Center for Policy Alternatives
CPA - Header Photo

Sentencing Reform

State prison populations and spending on corrections have skyrocketed.
From 1990 to 2004, state prison population doubled from about 685,000 to more than 1.2 million. Including federal prisons and local jails, the total number of people held behind bars in the United States exceeds 2.1 million—one of every 138 residents.1 This dramatic rise in the number of prisoners was accompanied by similar increases in cost. During the 1990s, aggregate state spending on corrections doubled from $19 billion to $38 billion.2
Many inmates become involved with the criminal justice system because of a substance abuse problem.
Sixty-eight percent of inmates entering jail were dependent upon or abusing drugs and alcohol in 2002. Of jail inmates who met substance dependence or abuse criteria, 70 percent were incarcerated for drug or property offenses—not violent crimes. Eighty-five percent of inmates convicted of burglary were substance abusers.3 More arrests are made for drug offenses—12 percent—than any other type of offense.4 Altogether, of the 1.2 million inmates in state prisons, 265,000 are imprisoned solely for drug offenses,5 and most of those have no prior criminal record for a violent offense.6
A massive racial disparity in the prison population has resulted from sentencing laws.
In 2004, African Americans—who comprise only 12 percent of the U.S. population—made up more than 40 percent of all prisoners nationwide, and 8.4 percent of all black males aged 25 to 29 were in prison.7 At the state level, this disparity can be even more striking. For example, a 2005 report found that while African Americans make up only 20 percent of Delaware’s population, they account for 64 percent of its prison population.8 A similar report revealed that African Americans comprise only 28 percent of Maryland’s population, but they account for 90 percent of people incarcerated for drug offenses in that state.9
Sentencing reform, drug courts and diversion programs result in major cost savings for states and taxpayers.
A growing body of research proves that treatment, rather than incarceration, is the most effective tactic to fight drug abuse. An investment in drug treatment can save billions of taxpayer dollars a year—not only in prison costs, but in costs for health care, child care, transportation, and public safety. An analysis of California’s diversion program—which offers treatment instead of prison to nonviolent drug offenders—showed that for each dollar spent, the state enjoyed seven dollars in savings on future costs.10 A study of Multnomah County, Oregon found that drug court there saved $5,071 per participant per month—more than $1.5 million in annual savings for taxpayers.11
Treatment in lieu of incarceration reduces recidivism, which translates to even more cost savings over time.
It is essential that states treat offenders who are addicted to drugs in order to mitigate the long-term effects on the offenders, their families and the public. A 2005 study showed that participants in drug courts across the country had between ten and 30 percent fewer rearrests than a comparison group.12 Another study showed that drug court participants had recidivism rates that were 25 percent lower than those who had not participated.13 In addition, offenders who receive treatment instead of incarceration are better able to hold jobs and retain custody of their children.
States are enacting sentencing reform and drug treatment laws.
In 2005, ten states (AL, GA, LA, MT, ND, OK, TX UT, VA, WA) enacted laws that implement or expand treatment in lieu of incarceration.
Americans strongly support sentencing reform.
Public attitudes toward crime and corrections have been shifting for more than a decade. Eighty-nine percent of Americans now favor treatment instead of incarceration for first-time drug offenders. Seventy-six percent oppose “three strikes” penalties—mandatory life imprisonment for an offender convicted of a non-violent felony for the third time.14

This policy summary relies in large part on information from the Sentencing Project.

Endnotes
  1. Bureau of Justice Statistics, “Prisoners in 2004,” October 2005.
  2. Ronald Snell, Corina Eckl and Graham Williams, “State Spending in the 1990s,” National Conference of State Legislatures, July 14, 2003.
  3. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, “Substance Abuse, Dependence, and Treatment of Jail Inmates, 2002,” July 2005.
  4. Ibid.
  5. “Prisoners in 2004.”
  6. Sentencing Project, “Impact of Drug Policy,” 2005.
  7. “Prisoners in 2004.”
  8. Mike Billington, “Analysis points to bias in sentencing: In Delaware, blacks more likely to get prison time,” The News Journal, July 22, 2005.
  9. Vincent Schiraldi and Jason Ziedenberg, “Race and Incarceration in Maryland,” Justice Policy Institute, October 2003.
  10. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, “Substance Abuse Treatments for Adults in the Criminal Justice System,” 2005.
  11. NPC Research, Inc., “A Detailed Cost Analysis in a Mature Drug Court Setting: A Cost-Benefit Evaluation of the Multnomah County Drug Court,” July 2003.
  12. U.S. General Accounting Office, “Adult Drug Courts,” February 2005.
  13. Steven Belenko, “Research on Drug Courts: A Critical Review—2001 Update,” National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University, June 2001.
  14. ABC News poll, March 2002.
Updates