in the article does occur in our state.  A substantial amount of our prison growth can be attributed to parole/probation violations and significant mark-ups on length of stay decisions.  Utah also has a few other drivers not mentioned in the article, and I would be interested to see if other states experience similar processes.  First, as we focus on increasing the length of stay on a particular crime or class of crime, we find an ancillary impact on other crimes as well.  For example, if the legislature passes legislation to set a minimum length of stay for child sex offenders to 15 years, a public and political message is sent.  The Board of Pardons and Parole hears this message loud and clear, and we find not only does length of stay for these sex offenders increase, but we also see increases in LOS for murderers, rapists, and robbers.  As most of us see crime on a continuum of severity, an increase in the penalty for one crime almost necessarily pushes up the penalty for those crimes higher on the continuum.  With the 15 year adjustment, we begin to see murders kept for 20 years and rapists also moving up to 15 years.

Another phenomenon we experience in Utah relates to restitution orders and their impact on our parole and probation.  Our Board of Pardons and Parole, and to a lesser degree our courts, are hesitant to release an offender from parole or probation if there are outstanding restitution orders.  Some offenders are kept under supervision for longer periods to ensure victims of crime receive reparation.  Again, I would be interested to hear of other states are impacted in a similar way.

For the most part, I do agree with James Austin's assessment.  Crime has become over-valued.  Little research indicates excessive incarceration has a direct impact on public safety.  Anything beyond one year of probation/parole, for the most part, is not effective.  I would also agree, again for the most part, that non-violent/victimless offenders could be handled in the community with little to no risk to public safety.  One area not addressed by James is the impact prison growth has on inmate programming.  In our case anyway, prison capacity grows, to a large extent, with a cost on offender programming.  We know through our own research, as well as the published literature, that sex offender treatment is effective in helping offenders learn how to control deviant behavior.  We know that therapeutic communities in prison successfully reduce a return to drugs and prison.  We know that vocational training assists offenders receive jobs upon release and decrease the likelihood of re-incarceration.  Yet, in difficult times such as these, there is a call to eliminate these programs in order to keep our inmates incarcerated.

Mike Haddon
Deputy Director
Utah Department of Corrections
mhaddon@utah.gov

 

From Roger Werholtz, Secretary, Kansas Department of Corrections

I do think the first background paper boils the propositions down to something readily understandable that can guide our actions and invite further participation. As I was reading the larger Austin document and making notes in the margins, I think I became increasingly aware that this is or could be viewed as somewhat of an "insiders'" document. I suspect that most of us share a lot of common thoughts and conclusions about what is right and wrong with our criminal justice system and how to go about changing it. Typically, some of the questions raised in my notes were answered a few pages further into the document, but what I could not get past is the conclusion that there also needs to be a strategy for marketing these ideas and the data supporting them to the media and the general public. I suspect that the majority of people in this country would agree that too much money is spent on corrections, but the solution most likely to be proposed is to spend less, do less and punish more (by providing less). While we, as a group, may agree that there is a consensus or preponderance of opinion that less punishment is the desired state, I think most people in this country are happy with the current level or (more likely) think it is not enough. Until that perception changes on a widespread basis, I don't think much progress will be made. If there is a way to make this data more accessible or easily consumed and conveyed by the popular media (like the 1 in 100 report from PEW) that would be desirable.

While I think that later portions of the report (pg.28) acknowledge the issue more realistically, I think the language that discusses "technical" violations on pg. 10 as "behaviors that by any definition are not dangerous or even criminal" tends to trivialize the magnitude of many violations of conditions of release (which I think is a more accurate term). Much of the audience we hope to reach and persuade will be turned off by this characterization and won't be able or willing to see past this disagreement to the larger point being made. I think many will see continued drug use, weapons possession and gang activity as dangerous and criminal. In Kansas, we don't automatically revoke for those behaviors and do try to maintain offenders safely in the community, but this is a constant source of tension with prosecutors, law enforcement, some victims' advocates and some of our own staff. Minimizing the significance of that behavior can prevent us from gaining some powerful allies. Is there a place for the concept of "surgical incapacitation" rather than the mass incapacitation approach that many currently engage in? Could inclusion of discussion of that concept help to lower resistance to the central thesis?

Would it be possible within this document or from activities derived from it to start giving credit and making public safety heroes and heroines of people who have made communities safer employing the strategies suggested here? In our own state, when we started getting positive feedback and recognition for reducing revocations, absconding, and reconvictions there was a very visible movement from other parts of the corrections system to get in the game and get some of that recognition for themselves. There probably are some prosecutors, judges, cops and corrections officials who can say we are safer today because "I helped offenders succeed upon release", or because "I kept someone in the community and look at them now" or "I employ some/all of the strategies outlined in Dr. Austin's paper and look where we are now."

Something not dealt with in the paper, but which poses a serious obstacle faced by many of us who have closed or are trying to close facilities is the issue of incarceration as economic development. We are all familiar with the struggles to keep prisons open to save jobs and the economic stability of small communities in which prisons are the largest employer. Privatization has created a significant fiscal and political driver in favor of growing the offender population rather than shrinking it. Not only are private vendors and communities feeding off of the prison population, but news and entertainment media thrive on feeding the perception of increasing crime and decreasing personal safety despite what data may show to the contrary. I recall reading an abstract of some research (I think it was French) that looked at sex offender "panics" as measured by the times it was featured in news media despite the frequency of actual offenses remaining relatively static. Finally, there is the exploitation of this fear for one's personal safety for votes. How many of our states' attorneys general characterize themselves as the chief law enforcement officer? I would prefer they be a successful civil litigator on water rights issues or a champion of consumer protection, but that rarely helps them get elected when compared to "fighting for tougher penalties."

Finally, I don't know if it has a place here, but I wonder what we do with the generation(s) of offenders so damaged and stigmatized and demonized that they can hardly be expected to successfully reintegrate into the mainstream or even marginalized but non-criminal subcultures. It seems like part of the discussion needs to include what happens with these folks when not not jailed or supervised. There needs to be a place for them within our social structures.

I do think that the biggest challenge in this may simply be marketing the ideas and branding these strategies as the real or best way to achieve true public safety regardless of the relative scarcity of resources.

Roger Werholtz
Secretary of Corrections
Kansas Department of Corrections
RogerW@doc.ks.gov

 

From Ed Rhine, Deputy Director, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction


The Austin report and the background paper provide excellent documents to guide and stimulate the discussions of the workgroup.  Jim's report offers far-reaching, evidence-based strategies for addressing the reduction of correctional populations at the state level by focusing on the main drivers of prison population growth.  The background piece suggests the importance of targeting crime prevention.  It calls for engaging others to ensure that our efforts reach policymakers and "the widest possible audience."  There is much here to consider.  I look forward to doing so in the months ahead.

Alongside what these documents have provided, I believe there is a need to include a broader historical and analytic framework to guide the discussion of this topic. That framework is captured in the term mass incarceration.  There has been a recent surge of academic and research interest in mass incarceration, or as some would call it, the growth of the carceral state.  Several authors, including Clear (2007), Gottschalk (2006), Tonry (2007), Useem and Piehl (2008), and Western (2006; 2008) offer a variety of reasons for the historically unprecedented increase in the number of persons who are confined in the U.S.  Though they don't always agree with each other, their arguments provide rich, in-depth assessments centering on the magnitude, causes, and consequences associated with this growth.  Their analyses may assist the topic work group in further refining the proposed strategies, and the public policy implications of attempting to effect dramatic reductions in the prison population by 2016.  The citations to their work are included below.

I thought it would be helpful to provide excerpts from several of the above authors to illustrate why their work is pertinent to our mission.  I have taken the liberty of quoting from their publications. Some of their comments reinforce points made in the documents.

1. Marie Gottschalk (2006) argues that "explanations for the rise of the carceral state vary enormously, but many of them do have one thing in common.  They adopt a relatively short time frame as they try to identify what changed in the United States over the past thirty to forty years to disrupt its relatively stable and unexceptional incarceration rate." She goes on to say that "contemporary penal policy actually has deep historical and institutional roots that predate the 1960s...Both state capacity to incarcerate and the legitimacy of the federal government to handle more criminal matters were built up slowly but surely well before the incarceration boom that began in the 1970s."

2. Gottschalk goes on to note that "calls for law and order as a political mobilization strategy are not a new phenomenon in U.S. history.  But unlike earlier tough-on-crime campaigns, the consequences have been different because of the vastly different institutional and political context in which the campaigns against crime have been carried out since the 1960s." She points out that "by the 1990s, the elite consensus in favor of get-tough penal policies had become a formidable and defining feature of contemporary American politics, even as the extraordinary extent of the carceral state remained largely invisible and unexamined."  I find it quite significant that the recent Pew reports on prison crowding and correctional population growth (1/100; 1/31) caught so many observers by surprise given its steady, pronounced, and I thought very visible escalation during the past several decades.  

3. "The politicization of law and order was more complex and contingent than is commonly assumed," according to Gottschalk. "Political opportunism and ideological zeal do not on their own explain why the penal state was constructed.  That opportunism and zeal were mediated in important ways by interest groups and movements, many of them not usually identified with conservative policies, and by an exceptional institutional context that turned out to be highly receptive to the establishment of the carceral state."  

4. "Identifying the political factors that help us understand the construction of the carceral state beginning in the 1970s is not the same as identifying all the factors that sustain it today.  Americans have been habituated throughout much of their history to indulge in a politics of moralism and law and order in the context of a state that, until recently, had rather limited capacity and legitimacy in the area of law enforcement...the politics of law and order were largely but not entirely symbolic for much of U.S. history. As state capacity accrued, this overheated rhetoric has had more concrete consequences."

5. Tonry (2007) in Crime, Punishment, and Politics in Comparative Perspective points out that ..."nearly all developed countries in the final third of the twentieth century experienced rising crime rates, rapid social change, economic dislocations, and increased ethnic diversity and tension, but only in a few - most notably the United States, England, and New Zealand - did a politics of law and order emerge and criminal justice policies and practices become drastically more severe.  In the early 21st century we know beyond doubt that penal policies and imprisonment patterns result from policy decisions.  If all politics are local, then so are penal cultures and policies.  Faced with similar crime trends, different countries and states react in different ways."

6. As Tonry observes, "an assumption that often informs discussions about mass incarceration is that increases in punitiveness are generally undesirable." He goes on to say such an assumption may not always be true or widely agreed on.  "Reasonable people can disagree about the desirability of particular forms of punishment and whether punishments should be made severer in particular times and places for particular crimes and categories of offenders...Almost everywhere...many professionals and scholars believe that the use of imprisonment should be avoided to the extent possible and that punishments should be moderate, restrained, proportionate, and respectful of offenders' human rights."

7. Useem and Piehl (2008) develop a sound research-driven argument centering on the fact that the prison buildup has reached, if not already exceeded, its efficacy and defensibility.  Their view is that the rate of incarceration in the U.S. has reached the point where there are diminishing returns to expanding prisons any further as such expansion does not generate sufficient social benefits to justify the financial and social costs.  Their analysis shows "not just declining marginal returns, but acceleration in the declining marginal returns to scale."  

8. Tonry (in this article and elsewhere) emphasizes how consequential populist opinion has become in influencing sentencing and justice system policies. "That many European countries and Canada have managed more successfully than the U.S. and England to insulate criminal justice policy making and decisions in individual cases from the force of raw public opinion is a major reason why their policies are less punitive and more humane."

9. Back to Gottschalk for a moment who offers insight into how to pull the above strands together.  She argues that institutions and interests tend to be deeply embedded. However, political outcomes can still be highly contingent...Certainly institutions can be highly constraining and the policy paths are rather fixed.  But political openings do occur, and then the political future is less constrained by the institutional past and present.  These moments are usually few and far between, but they can have profound political consequences. And all the political ferment and mobilization in anticipation of that opening help determine whether major public policy reforms succeed or not.  

10. I believe the nascent reentry movement in corrections, strategically aligned with rapidly emerging concerns with the costs and consequences associated with mass incarceration (shown by legislators and policymakers alike), may present such an opportunity. Bruce Western (2008) seems to concur.  As he states, "we can edge away from mass incarceration by promoting two kinds of policies: expanding support for the reentry of prisoners into society and scaling down the size of the prison population.  The two steps are linked; we expand our support for ex-prisoners in the community by using incarceration more sparingly and revoking freedom less willingly.  Money that we now spend on prison can be spent on treatment and jobs."  And I would add a massive commitment to Justice Reinvestment Initiatives across the states.

11. Reentry can become a compelling source of advocacy and a credible force for challenging mass incarceration, if it is strategically connected to the larger policy arguments and proposals aimed at reducing correctional populations.  I concur with Clear (2007) that focusing on reentry alone will not reduce the over-reliance on mass incarceration.  However, as Useem and Piehl argue, reentry may establish that dealing effectively with the population behind bars (and under some form of community supervision) will better position a huge reservoir of individuals to contribute to our civic and social fabric upon release.  Dealing with their reintegration needs reflects a commitment to the "wider welfare;" one that recognizes the importance of forming and investing in human capital in every arena where it is underdeveloped, untapped, or neglected.   Within a larger analytic framework, it seems to me that this provides a sensible basis for edging away from mass incarceration as well.  


References

Clear, Todd R. 2007. Imprisoning Communities: How Mass Incarceration Makes Disadvantaged Neighborhoods Worse. New York: Oxford University Press.

Gottschalk, Marie. 2006. The Prison and the Gallows: The Politics of Mass Incarceration in America.  New York: Cambridge University Press.

Michael Tonry. 2007. Editor. Crime, Punishment, and Politics in Comparative Perspective. Volume 36 of Crime and Justice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Michael Tonry. 2007. "Determinants of Penal Policies." In Crime, Punishment, and Politics in Comparative Perspective. Volume 36 of Crime and Justice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Useem, Bert, and Anne Morrison Piehl. 2008. Prison State: The Challenge of Mass Incarceration. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Western, Bruce. 2008. Reversing Mass Imprisonment. July/August. Boston Review.

Western, Bruce. 2006. Punishment and Inequality in America. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.