{"id":1803,"date":"2014-05-02T15:49:51","date_gmt":"2014-05-02T19:49:51","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.prisonpolicy.org\/blog\/?p=1803"},"modified":"2014-09-27T11:59:09","modified_gmt":"2014-09-27T15:59:09","slug":"national-academies-2014","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.prisonpolicy.org\/blog\/2014\/05\/02\/national-academies-2014\/","title":{"rendered":"The National Academies scrutinizes mass incarceration"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>This week the National Research Council of the National Academies released a major report, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.nap.edu\/catalog.php?record_id=18613\">The Growth of Incarceration in the United States: Exploring Causes and Consequences<\/a>. The report was released by the Committee on Causes and Consequences of High Rates of Incarceration \u2014which includes PPI board member and Temple University Professor Heather Thompson \u2014 and offers wealth of information in a comprehensive <\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>summary of what is known today about the sources of the rise of incarceration in the United States; how it has affected people, communities, and society; and the implications of that knowledge for public policies determining future rates of incarceration. (p. 18)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>We&#8217;re particularly excited to see that the report&#8217;s section on &#8220;Wider Consequences for U.S. Society&#8221; repeated the National Research Council&#8217;s previous conclusion that <a href=\"\/\/www.prisonersofthecensus.org\">prison gerrymandering<\/a> is a concern: &#8220;The evidence of political inequities in redistricting due to the way the U.S. Census Bureau counts prisoners is &#8216;compelling'&#8221; (p. 310).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Among the findings is that &#8220;the evidence of political inequities in redistricting due to the way the U.S. Census Bureau counts prisoners is &#8216;compelling'&#8221; <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"coauthors":[13],"class_list":["post-1803","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.prisonpolicy.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1803","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.prisonpolicy.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.prisonpolicy.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.prisonpolicy.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.prisonpolicy.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1803"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.prisonpolicy.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1803\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.prisonpolicy.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1803"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.prisonpolicy.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1803"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.prisonpolicy.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1803"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.prisonpolicy.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=1803"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}