HELP US END MASS INCARCERATIONThe Prison Policy Initiative uses research, advocacy, and organizing to dismantle mass incarceration. We’ve been in this movement for 20 years, thanks to individual donors like you.
Across the country jails are replacing in-person visits with video chats that can cost over $1 per minute; and as our national research on the 600+ facilities that have implemented video visitation illustrates, the collusion between local jails and telecom companies ignores the needs of incarcerated people and their loved ones in favor of profits.
In a new segment that aired on HBO last night, Vice News Tonight examined the growth of the exploitive video visitation industry in California; speaking with jail administrators, FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn, and the families themselves in order to highlight the human toll of switching from the real thing to an artificial – and costly – substitute. Check out the piece above!
A new Bureau of Justice report released yesterday reveals that 21% of sentenced people in state prisons and local jails are incarcerated for crimes committed to obtain drugs or money for drugs. Almost 40% of people locked up for property crimes and 14% of those incarcerated for violent crimes reported that they had committed their most serious offense for drug-related reasons. If these figures hold for the entire prison and jail population, that means over 473,000 people are behind bars for seeking drugs.
“Drug Use, Dependence, and Abuse Among State Prisoners and Jail Inmates, 2007-2009” details past drug use of incarcerated people surveyed in the National Inmate Surveys. Some of its other major findings include:
More than half of the state prison population and two-thirds of the sentenced jail population report drug dependence or abuse, compared to just 5% of the adult general population.
About 40% of the state prison population and sentenced jail population report using drugs at the time of the offense for which they were incarcerated.
Drug use varied by gender and race, as reported in past studies: Women were more likely than men, and whites more likely than Blacks, Hispanics, and “other” racial or ethnic groups to report drug dependence or abuse, to report drug use at the time of their offense, and to have ever regularly used cocaine or crack, methamphetamine, or heroin or other opiates.
Only about a quarter of those reporting drug dependence or abuse had received treatment since admission.
We already know that overcriminalization of drug use and possession contributes to mass incarceration, resulting in 1 million arrests each year. Responding to substance use as as an individual failure to be punished, rather than as a public health problem, is just as harmful. The widespread drug use and dependence among incarcerated people underscores the urgent need to redirect people and resources away from prisons and jails and toward more effective treatment. Treating underlying issues in a therapeutic setting is more cost effective and has better results when it comes to health and public safety. And as the new BJS report suggests, it’s also essential for reducing the incarcerated population.
New research expands the notions of collateral consequences beyond post-release barriers and discrimination. Two studies show that incarceration shortens life expectancy, at both the national and individual levels.
Nationally, there are so many people living behind bars that the average life expectancy for the total U.S. population has taken a hit. In 2014, the life expectancy at birth in the U.S. was 78.8 years, while most comparable nations (Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Italy, Japan, France, Germany, Canada, Australia, Austria) had life expectancies above 81 years.
A 2016 study by Professor Christopher Wildeman offers us an explanation for the U.S. falling behind on measures of population health, like life expectancy: mass incarceration. In comparison to other developed democracies, Wildeman finds that from 1981 to 2007, the U.S. life expectancy would have increased by more than five years – from 74.1 to 79.4 years – if not for mass incarceration. But given the reality of mass incarceration, the U.S. life expectancy only increased 3.5 years over that time. Without so many people behind bars, he argues, the life expectancy at birth would have increased 51% more than it actually did from 1981 to 2007. The sheer magnitude of how many people are locked up shortens our entire nation’s life expectancy.
This isn’t just problematic from a population health standpoint; the reduced life expectancy resulting from incarceration impacts individuals, families, and communities on a personal level. In her 2013 analysis of New York state parole data, Professor Evelyn Patterson identified a linear relationship between incarceration and life expectancy: for each year lived behind bars, a person can expect to lose two years off their life expectancy. In the parole cohort she studied, five years in prison increased the odds of death by 78% and reduced the expected life span at age 30 by 10 years. Time served has a direct correlation to years of life lost.
Although both studies suggest that incarceration affects life expectancy, neither study identifies the pathways by which this happens. Incarceration itself may be harmful enough to explain these effects, or it may be one of many adverse experiences putting vulnerable populations at risk. Either way, it’s important to address the appalling conditions of incarceration and the lack of opportunities and services for at-risk communities. Most importantly, we need to put less people behind bars. As Professor Patterson points out, unlike many collateral consequences of incarceration, “death cannot be reversed”.
This article was updated in March 2021 to reflect that mass incarceration has shortened the overall U.S. life expectancy by almost 2 years.
Today, a new Bureau of Justice Statistics report offers another grim view of mental health problems in America’s prisons and jails. Indicators of Mental Health Problems Reported by Prisoners and Jail Inmates 2011-12 is the first government update on the mental health of incarcerated populations since 2006. BJS has made some changes to its data collection, making comparisons to earlier reports difficult,1 but the takeaway is the same, ten years later: U.S. prisons and jails are filled with people who have a current or past mental health problem, and facilities are still not meeting the demand for treatment.
Half of people incarcerated in prisons and two-thirds of people in jails had either current “serious psychological distress”2 or a history of mental health problems. Yet only about a third of those reporting serious psychological distress were currently receiving treatment, and only a slightly greater share of people with a history of mental health problems was currently being treated. So while correctional facilities are warehousing people with mental health problems, they lack the capacity to adequately meet the needs of those in their care.
1 in 4 people incarcerated in jails reported experiences that met the threshold for serious psychological distress. This makes people in jail six times more likely to experience serious psychological distress than people with no criminal justice involvement in the past year.
People in prisons and jails experience serious psychological distress at much greater rates than the general public. This difference is especially pronounced among jail inmates – and especially in the first 30 days of incarceration – which is consistent with other reports of mental illness prevalence and the danger of even short stays in local jails. It’s unclear whether the high rates of psychological distress in jails is due to the stressful experience of incarceration or is a result of jailing people in crisis. But these statistics underscore the need to divert people at risk away from jail and connect them to more appropriate services in the community. Policymakers in some places seem to be catching on, but as this report reminds us, the need for more widespread reforms is urgent.
Women in jails, in particular, report high rates of mental health problems compared to men. The findings from this report are consistent with the 2006 report and others that find incarcerated women are more likely than men to have a history of mental health problems. But the new measure of serious psychological distress shows that women are also more likely to report current mental health problems – especially in jails, where as many as 1 in 3 women experiences serious psychological distress.
Consistent with previous reports, female respondents in prisons and jails reported a history of mental health problems more frequently than male respondents.
1 in 3 female respondents in jails reported experiencing symptoms of serious psychological distress – more than twice the rate of men in prisons.
A final noteworthy finding from the new BJS report is the danger to others posed by people struggling with mental health problems. In prisons, people experiencing serious psychological distress are three times more likely to be written up for physical or verbal assault of correctional officers, staff, or other incarcerated people, compared to those without any mental health problems. In jails, people experiencing serious psychological distress are about 2.5 times more likely to assault others.
Again, we are reminded that appropriate treatment of health problems is essential for the health, safety, and well-being of not only affected individuals, but everyone around them, both while incarcerated and upon their return to the community.
The new report is based on data from the 2011-2012 National Inmate Survey, and includes two mental health indicators: current “serious psychological distress” and any history of a mental health problem. The new measure of serious psychological distress (see footnote 2) gives a clearer picture of current mental health than the 2006 report, which asked about symptoms over the past year. Conversely, the measure of mental health history is broader than the one used in 2006; it asks respondents whether a mental health professional has ever told them they had a mental or emotional condition instead of limiting responses to just the past year. ↩
“Serious psychological distress” was measured using the Kessler 6 scale, a tool used to screen for serious mental illness among adults. It asks how frequently in the past 30 days the respondent felt: nervous, hopeless, restless or fidgety, so depressed nothing could cheer them up, everything was an effort, and worthless. ↩
The filing highlights some of Securus’ most egregious rule-breaking, including predatory practices going back at least a decade. For example,
In short, per-call, per-connection and flat-rate charges have been prohibited for more than a year now. Securus fought the prohibition, and when it lost the fight, Securus it nevertheless continued the practice of charging the fees, but under a different name.
[W]hen the Commission adopted rules to prohibit per-call connection and flat-rate fees, Securus simply renamed its connection fees as “first-minute rates” and began charging even more money for the same prohibited charge.
And the last time Securus was sold, in 2013, the sale was allowed to go through because Securus promised to “not make any ‘changes in rates, terms, or conditions of service as a result of the transaction.’ … Securus failed to comply with that commitment by actually raising [in-state phone] rates across the country.”
If this sale goes through, Securus will ultimately be owned in part by Tom Gores; a curious acquisition for someone who owns the Detroit Pistons. You see, Securus’ shenanigans with the connection charges hit Michigan residents hardest. Gores’ own ties to the state, as well as the Detroit Piston’s own focus on commitment to their community, make one wonder why Gores would be interested in a company that charges some Michigan residents as much as $8.20 for just a single minute of a call from an incarcerated loved one.
Securus continues to fight regulations so that it can continue to exploit the country’s poorest families. While Securus went to court to fight caps on how much it could charge for calls, it re-jiggered its in-state rates to compensate for regulations banning exploitative charges for interstate calls. “As a result, a 15-minute [in-state] call from sixteen (16) county jails in Michigan, and twentyeight (28!) county jails overall, costs more than $20, entirely due to the fact that the first-minute rate at these correctional facilities is at least $5.00 higher than the charge for each additional minute.”
Next Tuesday, California’s Senate Human Services Committee will consider a bill (AB 811) that would give incarcerated juveniles access to computer technology and the internet. The Prison Policy Initiative submitted a letter in support of the bill, outlining the benefits of internet access for incarcerated people. We also highlight how this legislation stakes new ground by proposing internet access, rather than the proprietary closed platforms currently used by prisons and jails, which allow private companies to extract exorbitant user fees from the state’s poorest families.
June 20, 2017 The Honorable Mike Gipson California State Capitol P.O. Box 942849 Sacramento, CA 94249-0064
Dear Assemblymember Gipson,
I write on behalf of the Prison Policy Initiative to express strong support for Assembly Bill 811, concerning the rights of incarcerated juveniles to access computer technology and the internet.
The Prison Policy Initiative is a research and advocacy organization comprised of national experts in various criminal-justice related fields. As part of our work, we have developed considerable expertise concerning telecommunications services used by incarcerated people, and have recently pursued several research projects on new technologies such as video visitation 1 and electronic messaging.2
AB 811 is laudable because it promotes a balanced and thoughtful policy of emphasizing the humanity of incarcerated juveniles by providing additional avenues for communication and education. In fact, as more functions of government, business, and education migrate to the internet, connectivity is critical to the well-being of incarcerated people and their chances of success upon reentry. We believe that AB 811 would benefit incarcerated juveniles in the following areas:
Media literacy. As the amount of information on the internet grows at staggering rates, the ability to analyze and evaluate the reliability of such content becomes paramount to being a wise consumer of news and data.3
Education. Lifelong learning is now closely connected to technology and internet access. Not only is a great deal of educational content accessible online, but even programs in traditional classroom settings increasingly expect students to arrive already equipped with basic technological skills.
Maintaining family connections. Because most incarcerated juveniles will return to their communities of origin, maintaining meaningful relationships with friends and family is critical for successful reentry.4 Technology such as video streaming, email, and social networking apps can greatly aid this process, especially when family members are separated by substantial geographical distances.
Employment. Finding employment and succeeding in a job are both becoming more dependent on an individual’s familiarity with technology. Because formerly incarcerated people are already at a profound disadvantage when seeking employment, it is critical that they leave confinement with knowledge and skills that will compensate (albeit only partially) for this liability.
Personal finance. People who are incarcerated are disproportionately low-income,5 meaning that they have an acute need for personal financial management skills. Technology enhances personal finance in several ways. For example, people who can easily access transactional data (e.g., online account histories) are more likely to have a firm grasp on their personal financial situation. In addition, the ability to use the internet for product research and price comparisons is an important tool to help consumers spend their money wisely.
AB 811 is also a notable milestone for the rights of justice-involved people because it specifically refers to internet access inside correctional facilities. Our research (which is focused on adult facilities, and therefore may overlook limited exceptions in the juvenile sector) indicates that prisons and jails reflexively prohibit any level of internet access, based less on reasoned policy decisions than fear of public misconceptions.6 Your legislation is a big step forward. As the Supreme Court remarked just this week: “While in the past there may have been difficulty in identifying the most important places (in a spatial sense) for the exchange of views, today the answer is clear. It is cyberspace—the ‘vast democratic forums of the Internet’ in general . . . and social media in particular.”7 As a society, we can no longer exclude incarcerated people from these important spaces simply due to undifferentiated fear.
It is important to note that new technologies are not completely absent from the correctional setting—to the contrary, there is a growth trend in computers and mobile devices being marketed specifically for use by incarcerated people. The problem, however, is that such technology is currently designed to only access proprietary closed platforms that typically allow customers to access communications services or digital content only upon payment of exorbitant user fees.
While we do not dispute the need for some level of security-related restrictions, wholesale prohibitions on internet access simply foster the predatory financial model that current products are built on. By seeking to remove this formidable barrier, AB 811 stakes out important ground in the movement to end mass incarceration.
The Prison Policy Initiative thanks you for your foresight in introducing this important piece of legislation. Please let me know how our organization can support this effort.
We need to be paying more attention to prosecutors.
This truism echoed throughout the day of the “Redefining the Role of the Prosecutor Within the Community” conference I attended at Harvard Law School last Friday. There were highlight presentations by John Pfaff and Measures for Justice, along with panelists from the ACLU Boston, Charles Hamilton Houston Institute, Color for Change, the Innocence Project, and many others.
Prosecutors, former judges, and legal experts unanimously agreed: the role of the prosecutor is often misunderstood and underestimated. In the opening panel, experts outlined how prosecutors determine the baseline of whether or not an individual is charged, the nature of the crime, the length of the sentence, whether a juvenile will be charged as an adult, and many other key factors affecting the outcome of trials and the lives of those involved. Hon. Nancy Gertner stated that she was a federal judge for decades, but her role was never nearly as important as that of the prosecutor.
Assistant District Attorney in the Juvenile Division of Suffolk County, Adam Foss, balked at how little prosecutors have changed since the inception of this country. Similarly essential fields in our society, such as medicine, not only champion progress, but also face public demand for advancement. Most people would feel unsafe with the health standards and practices of the 18th or 19th centuries. Where is the outcry about outdated practices of the modern prosecutor?
Former prosecutors in the second panel unveiled troubling realities of the legal system. They described how prosecutors are often in entry-level jobs with minimum pay, they are new lawyers just beginning to gain trial experience. Some of the least qualified candidates have the most important roles in our judicial system.
Former prosecutor and current ACLU Racial Justice Program Director, Rahsaan Hall, revealed how much freedom prosecutors are given, especially in the case of setting bail. Hall spoke of one of his first times in court without a supervising attorney. When asked by the judge to set bail, Hall realized there was no set number to prescribe, no strict guideline to abide by. Hall said that as a young, inexperienced prosecutor, he was determining someone’s future without understanding his or her financial reality. After asking his supervisor later, Hall was told, “if you asked ten different attorneys, you’d get ten different answers”. There was virtually no oversight for an incredible amount of power.
When considering what makes a good prosecutor, voters usually look at things like number of indictments, declination rates, and years sentenced per conviction. However, panelists made clear that citizens should seek prosecutors with community involvement and who focus not only on public safety, but also on community health.
John Pfaff, author of Locked In: The True Causes of Mass Incarceration and How to Achieve Real Reform, also asked why the United States was the only country in the world to elect their prosecutors. During election cycles, antiquated metrics focused on punitiveness become more important for campaign branding and ultimately deter reform.
Panelists from the ACLU shared that, during the last 20 years, 70% of District Attorney races have gone uncontested. They are often races on odd election years where voter turnout is low, and for those voters who do turn up, 30% don’t make it far enough down the ballot to vote for a District Attorney. The current system is not working or representative of those who are most affected by the criminal justice system. 96% of elected prosecutors are white men.
The overarching takeaway from every speaker was for voters to use their voice. Prosecutors are still elected officials. We can use our voices for change. We need to. As Deputy Director of the ACLU Florida, Melba Pearson, stated on Friday, “the only way to make a change is to be part of this conversation”.
Are you interested in joining our dedicated team to find new ways of transforming the debate around criminal justice reform? If so, consider applying for our Communications Director position; designed for an experienced individual to immediately take over our existing media and public relations systems.
Are you interested in joining our dedicated team to find new ways of transforming the debate around criminal justice reform? Do you want to shape innovative advocacy campaigns and spark critical discourse to create a more just society?
Our current Policy & Communications associate, Lucius Couloute, is taking on a more policy-oriented role, allowing us to hire a full-time team member fully dedicated to focusing on communications to help extend our reach as we continue to grow.
While untangling the data we found that, since 1978, jail populations have grown in tandem with state prison populations in every state. In fact, 75% of Americans live in a state where both the state prison and local jail incarceration rates doubled.
Growth reflects the change in the jail incarceration rate per 100,000 over time, so a figure of “2” means the jail incarceration is twice as high in 2013 as it was in 1978. In half the states both incarceration rates tripled. The six states with “N/A” for their jail rates do not have jail systems separate from their prison systems. For more on our data sources for jail and prison growth see the methodology section in our full report.
Jail growth (1978-2013)
Prison growth (1978-2013)
Mass incarceration is not really a question of prison or jail growth, but both: more people behind bars for low-level crimes means that, soon enough, entire justice systems are bursting at the seams. While crime rates have fallen drastically over these 35 years, “tough-on-crime” attitudes have continued to shape local and state decision-makers’ approach to dealing with social concerns.
Governors and legislators need to recognize that the vast majority of people who are released from state prisons and are arrested for another crime get arrested in the same state—they often end up back in the prisons or jails of that state. So while jails function at the city and county level, high rates of incarceration in one local jurisdiction can shape state-level trends. Mass incarceration is a systematic phenomenon, operating at all levels of government, but state lawmakers are particularly responsible for how many of their constituents end up behind bars.
So, in addition to our 50 state profiles, we have just added a profile page for the District of Columbia. While we don’t (yet) have a good annual data source for recent prison growth—the District of Columbia’s prison system was integrated into the federal Bureau of Prisons in 2001—this new page is an added resource for those wanting to know more about the criminal justice system in Washington D.C.