THE RI
GHT

I
NVESTMENT?
CORRECTI
ONSSPENDI
NG I
N BAL
TI
MORECI
TY

FEBRUARY 2015

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction: Mapping Baltimore’s Corrections and Community
Challenges ................................................................................. 2
48T

48T

Focus on Baltimore City ....................................................... 2
48T

Public Safety: Making the right investment .......................... 6
48T

Opportunities and limitations ................................................ 7
48T

Indicators of Lost Opportunity .................................................... 9
48T

The “High” Incarceration Communities ...................................... 13
48T

The “Higher” Incarceration Communities ................................... 15
48T

The “Highest” Incarceration Community .................................... 18
48T

Making Investments in Opportunity ............................................ 20
48T

Conclusions and Recommendations ......................................... 22
48T

Appendix A: Background, Methodology, and Indicators of Lost
Opportunity ................................................................................ 26
48T

Appendix B: Additional Data ...................................................... 33
48T

 

48T

 

THE RIGHT INVESTMENT?

2

INTRODUCTION:

MAPPING BALTIMORE’S
CORRECTIONS AND
COMMUNITY CHALLENGES

With more than 20,000 people in prison1 and 
at a cost of almost one billion dollars a year, 
Maryland’s corrections system consumes 
significant public resources. Knowing more 
about the impact incarceration has on 
communities would help state policymakers 
and residents make more informed choices on 
better ways to invest taxpayer resources in 
more effective public safety strategies and 
opportunities to help people succeed. 
 
As a result of Maryland’s historic “No 
Representation Without Population Act,” which 
ended the practice of “prison gerrymandering” 
and required incarcerated people to be counted 
at home for redistricting purposes, it is finally 
possible to know where the people in 
Maryland’s prisons are from.   
 
P

P

Focus on Baltimore City
Baltimore City and, specifically, certain 
communities within Baltimore, are ground zero 
for Maryland’s incarceration challenge: While 
one out of 10 Maryland residents is from 
Baltimore, one out of three Maryland residents in 

state prison is from the city. With an 
incarceration rate three times that of the State of 
Maryland and the national average, Baltimore is 
Maryland’s epicenter for the use of 
incarceration. Rates of incarceration are highly 
concentrated in certain communities, with a 
handful of communities experiencing even 
higher concentrations. For example, at the high 
end there are 458 people in prison from the 
Sandtown‐Winchester/Harlem Park 
community,2 located in West Baltimore. At the 
low end, there were only three people in prison 
from the Greater Roland Park/Poplar Hill 
community in North Baltimore.  
 
P

P

3

JUSTICE POLICY INSTITUTE & PRISON POLICY INITIATIVE

Maryland taxpayers spend 
Number of
Census
Incarceration
nearly $300 million3 each year 
Jurisdiction
people in
population (2010) Rate
to incarcerate people from 
prison (2010)
Baltimore City. This includes as 
Baltimore City
7,795
620,961
1,255
much as $17 million to 
Maryland
22,087
5,773,552
383
incarcerate people from a single 
United States
1,404,032
308,745,538
455
community, Sandtown‐
Sources: Baltimore City: Maryland Department of Planning and Redistricting,
Congressional and Legislative Districts, Data for Download,” July 2014.
Winchester/Poplar Hill.  
http://planning.maryland.gov/redistricting/2010/dataDownload.shtml
 
Maryland people in prison: Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional
Services, Secretary’s End of Year Report FY2010 (Towson, MD: Maryland
Spending hundreds of millions 
Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services, 2010).
www.dpscs.state.md.us/publicinfo/publications/pdfs/2010_DPSCS_End_of_Year_
of dollars to lock up Baltimore 
Report.pdf; U.S: E. Ann Carson, Prisoners in 2013 (Washington, DC: Bureau of
residents, rather than investing 
Justice Statistics, September 2014). www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p13.pdf
in their long‐term well‐being is 
 
reflected in an array of challenges facing 
 Baltimore’s 25 “high” incarceration 
Baltimore communities.  
communities: About half the 55 
 
communities that comprise Baltimore City 
Drawing upon rich data sets about Baltimore 
experience a concentrated impact of 
City communities, this report illustrates how the 
incarceration. At least $5 million is being 
communities most impacted by incarceration 
spent by taxpayers to incarcerate people 
fare on several indicators of community well‐
from each of these communities. Other 
being: employment, educational attainment, 
indicators of community well‐being show 
addiction, physical health, housing and public 
that, overall, the 25 high incarceration 
safety.  
communities experience higher 
 
unemployment, greater reliance on public 
Combining indicators of community well‐being, 
assistance, higher rates of school absence, 
data showing where people in Maryland’s 
higher rates of vacant and abandoned 
prisons are from and the cost of incarcerating 
housing, and more addiction challenges 
these people shows that the communities in 
than the city as a whole. These 25 high 
which taxpayers spend the most on 
incarceration communities also experience 
incarceration are in need of different resources 
lower life expectancy, lower rates of 
and represent the greatest opportunity for more 
educational attainment, and lower 
effective investments that will more likely 
incomes than other parts of Baltimore. 
promote community well‐being and result in 
More residents of these communities 
safer communities.  
spend more time commuting than other 
 
city residents, a clear sign that people in 
This report is organized into three frames for 
high incarceration communities are 
understanding the concentration of 
distanced from opportunity. 
incarceration and, perhaps most importantly, 
the opportunity for different community 
investments: 

THE RIGHT INVESTMENT?

4

Beyond Baltimore City: Incarceration rates in select cities and towns in Maryland
Eight cities and towns in Maryland have incarceration rates higher than that of the state. Of those, half have
incarceration rates that are at least double that of the state. Baltimore City has the highest rate of
incarceration, followed closely by Hagerstown. As in Baltimore City, high incarceration rates in these cities
and towns could be related to a number of factors, including challenges related to community well-being. A
current public health crisis related to heroin use and the availability of treatment lead the list of challenges
likely contributing to higher incarceration rates in cities and towns across the state of Maryland.
Eight cities and towns have incarceration rates higher than that of the state.
Jurisdiction

Census population
(2010)

Number of people
in state prison

Incarceration
Rate

Maryland
Baltimore
Hagerstown
Cambridge
Salisbury
Aberdeen
Easton
Havre de Grace
Annapolis

5,773,552
620,961
39,662
12,326
30,343
14,959
15,945
12,952
38,394

22,087
7,795
410
114
264
105
71
53
152

383
1,255
1,034
925
870
702
445
409
394

For the number and rate of people incarcerated in all cities, towns, and counties, see Appendix B or online at
www.prisonpolicy.org/origin/ or www.justicepolicy.org/TheRightInvestment.





Baltimore’s 5 “higher” incarceration 
communities: Among the 25 high 
incarceration communities, there are 
five places—the higher incarceration 
communities—where taxpayers spend 
$10 million or more imprisoning people 
from these communities.  These five 
“higher” incarcerated communities 
experience even more unemployment, high 
school absence, more emergency narcotics 
calls to 911 and higher rates of vacant or 
abandoned housing. These five higher 
incarceration communities have a life 
expectancy that is 13 years shorter than 
the five communities with the fewest 
number of people in prison.  
 
Baltimore’s “highest” incarceration 
community: One community stands out 
as being the “highest” incarceration 

 

community: Maryland taxpayers spend 
$17 million each year to incarcerate 
residents of Sandtown‐
Winchester/Harlem Park. This community 
faces extraordinary challenges around 
educational attainment, housing, and 
addiction.  Seven percent of the children 
in this community have elevated blood‐
lead levels—a critical indicator of 
substandard housing and a cause of 
negative outcomes for young people. By 
contrast, 47 of Baltimore’s 55 communities 
report not a single child having elevated 
blood‐lead levels.  
 

Annual state spending
on corrections in each
Community Statistical Area

Less than $2 million
$2 million – $5 million
$5 million – $10 million
$10 million – $15 million
More than $15 million

THE RIGHT INVESTMENT?

Public Safety: Making
the right investment

6

purchase basic services, have high levels of 
educational success, live long and healthy lives, 
and spend less time commuting. Baltimore City 
and the State of Maryland should refocus 
resources and attention on those communities 
with the highest levels of correctional 
involvement to ensure that the people that live 
there can realize these basic goals.  
 
Key recommendations include: 
 
1) Make investments in opportunity: Create 
a portfolio with better long‐term returns 
on investment.  Baltimore City already 
has a number of resources available to 
help people get self‐sustaining jobs, obtain 
an education, get stable housing, and 
access treatment. For the cost of sending 
one person to prison for a year, Baltimore 
City could pay for half of a high school 
teacher’s annual salary, employment 
training for seven people, two‐bedroom 
apartments for 30 families for one month, 
or a GED course for 37 people.  
 

For 30 years, policymakers in Maryland and 
across the country acted on the premise that 
building more prisons and making prison 
sentences longer would make communities 
safer. In the last 10 years, crime rates have fallen 
to 1960s‐levels. While cities and states across the 
country, including Baltimore and Maryland, 
have experienced significant crime reduction, 
there has not been a similar drop in 
incarceration. 4 In fact, the same communities 
where taxpayers spend the most on 
incarceration also have higher rates of violent 
crime than other parts of the city. Simply 
locking more people up and spending more 
money on incarceration does not necessarily 
mean a safer community.  
 
With no guarantee that increased incarceration 
leads to long‐term community safety, but every 
indication that incarceration disrupts lives, 
families, and communities, continued investment 
in prisons is questionable. This report is intended 
to explore what it means to have safe and healthy 
communities and discuss the role of taxpayer 
investments in public services as a way to build 
safer, stronger 
communities in the long‐
What could Baltimore City communities buy instead of incarceration?
term. 
 
Number that could be
Cost per person
served for $37,000
For a person or 
community to thrive, 
avoiding justice system 
involvement or becoming 
a victim of crime is the 
absolute minimum 
requirement. A healthy 
and safe community is 
one where residents are 
employed, earn a high 
enough income to 

Drug Treatment for Adults

$4,494

8 people

Employment Training

$5,000

7 people

Housing (per month)

$1,252

30 families

GED Course

$1,000

37 people

Notes: Drug Treatment for Adults - Outpatient, per episode cost for one adult, Baltimore Behavioral
Health System, FY13, Employment Training - Average Cost Of 100, Baltimore-Based Maryland
Workforce Exchange Job Education Programs oriented toward earning a certificate, Housing – Rent for
one month. Assumes two people living in a two bedroom apartment in the Baltimore Metropolitan Area.
Althea Arnold and Sheila Crowley, Out Of Reach (Washington, DC: National Low Income Housing
Coalition, 2014). http://nlihc.org/sites/default/files/oor/2014OOR.pdf, pg. 100.GED Course: South
Baltimore Learns GED - Personal correspondence with South Baltimore Learns, 8/6/2014.

7

JUSTICE POLICY INSTITUTE & PRISON POLICY INITIATIVE

2) Reduce spending on prisons: Free up 
public resources for long‐term solutions 
to address public safety.  Maryland 
should follow the lead of other states that 
have enacted wholesale sentencing 
reform, systemic reforms to reduce 
imprisonment, and redirection of funds to 
treatment.  A portion of the hundreds of 
millions of dollars spent on incarceration 
in Baltimore should be redirected—and 
additional funds could be invested— to 
support locally‐driven services, supports 
and opportunities that meet the unique 
needs of the communities they serve, 
especially related to work, education, 
health, and housing.   
 
3) Do not spend more money on 
incarceration: Find alternatives to jail 
expansion.  Any prison or jail expansion 
plan5 should be carefully scrutinized.  
Rather than exacerbating the ongoing 
challenges in Baltimore’s communities, 
policymakers should examine ways to 
direct resources to more effectively 
address community challenges to reduce 
the number of people incarcerated in the 
long‐term. A number of pretrial reforms 
that can help keep jail populations low 
have already been proposed to state 
policymakers.   
 
4) Develop research capacity to analyze the 
costs and benefits of policy choices: 
Opportunities for data and analysis.  In 
other states, like the state of Washington, 
legislators and the executive have the 
capacity to develop cost‐benefit analyses 
of any criminal justice initiative to test 
whether prison sentences are getting the 
public the bang for the buck they expect. 
Maryland should make modest 

investments in the state’s ability to collect 
and analyze data, and conduct cost‐
benefit analyses on criminal justice and 
social policy. With these kinds of tools, 
policymakers and the public could weigh 
the costs and benefits of current and 
future criminal justice policies. 
 

Opportunities and
limitations
While this report adds important and new 
findings to an array of policy analysis, advocacy, 
and knowledge about Baltimore City, it is not 
without its challenges. The data included in the 
report also present new opportunities for further 
analysis of incarceration trends in Baltimore 
City and the State of Maryland.  
 
This report does not closely examine racial and 
ethnic disparities in Baltimore, but the intensity 
of the impact of incarceration is felt more in 
communities of color. While Sandtown‐
Winchester/Harlem Park has the most people in 
prison, it is also 96.6 percent Black/African 
American. The community with the fewest 
people in prison, Greater Roland Park/Poplar 
Hill, is 77.5 percent White, 9.8 percent Asian, 
and 7.9 percent Black/African American. 
Communities of color most acutely experience 
the consequences of taxpayer dollars spent on 
incarceration.   
 
This report encourages Maryland taxpayers to 
question whether continued spending on 
incarceration is wise, when other investments 
could be made to better benefit the state and the 
City of Baltimore.  This report is an important 
first step – a detailed geographic analysis of 
incarceration in Maryland communities.   
 

THE RIGHT INVESTMENT?

There is far more work that can and should be 
done with this data to shed light on 
incarceration’s impact on communities.  Data 
available in the Appendix of this report and 
online encourage additional analysis. 

More Online and in the Appendix
While this report is a detailed geographic analysis of
incarceration in Maryland communities, there is far
more work that can and should be done with this
data to shed light on incarceration’s impact on
communities. Because this detailed origin data can
answer other questions that the research and
advocacy community will want to address in the
future, this report includes in the appendix and
online an estimate of the distribution of people
incarcerated in the Baltimore City Detention Center
by Community Statistical Area, and the raw data in
two Baltimore-level geographies and in five statelevel geographies for ready use by other
researchers. All additional data can be found online
at www.prisonpolicy.org/origin/ or
justicepolicy.org/TheRightInvestment. The data
includes:
For Baltimore:




Baltimore City Council Districts (2011)
Baltimore City Jail Estimates (2010)
Baltimore Neighborhood Indicator Alliance –
Select Data

For Maryland
 State House of Delegates Districts (2012)
 State Senate Districts (2012)
 Zip code Tabulation Areas
 Precincts
 Cities and Towns
 Counties
Zip code tabulation areas: Future users of this appendix table
may wish to review the Census Bureau’s documentation on Zip
code Tabulation Areas at
www.census.gov/geo/reference/zctas.html
Precincts: The Census Bureau’s documentation for this
geography, called voting districts (VTDs), is available at:
https://www.census.gov/geo/reference/gtc/gtc_vtd.html
Cities and Towns: For this appendix, we used the Census
Bureau’s concept of “places” documented at 
www.census.gov/geo/reference/gtc/gtc_place.html, but to reduce
future user confusion we excluded “Census Designated Places”
to show only cities and towns.

8

9

JUSTICE POLICY INSTITUTE & PRISON POLICY INITIATIVE

 

 

PART 2

INDICATORS OF LOST
OPPORTUNITY

Like other cities, the movement of residents to the suburbs has been reversed by
an influx of new opportunities in Baltimore City, including new kinds of jobs (such
as the expansion in financial services), new housing (such as condominiums in
the city core and waterfront), and improvements in urban transportation along
commercial lines (such as the Charm City Circulator). Some residents of
Baltimore City are now able to take advantage of a walkable city that is
increasingly healthy and safe.
But like a lot of cities, growth has been uneven, 
and opportunity has not been available for 
everyone. And like a lot of cities, the disparity in 
access to opportunity runs across racial and 
ethnic lines. A recent Brookings Institute report 
indicates that concentrated poverty is difficult to 
reverse across generations,6 and contributes to a 
variety of poor life outcomes, including 
incarceration. More than 40 percent of the 
Baltimore Metro area population resides in an 
area where 20 percent or more of residents live 
in poverty and, of those, more than 10 percent 
resides in an area where 40 percent or more 
residents live in poverty.7  
 
This report links the data on the concentration of 
incarceration with key indicators of community 
well‐being published by the Baltimore 
Neighborhood Indicators Alliance (BNIA), and 
finds that leading indicators of community 
distress coincide with the concentration of 
incarceration. BNIA collects over 150 social 
indicators about each community in Baltimore, 

publishes this information online, and works 
with community organizations and government 
to use this information to improve policy in 
Baltimore. This report uses 12 of the 150 
available indicators, including:  
  
1) Unemployment and Commute Time: 
Employment is critical to helping people 
succeed and build strong, safe 
communities.8 Overall, employment in 
Baltimore City continues to lag behind the 
rest of the state of Maryland. While the 
state had an average unemployment rate 
of 5.9 percent in 2014,9 Baltimore City’s 
unemployment rate for that same year 
was 8.7 percent.10 Though this is a 
decrease from a recent average high of 
11.8 percent in 2010, it is still higher than 
the state average. In addition, long 
commute times represent a lack of 
opportunity and the challenges a person 
might have accessing work in a particular 
community. The percent of the population 

THE RIGHT INVESTMENT?

aged 16‐64 not employed11 and the percent 
of the employed population with travel 
time to work of 45 minutes or more are 
both important indicators used to explore 
the dimensions of employment challenges. 
 
2) Income and Public Assistance: Simply 
having a job is not enough; a person must 
be able to earn enough money to support 
a family. This is a particular challenge in 
cities where any economic growth 
coincides with an increase in the cost of 
basic expenses like housing, 
transportation, and other living expenses. 
While public support in the form of 
Temporary Assistance to Needy Families 
(TANF) can provide income assistance 
where the economy fails to produce 
enough good jobs, ideally, families will 
have access to employment with adequate 
wages. Median household income and the 
percent of families receiving TANF are 
two indicators used to show the 
challenges that these same high 
incarceration communities face in 
generating and sustaining the income 
levels needed to support a strong, healthy 
community.  
 
3) Educational Attainment: Education has a 
variety of benefits related to health, civic 
engagement, and social engagement,12 but 
perhaps most importantly, educational 
attainment is the foundation for access to 
well‐paying employment. For people 
returning to the community from prison, 
education and job training is particularly 
important. Nationally, about two‐thirds of 
people in prison do not have a high school 
diploma.13 The percent of the population 
25 years and over with less than a high 
school diploma or GED and percent of 9th 
and 12th grade students that are 
chronically absent are the indicators 
indicative of community challenges 
related to educational attainment. 
 

10

4) Addiction:  Research shows that addiction 
can interfere with a person’s ability to get 
and keep a job, maintain housing, get an 
education, and stay out of prison.14 Access 
to treatment in the community is an 
important component of community 
health. In the absence of data about the 
number of people in need of treatment, 
this report uses the number of narcotics 
calls as a proxy indicator for drug 
treatment challenges.  
 
5) Physical Health: Good physical health is 
critical to holding a job or attending 
school regularly.15 The Urban Institute 
reports work‐limiting physical and 
behavioral health as the second most cited 
barrier to work after lack of education.16 
Because people with shorter lifespans are 
less likely to be in good health, this report 
uses mortality for young people ages 15‐
24 and average life expectancy as 
indicators of good health. 
 
6) Housing: Stable, quality housing is the 
foundation for a variety of other activities, 
such as working, going to school, and 
maintaining good health. In addition, the 
presence of empty and abandoned houses 
has been found to be correlated with 
community disassociation, which also 
correlates with higher levels of 
incarceration and lower levels of 
employment and education.17 Quality 
housing is just as important as availability 
of housing. Lead is often found in lower‐
quality, deteriorating housing18 and has 
been found to affect a child’s brain 
development, negatively impacting the 
ability to learn and interact with others.19 
Percentage of residential properties that 
are vacant and abandoned and percent of 
children age 0‐6 with elevated blood‐lead 
levels are indicators of unavailable or 
poor‐quality housing.  
 

11

JUSTICE POLICY INSTITUTE & PRISON POLICY INITIATIVE

7) Public safety: Research has shown that 
communities from which many people 
move or are removed—when sent to 
prison, for example—struggle to form a 
sense of unity and cohesion, which can 
contribute to higher crime rates. 
Specifically, communities with the highest 
levels of justice involvement also tend to 
see higher rates of violent crime. 20 To 
provide additional context related to the 
safety and well‐being of high 
incarceration communities, the report 
includes violent crime rates per 1,000 
residents as an indicator. 

 
The indicators included here suggest that the 
same communities that have the most people in 
prison also struggle with employment, 
education, addiction, housing, health, and 
public safety.  Overall, these associations appear 
to grow stronger as the number of people in 
prison from that community increases. Ten out 
of 12 indicators in this analysis worsened as the 
number of people in prison increased from the 
25 “high” incarceration communities to the 5 
“higher”, and 1 “highest” incarceration 
communities.21

THE RIGHT INVESTMENT?

12

As the number of people in prison increases, on average,
indicators of community well-being worsen.

25

5

1

Communities in
Baltimore City

High
Incarceration
Communities

Higher
Incarceration
Communities

Highest
Incarceration
Community

7,795

5,941

1,874

458

$288,304,000

$219,817,000

$69,338,000

$16,946,000

Percent 16-64 Not Employed *

39

47

52

52

Percent of Employed Population with Travel Time to Work of 45
Minutes or More

20

25

30

32

40,803

32,050

26,164

24,006

Percent of Families Receiving TANF

11

17

22

25

Percent Population (25 years and over) With Less Than a High
School Diploma or GED

20

26

30

34

Percent of 9th-12th Grade Students that are Chronically Absent

40

44

49

49

Life Expectancy

74

71

68

69

Mortality by Age (15-24 years old)

12

17

21

19

Percentage of Residential Properties that are Vacant and Abandoned

8

14

23

33

Percent of Children (aged 0-6) with Elevated Blood-Lead Levels

1

1

3

7

Number of Narcotics Calls for Service per 1,000 Residents

90

143

238

465

Violent Crime Rate per 1,000 Residents

15

19

21

23

55
Number of People in Prison
Total Estimated Cost of Incarceration

Median Household Income

Note: The numbers above are an average of the data for each group of communities.
*Percent of people 16-64 not employed is the inverse of BNIA’s indicator, “percent of people 16-64 employed.” We calculated this statistic in this way in an effort to
include all people who are not working (not just those who are looking for work, but also those who are not working by choice or circumstance).

13

JUSTICE POLICY INSTITUTE & PRISON POLICY INITIATIVE

PART 3

THE “HIGH” INCARCERATION
COMMUNITIES

What do we know about the 25 communities where Maryland taxpayers spend a
total of $220 million – or about $5 million or more per community – to incarcerate
people?
High incarceration communities are 
those places Maryland taxpayers 
spend about $5 million22 or more to 
incarcerate people from each of 25 
Baltimore communities. These 25 
communities include about half of the 
55 communities in Baltimore City.   
 
Together, these 25 communities 
account for 76 percent of the money 
spent on incarcerating people from 
Baltimore for a total of $220 million. 
Seven out of 10 Baltimore residents in 
a state prison in 2010 are from one of 
these 25 communities. 
 
These communities have some of the 
highest incarceration rates in the city at 
1,860 per 100,000, five times that of the 
state (383 per 100,000). These 25 
communities are also places where 
residents face greater challenges 
compared to the entirety of the city.  
 
These 25 communities tend to have: 
High unemployment: Nearly half 
of people aged 16‐64 are not 

THE RIGHT INVESTMENT?

(47 percent), compared to the city average of 
39 percent. (Includes not just those who are 
looking for work, but also those who are not 
working by choice or circumstance). 
 
Long commutes: Twenty‐five percent of the 
people in these communities have an average 
travel time to work of 45 minutes or more, 
compared to 20 percent of all city residents.  
Low incomes: The average median income of 
these 25 high incarceration communities is 
$32,050. Comparatively, Baltimore City 
residents have an average median wage of 
$40,803. 
High rates of public assistance: On average, 
one in six (17 percent) of residents in these 25 
communities receive TANF benefits, 
compared to one in nine (11 percent) of all 
the residents in Baltimore City. 
Low educational attainment: Of the people 
living in these 25 communities, 26 percent 
have less than a high school diploma or GED, 
while 20 percent of Baltimore City residents 
have less than a high school diploma or GED. 
High rates of school absence: In these 25 
communities, 44 percent of high school 
students, on average, are chronically absent 
 

14

from school, compared to 40 percent of the 
city’s high school students. 
High rates of emergency narcotics calls: In 
these 25 communities, there were 14 
emergency calls related to narcotics for every 
100 people, compared to nine for every 100 
people in the whole city.  
Low life expectancy: The average life 
expectancy in these 25 communities is 71, 
while the average life expectancy for all 
residents of the city is 74.  
High rates of vacant and abandoned houses: 
On average, one in seven (14 percent) of the 
houses in these 25 communities are vacant or 
abandoned, compared to one in 12 (8 percent) 
of the houses in the whole city. 
Higher rates of violent crime:  If 
incarceration were an effective solution to 
crime, the high incarceration communities 
would be among the safest places in the city. 
Instead, the 25 high incarceration 
neighborhoods report 19 incidents per 1,000 
while Baltimore City’s overall rate is 15 per 
1,000 people.

15

JUSTICE POLICY INSTITUTE & PRISON POLICY INITIATIVE

PART 4

THE “HIGHER” INCARCERATION
COMMUNITIES

What do we know about the five communities where Maryland taxpayers spend
$10 million dollars or more on incarceration?
Five communities are home to one 
in four Baltimore residents in 
prison.  
A disproportionate share (32 percent) 
of the people in the 25 communities 
mentioned previously come from just 
five “higher incarceration” 
communities. The five higher 
incarceration communities with a 
combined total of 1,874 people in 
prison are Sandtown‐
Winchester/Harlem Park, Southwest 
Baltimore, Greater Rosemont, 
Clifton‐Berea, and Southern Park 
Heights. These five communities 
account for one in four people who 
are in prison from Baltimore City. 
The five higher incarceration 
communities tend to have an even 
greater concentration of challenges 
than the 25 high incarceration 
communities in the previous section. 
The challenges of these higher 
incarceration communities include:  

THE RIGHT INVESTMENT?

Higher unemployment:23 Fifty‐two percent 
of people between the ages of 16 and 64 in 
these five communities are not employed, 
compared to 39 percent of the whole city and 
47 percent of the high incarceration 
communities. (Includes not just those who 
are looking for work, but also those who are 
not working by choice or circumstance). 
 
Lower incomes:24 The five higher 
incarceration communities have an average 
median income of $26,164, compared to an 
average median income of $32,050 in the 25 
high incarceration communities, and a city 
average of $40,803. At the other end of the 
spectrum, the five communities with the 
fewest people in prison have an average 
median income of $82,601, three times that of 
the five higher incarceration communities. 
Higher rates of people on public assistance: 
About one in five families (22 percent) in the 
higher incarceration communities receive 
TANF, compared to one in six (17 percent) in 
the 25 high incarceration communities, and 
one in nine (11 percent) in the whole city. In 
the communities with the fewest people in 
prison, 8 in 1,000 (.8 percent) people in the 
community receive TANF. 
Lower educational attainment: Just less than 
a third (30 percent) of the people in the five 
communities with the most people in prison 
do not have a high school diploma or GED, 
compared to 26 percent of the people in the 
25 high incarceration communities, and 20 
percent of the people in the city. By contrast, 
about 6 percent of residents in the five 
communities that send the fewest people to 
prison have less than a high school diploma 
or GED. 
Higher rates of school absence: In the five 
communities that have the most people in 
prison, about half (49 percent) of high‐
schoolers are chronically absent from school, 
compared to 44 percent in the 25 high 
incarceration communities, and 40 percent in 

16

the whole city. In the communities with the 
fewest people in prison, 20 percent of high 
school students are chronically absent. 
Higher rates of emergency narcotic calls to 
911:  In 2012, there was one call made to 911 
related to narcotics for every four residents 
(238 per 1,000) in the five higher incarceration 
communities. Comparatively, there were 
about 14 calls per 100 people (143 per 1,000) 
in the 25 high incarceration communities, and 
9 calls per 100 people (90 per 1,000), on 
average, in the whole city.  By sharp contrast, 
there is an average of 7 calls per 1,000 
residents in the five communities with the 
fewest people in prison.  
Higher mortality rates of young people:  The 
mortality rate among young people (15‐24 
year olds) in the five communities with the 
most people in prison was 21 per 1,000 young 
residents. In the 25 high incarceration 
communities, it is 17 per 1,000 and the whole 
city’s mortality rate is 12 per 1,000. 
Comparatively, the mortality rate of young 
people in the five communities with the 
fewest people in prison was three per 1,000 
young residents. 
Lower life expectancy: The five communities 
with the most people in prison can expect to 
live two years less than people in the 25 high 
incarceration communities, five years less 
than the city average, and around 13 years 
less than the five communities with the 
fewest number of people in prison. 
Specifically, in Clifton/Berea, the community 
with the lowest life expectancy of the five 
higher incarceration communities, residents 
have a life expectancy of 66. In Greater 
Roland Park/Poplar Hill—which is among 
the lowest incarceration communities in 
Baltimore—residents live to be about 84. 
Higher rates of abandoned or vacant 
housing: In the five communities with the 
most people in prison, approximately one in 
four houses (23 percent) are vacant or 
abandoned, while one in 7 (14 percent) and 

17

JUSTICE POLICY INSTITUTE & PRISON POLICY INITIATIVE

one in 12 (8 percent) are vacant or 
abandoned. In contrast, one out of 1,000 (0.5 
percent) houses in the communities with the 
fewest people in prison is vacant or 
abandoned.  
Higher rates of violent crime:  The five 
neighborhoods with the most people in 

prison also report 21 incidents of violent 
crime per 1,000 people. Comparatively, the 25 
high incarceration neighborhoods report 19 
incidents per 1,000, and the whole city’s rate 
is 15 per 1,000 people. The five 
neighborhoods with the fewest people in 
prison report approximately two incidents of 
violent crime per 1,000.

THE RIGHT INVESTMENT?

PART 5

THE “HIGHEST”
INCARCERATION COMMUNITY

What do we know about Sandtown-Winchester/Harlem Park, where Maryland
taxpayers spend $17 million dollars on incarceration in a year?
In the “highest” incarceration 
community, Sandtown‐
Winchester/Harlem Park, 3 percent 
of the total population is in prison. It 
has the third highest incarceration 
rate in Baltimore at 3,075 per 100,000; 
just behind Madison/East End, and 
Greenmount East. These 458 people 
account for $17 million in prison 
spending in Maryland.  
 
Not only does Sandtown‐
Winchester/Harlem Park experience 
incarceration more intensely than 
other neighborhoods, it also faces the 
most concentrated challenges related 
to work, education, health, and 
housing: 
 
Higher unemployment: In the 
highest incarceration community, 
52 percent of people aged 16‐64 
are not employed, consistent with 
the unemployment levels of the 
five higher incarceration 
communities, which is also 52 
percent. By comparison, in the 25 
high incarceration communities 
47 percent of people aged 16‐64 

18

19

JUSTICE POLICY INSTITUTE & PRISON POLICY INITIATIVE

are not employed and the city’s average is 39 
percent. (Includes not just those who are 
looking for work, but also those who are not 
working by choice or circumstance). 
 
Lower incomes: Sandtown‐
Winchester/Harlem Park had some of the 
lowest median household incomes in the city, 
at $24,006. Comparatively, average median 
household incomes for the five higher 
incarceration communities is $26,164, while 
the 25 high incarceration neighborhoods is 
$32,050, and the whole city is $40,803.   
Higher rates of people on public assistance:  
One out of four people in Sandtown‐
Winchester/Harlem Park (25 percent) 
receives TANF benefits. Comparatively, 
about one in five families (22 percent) in the 
five higher incarceration communities receive 
TANF benefits, one in six (17 percent) receive 
TANF benefits in the 25 high incarceration 
communities, and one in nine (11 percent) 
receive TANF benefits in the whole city. 
Lower educational attainment:  Thirty‐four 
percent of Sandtown‐Winchester/Harlem 
Park residents do not have a high school 
diploma or GED, compared to 30 percent in 
the five higher incarceration communities, 26 
percent in the high incarceration 
communities, and 20 percent in the whole 
city.  
Highest rate of emergency narcotic calls to 
911:  In Sandtown‐Winchester/Harlem Park, 
there was nearly one narcotics call made for 

every two people (465 per 1,000 residents). In 
the five higher incarceration communities, 
there was one call made to 911 related to 
narcotics for every five residents (238 per 
1,000 residents), 14 calls per 100 people in the 
25 high incarceration communities, and less 
than 9 calls per 100 people, on average, in the 
entire city.    
Higher rates of abandoned or vacant 
housing: One out of every three (33 percent) 
houses in Sandtown‐Winchester/Harlem 
Park is vacant or abandoned in 2012, 
compared with one in four (23 percent) in the 
five higher incarceration communities, one in 
seven (14 percent) in the 25 highest 
incarceration communities, and one in 12 (8 
percent) in the whole city.  
Highest rate of elevated blood‐lead levels: 
Seven percent of the children in Sandtown‐
Winchester/Harlem Park have elevated 
blood‐lead levels. Comparatively, 85 percent 
of the communities—47 of the 55 community 
service areas in the city—report that no child 
living in the community has lead in their 
system 
Higher rates of violent crime:  Sandtown‐
Winchester/Harlem Park reports 23 incidents 
of violent crime per 1,000 people. The five 
neighborhoods with the most people in 
prison also report 21 incidents of violent 
crime per 1,000 people, the 25 high 
incarceration neighborhoods report 19 
incidents per 1,000, and the whole city’s rate 
is 15 per 1,000 people.

THE RIGHT INVESTMENT?

20

PART 6

MAKING INVESTMENTS IN
OPPORTUNITY

How could taxpayer resources be invested more wisely in Baltimore
communities?
year, Baltimore City could pay for half of a high 
At an estimated cost of approximately $37,200 
school teacher’s salary, employment training for 
per person per year, Maryland taxpayers spend 
$288 million annually to incarcerate people from 
seven people, two‐bedroom apartments for 30 
Baltimore City. These 7,800 people incarcerated 
families for one month, or a GED course for 37 
by the state were from 55 communities across 
people.  
 
the city, but are primarily concentrated in 25 of 
Keeping people and dollars in Baltimore City 
those communities. Maryland taxpayers spent 
will build safer, stronger communities and 
about $5 million or more to incarcerate people 
fewer people will come into contact with the 
from each of those communities. While 
justice system in the long‐term, thereby saving 
Maryland taxpayers continue to pay for prison 
taxpayers millions of dollars each year. Supports 
costs, residents in these communities face 
and services should be available to all people in 
substantial challenges, especially related to 
Baltimore City, but they should be particularly 
employment, income, housing and educational 
accessible to people who are returning to their 
attainment, that if 
addressed, would 
What could Baltimore City communities buy instead of incarceration?
improve public safety, 
enhance community 
Number that could be
well‐being, and reduce 
Cost per person
served for $37,000
costs for all Maryland 
taxpayers.  
Drug Treatment for Adults
$4,494
8 people
 

Baltimore City already 
has a limited number of 
resources available to 
help people get jobs, 
earn an education, get 
stable housing, and 
access treatment. For the 
cost of sending a single 
person to prison for a 

Employment Training

$5,000

7 people

Housing (per month)

$1,252

30 families

GED Course

$1,000

37 people

Notes: Drug Treatment for Adults - Outpatient, per episode cost for one adult, Baltimore Behavioral
Health System, FY13, Employment Training - Average Cost Of 100, Baltimore-Based Maryland
Workforce Exchange Job Education Programs oriented toward earning a certificate, Housing – Rent for
one month. Assumes two people living in a two bedroom apartment in the Baltimore Metropolitan Area.
Althea Arnold and Sheila Crowley, Out Of Reach (Washington, DC: National Low Income Housing
Coalition, 2014). http://nlihc.org/sites/default/files/oor/2014OOR.pdf, pg. 100.GED Course: South
Baltimore Learns GED - Personal correspondence with South Baltimore Learns, 8/6/2014.

21

JUSTICE POLICY INSTITUTE & PRISON POLICY INITIATIVE

communities from prison, especially in the high 
incarceration communities. Summaries of an 
array of Baltimore‐based organizations that 

provide supports and services to Baltimore 
residents are available online. 

THE RIGHT INVESTMENT?

22

PART 7

CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS

The right investments in Baltimore City
Maryland’s corrections and public safety policy 
decisions have a concentrated impact on 
Baltimore City communities. Hundreds of 
millions of taxpayer dollars are spent 
incarcerating people from Baltimore City, 
especially those from a handful of less‐resourced 
communities.  
 
Disproportionate spending on incarceration 
further weakens and exacerbates challenges in 
the Baltimore communities that face the most 
barriers to health and economic stability:  
Taxpayers spend $10 million or more to 
incarcerate people from each of five 
communities —including the highest 
incarceration community where $17 million is 
spent on incarceration. Diverting resources to 
other public investments could alleviate acute 
challenges and distress and provide a better 
long‐term return on investment for Maryland 
taxpayers. Residents in Baltimore City’s high 
incarceration communities in general—and in 
some of these 25 communities, specifically—
experience some of the highest levels of:  
 
 Unemployment; 
 Reliance on public assistance; 
 High school absence; 
 Vacant and abandoned housing; 
 Emergency calls for service related to 
narcotics; 




High school incompletion;  
Elevated blood‐lead levels among 
children. 

 
The residents in the high incarceration 
communities also experience longer commute 
times, lower average incomes, and lower life 
expectancy than residents elsewhere in the city.  
 
Having access for the first time to detailed data 
on the specific home communities of people 
incarcerated in Maryland presents a unique 
opportunity to assess which investments will 
best serve the needs of Baltimore residents and 
Maryland taxpayers. Policymakers should 
consider: 
 

23

JUSTICE POLICY INSTITUTE & PRISON POLICY INITIATIVE

Reducing spending on
prisons: Freeing up
public resources for
more effective, longterm ways to address
public safety.
The research documenting the negative impact 
incarceration has on people highlights how 
critical it is that public dollars are spent on the 
most effective ways to enhance public safety. 
Redirecting some of the hundreds of millions of 
dollars that are currently spent incarcerating 
people in Maryland toward policies and 
programs that strengthen communities would 
help people succeed and keep communities 
safer. Maryland state and local policymakers can 
evaluate practices, programs, and procedures 
that lead to justice system involvement, and 
enact policies to ensure that incarceration is a 
last, not first, response to behavior. Maryland 
could choose to follow the lead of other states:  
 
 New York State – Reducing sentencing 
length and investing more in treatment. 
New York’s Rockefeller Drug Laws are a 
series of statutes that, at one time, allowed 
more than 20,000 people to be incarcerated 
under mandatory minimum sentences for 
drug offenses. In 2009, New York’s 
governor and legislature enacted a series 
of reforms which gave more discretion to 
judges to determine sentence length and 
directed more dollars towards drug 
treatment.25  
 
 Texas – Reducing revocations to stave off 
prison construction. Texas faced the 
choice of spending $2 billion on 17,000 
prison beds or enacting policies that 
would reduce the projected prison 
population. Instead of investing in more 
prison beds, Texas probation departments 
received additional funds to implement 
evidence‐based supervision practices and 



treatment programs to reduce revocations. 
In 2009, the legislature continued funding 
this initiative and added new components 
such as 64 reentry coordinators with the 
goal of further reducing the number of 
people who return to prison.26 
 
California – Voter enacted sentencing 
reforms that invest savings in education.  
In November 2014, Californians voted to 
convert some felony offenses to 
misdemeanor offenses. People convicted 
of these offenses in the future will be 
ineligible for state imprisonment.  People 
currently in prison may petition for 
resentencing.27 California’s Legislative 
Analyst’s Office projects that Proposition 
47 could save taxpayers “in the high 
hundreds of millions of dollars annually.” 
Proposition 47 redirects some of these 
savings to education.  

 
These states took different paths:  One enacted 
wholesale sentencing reform and invested some 
of the savings in education (California), one 
engaged in systemic reforms that reduced the 
number of people returned to prison due to 
probation violations (Texas), and another mixed 
approaches by reducing sentence lengths and 
ramping up treatment (New York). 
 
These states show that it is possible to enact 
major policy reforms that free‐up dollars and 
resources to address public safety and human 
need without relying on incarceration.  
 
As new economic opportunities are realized in 
Baltimore, policymakers can reduce the negative 
outcomes seen in high incarceration 
communities by changing criminal justice policy 
and prioritizing spending that connects people 
to meaningful work opportunities, safe and 
affordable housing, educational opportunities, 
and treatment and health services.  
 
To facilitate these investments in stronger 
communities, the online version of this report 
includes a compendium of Baltimore non‐profit 

THE RIGHT INVESTMENT?

organizations and public/private financing 
innovations that offer local services, and also a 
listing of current policy initiatives before the 
Maryland legislature that would promote more 
sustainable solutions. The Maryland 
Opportunity Compact, for example, is a 
public/private financing innovation that 
redeploys public dollars away from high cost, 
ineffective services to alternatives that work 
(you can read more about The Maryland 
Opportunity Compact and the Public Safety 
Compact among the online resources).  
 

Do not spend more
money on incarceration:
Find alternatives to jail
expansion.
One way to rein in Maryland’s spending on 
incarceration is to prevent correctional 
institution expansion.  In December 2013, a 
legislative taskforce recommended that the state 
of Maryland spend $533 million to replace the 
Baltimore City Detention Center with a new, 
larger jail. There is no question that conditions 
of confinement should be constitutionally sound 
and promote rehabilitation. However, there are 
alternative ways to ensure that public safety is 
protected and that people will return to appear 
in court that do not require a $535 million 
expenditure. To reduce the number of people in 
jail pretrial, Maryland policymakers could 
implement recommendations from the Task 
Force to Study the Laws and Policies Relating to 
Representation of Indigent Criminal Defendants 
by the Office of the Public Defender28 concerning 
pretrial release. Key recommendations include: 
 
 Implement a statewide pretrial system 
that utilizes a standard, validated pretrial 
risk screening tool at the “initial hearing” 
at which the pretrial detention/release 
decision is made; 
 
 Implement a statewide pretrial system 
that utilizes risk‐and‐need‐based 



24

supervision, that referral, and treatment 
options in all Maryland counties; 
 
Implement a shared jail management 
database system to ensure consistency in 
data collection across the state.   

 
These kinds of reforms aren’t just good public 
safety and criminal justice policy overall, but 
will help alleviate population pressures in the 
pretrial system, and free‐up dollars that could 
be invested in better long‐term solutions in the 
community.  
 

Develop research
capacity to analyze the
costs and benefits of
policy choices:
Opportunities for data
and analysis.
This analysis of the cost of incarceration in 
Baltimore and the needs of the communities that 
are most impacted is only the first step to 
unraveling the challenging issues in the city and 
beyond. Resource redirection away from 
incarceration and toward community services 
must be carefully monitored and evaluated to be 
as effective as possible and ensure responsible 
use of taxpayer resources. Investment in 
evaluation research—a modest cost in 
comparison with the cost of incarceration—
would allow policymakers and residents to 
better understand the most efficient and 
effective way to meet communities’ needs and 
improve public safety.   
 
The work of the Baltimore Neighborhood 
Indicators Alliance, cited heavily throughout 
this report, is invaluable to helping decision 
makers connect policy choices in different 
domains.  With the right resources, this kind of 
data could be used alongside criminal justice‐
related data to conduct cost‐benefit analyses on 
criminal justice policy. The Washington State 

25

JUSTICE POLICY INSTITUTE & PRISON POLICY INITIATIVE

Institute for Public Policy, for example, provides 
legislators with an analysis of criminal and 
juvenile justice policy that accounts for 
long‐term costs of policy choices compared to 
the potential investment of other investments in 
treatment, workforce development, and 
education.  
 
To facilitate the knowledge‐building process, 
significant data generated by the “No 
Representation Without Population of 2010 Act” 
is available online at www.prisonpolicy.org or 
www.justicepolicy.org.  This resource includes 
data showing the home origins of incarcerated 
people in Maryland by legislative district and 
city, among other types of places. Other 
researchers can used this data to conduct further 
analysis on the needs and challenges that high 
incarceration communities face.

THE RIGHT INVESTMENT?

26

APPENDIX A:

BACKGROUND,
METHODOLOGY, AND
INDICATORS OF LOST
OPPORTUNITY
The story behind the access to the data in this 
report and the opportunity this new data 
represents for researchers looking to develop 
sounder public policies is important on its own.    
 

Prison Gerrymandering
in Maryland and its
impact on democracy
and disparities.
The U.S. Census Bureau counts incarcerated 
people as residents of the community where 
prisons are located, not of their home 
communities. When states use this data for 
legislative redistricting, it causes “prison 
gerrymandering,” the practice by which the 
legislative districts that contain prisons have 
undue influence because those districts have 
fewer actual constituents than are counted in the 
Census. “Prison gerrymandering” impacts the 
fair representation of community needs and 
their democratic franchise.   
 
Prior to 2010, Maryland was no different from 
most other states when it came to “prison 
gerrymandering.” An analysis the Prison Policy 
Initiative completed of Maryland’s 2001 districts 
found, for example, that 18 percent of House of 
Delegates District 2B (near Hagerstown, where 
several large prisons are located) was made up 
of incarcerated people. This meant every four 
residents of District 2B had almost as much 

influence as five residents of any other district in 
the state. In this way, before the law change, 
legislative districts with prisons had a 
disproportionate impact in state politics.29  
 
The way the Census counts people in prison has 
a racially and ethnically disparate impact.  In 
Maryland, a majority of the state’s prison 
population is African‐American, and they are 
generally incarcerated in predominantly white 
legislative districts. In 2001 a Prison Policy 
Initiative analysis of Maryland’s 2001 data 
found that 90 percent of the 5,628 African‐
Americans credited to District 2B were actually 
incarcerated people who lived in other parts of 
the state.  
 
The “No Representation Without Population 
Act of 2010”  
For more than a decade, a constituency has been 
building to press the Census Bureau to update 
its methodology to count imprisoned people in 
their home community. After the federal 
government rejected requests to change this 
policy for the 2010 Census, Maryland was the 
first of several states to develop and enact 
creative state‐level legislative solutions to 
correct what they perceived as a flaw in the 
Census Bureau’s data. 
 
In April 2010, Maryland became the first state in 
the nation where the legislature enacted law to 
end the practice of “prison gerrymandering” 

27

JUSTICE POLICY INSTITUTE & PRISON POLICY INITIATIVE

when it passed HB496/SB400, the “No 
Representation Without Population Act,” 
legislation sponsored by Delegate Joseline Peña‐
Melnyk and Senator Catherine Pugh. The 
passage of this bill followed an effort led by the 
Maryland American Civil Liberties Union to end 
the impact of “prison gerrymandering” in 
Maryland.  
 
The “No Representation Without Population 
Act” required Maryland to collect the home 
addresses of people incarcerated in the state’s 
correctional facilities, map those addresses, and 
adjust federal census data so that the state and 
its localities could use that data for redistricting, 
counting people incarcerated in state prisons at 
their home addresses. 
 
The law was affirmed by the U.S. Supreme 
Court, upholding a lower court’s analysis that 
“the State’s adjusted data will likewise be more 
accurate than the information contained in the 
initial census reports, which does not take 
prisoners’ community ties into account at all.”30  
 

Methodology
Data showing where the incarcerated people in 
Maryland are from 
 
The “No Representation Without Population 
Act” solved the problem of prison 
gerrymandering in Maryland and had the side 
benefit of producing a dataset that could allow 
researchers to look, in detail, at where 
incarcerated people in Maryland are from.  
 
Prior to this report, there has never been a 
discussion of the state‐wide geographic 
distribution of the places people incarcerated 
in Maryland state prisons were from because 
the data did not exist in a public form until 
2011.  
The information in this report is based on the 
adjusted Maryland redistricting data, released 
by the Maryland Department of Planning31 that 

contains the state’s entire population with the 
people incarcerated in state prisons reallocated 
to their home addresses. The Prison Policy 
Initiative retained Demographer Bill Cooper to 
subtract this adjusted data from the original 
Census Bureau redistricting data (PL94‐171) to 
produce a file that shows the home residences of 
incarcerated people at the block level, state‐
wide.32 The Prison Policy Initiative then 
aggregated this data into each of the geography 
unit levels used in this report. See the side bar 
on page 8 for a full list. 
  
The maps and tables in this report show the 
home addresses of people incarcerated in 
Maryland in 2010. While the maps in this report 
focus on Baltimore, the data that was analyzed 
represents a variety of geographic designations, 
including legislative districts, counties and 
cities, or communities within these cities. 
 
What are Baltimore City’s Community 
Statistical Areas? 
For the purposes of this report, the 55 
“Community Statistical Areas” (CSAs) that 
together cover Baltimore City were used as the 
geographical units to represent “communities.” 
The researchers made this choice for reasons 
that relate to the ability to analyze the data and 
represent it in ways to explore the impact of 
incarceration and other policy choices in 
Maryland.   
 
The 55 CSAs are a more meaningful 
representation of Baltimore’s communities than 
other kinds of geographies (for example, 
residential neighborhood associations). The 
CSAs solve a difficult problem for people who 
study communities: neighborhoods are fluid, 
and statistical data is often collected in ways that 
are incompatible with shifting or ill‐defined 
boundaries. For example, the City of Baltimore 
has over 270 neighborhoods, but the boundaries 
of those neighborhoods do not necessarily 
match the Census Bureau’s community 
boundaries. To address this problem, the 
Baltimore Data Collaborative and the Baltimore 
City Department of Planning created the 55 

THE RIGHT INVESTMENT?

CSAs. These 55 units combine Census Bureau 
data together in ways that better match 
Baltimore’s understanding of community 
boundaries, and are used in social planning.  
 
Measures of Community Well‐Being: 
Baltimore Neighborhood Indicators Alliance 
This report was primarily designed to show, for 
the first time, where incarcerated people in 
Maryland are from, and how much money 
taxpayers spend on their incarceration. 
However, using the 55 CSAs also provides the 
opportunity to combine incarceration data with 
other information to give more insight into the 
communities where most Baltimore residents 
are from. 
 
The Baltimore Neighborhood Indicators 
Alliance‐Jacob France Institute at the University 
of Baltimore (known as BNIA‐JFI) collects over 
150 social indicators about each Community 
Statistical Area, publishes this information 
online, and works with community 
organizations and government to use this 
information to improve policy in Baltimore. This 
report uses only 12 of the 150 available 
indicators.33  
 
By adding social indicators from BNIA this 
report shows that the communities that have 
many people in prison are facing other 
challenges. Knowing how communities fair on 
indicators of community well‐being in the places 
where taxpayers spend the most money on 
incarceration can help policymakers make better 
choices.34  This information can help focus 
policymakers on the kind of investments they 
can make to help improve public safety, and 
reduce the likelihood a person will become 
involved in the justice system. 
 
The resulting analysis suggests that by 
continuing to send so many people from 
Baltimore to prison, Maryland is missing 
opportunities to direct public investments 
toward challenged communities that are falling 
behind other parts of Baltimore. 
 

28

Estimates of the number of people in jail from 
Baltimore communities  
This report does not include an in‐depth 
discussion of people incarcerated in local jails or 
federal prisons, because that data was not 
available.35 Because there is a current and 
pressing policy debate over how taxpayer 
dollars are used for pretrial jail detention in 
Baltimore, this report offers an estimate in 
Appendix B of how many people in Baltimore 
communities might be incarcerated in the 
Baltimore City Detention Center.   
 
Estimates of the cost of incarceration in 
Maryland 
Nationally, more than $82 billion36 is spent on 
corrections each year, and with policy debates 
focused on how public resources should be 
spent to develop the most effective public safety 
policies, how the cost of incarceration is 
projected is a critical and controversial issue.  
 
The cost of incarcerating a single person from a 
community was estimated by multiplying a 
figure ($37,200) provided by the Department of 
Legislative Services and used in the 2014 
Maryland legislative session in their Fiscal and 
Policy notes on legislative initiatives that might 
affect corrections. The Department of Legislative 
Services notes, “persons serving a sentencing 
longer than 18 months are incarcerated in State 
correctional facilities.  Currently, the average total 
cost per inmate, including overhead, is estimated to 
be $3,100 a month.” Each legislative session, the 
Department of Legislative Services receives 
these monthly costs directly from the Maryland 
Department of Public Safety and Correctional 
Services.  
 
29T

29T58

29T58

29T58

Along with the total monthly expenditure that 
includes overhead, the Department of 
Legislative Services also includes separate 
estimates that exclude overhead ($735 per 
month) and health care ($185 per month). 37 
These additional figures are provided to 
legislators based on the assumption that a 
change in policy that affects the incarceration of 
58T

58T

58T

29

JUSTICE POLICY INSTITUTE & PRISON POLICY INITIATIVE

a few people—such as a change in sentencing 
that reduces incarceration in such a small way 
that a facility is not likely to close—would save 
less money than more significant, wholesale 
reform.  
 
The annualized average cost per person 
including overhead and health care—rounded 
down to the nearest thousand— is used in this 
report because the findings speak to a need for 
wholesale sentencing and corrections reform. 
Such reform would lead to the closure of prisons 
and to the kind of cost savings that allow for a 
significant redirection of funds to address some 
of the most pressing challenges in Baltimore’s 
high incarceration communities. Rather than be 
limited by marginal changes to the system, this 
report portrays the data in a way that wholesale 
reform should be considered.   
 
In addition, the annual total cost of incarcerating 
a person in 2014 used in this report is within the 
range of recently published figures by the Vera 
Institute of Justice and the former Secretary of 
the Department of Public Safety and 
Correctional Services.38 
 
58T

58T

58T

Indicators of Lost
Opportunity
Unemployment and Commute Time 
Employment is critical to helping people 
succeed and build strong, safe communities.39 
Overall, employment in Baltimore City 
continues to lag behind the rest of the state of 
Maryland (average 5.9 percent in 2014),40 even 
though it has fallen from a recent average high 
of 11.8 percent in 2010 to 8.7 percent in 2014.41 
African Americans and Latinos are more likely 
to be unemployed than whites. In 2012, the 
unemployment rate for whites in Maryland was 
5.6 percent, while for African Americans it was 
almost twice as high at 10.2 percent.42  
 
A long commute time is a manifestation of the 
lack of opportunity in a particular community 
and the challenges that an individual may have 

accessing jobs. According to the Baltimore 
Regional Talent Development Pipeline Study, 85 
percent of all new jobs that will be created 
between 2012 and 2020 will be outside of 
Baltimore City43 in regions that are not easily 
accessible by public transportation. The failure 
to develop job opportunities in all of Baltimore’s 
communities will result in an increase in travel 
times for more people and increase the barriers 
to getting and keeping employment while 
preserving a role in family and community life.  
 
The percent of population aged 16‐64 not 
employed44 and percent of the employed 
population with travel time to work of 45 
minutes or more are two indicators used to 
explore the dimensions of employment 
challenges among those places that taxpayers 
spend the most money to incarcerate people 
from a community. 
  
Income and Public Assistance  
Simply having a job is not enough; a person 
must be able to earn enough money to support a 
family. This is a particular challenge in cities 
where any economic growth coincides with an 
increase in the cost of basic expenses like 
housing, transportation, and other living 
expenses. In particular, new residents with 
higher incomes have moved in and changed the 
landscape of the Inner Harbor and Downtown, 
while communities only a short distance away 
continue to struggle with unemployment and 
low wages. 
 
Public support can provide income where the 
economy fails to produce enough good jobs, but 
ideally families will have access to employment 
with adequate wages. Research has shown little 
evidence that people who receive TANF are 
encouraged to progress in their careers, often 
placed in jobs with few, if any opportunities, to 
also participate in job training or educational 
opportunities that would lead to promotion.45 
 
Median household income and the percent of 
families receiving TANF are two indicators 
used to show the challenges that high 

THE RIGHT INVESTMENT?

incarceration communities face in generating 
and sustaining the income levels needed to 
support a strong, healthy community.  
 
Educational Attainment  
Education has a variety of benefits related to 
health, civic engagement, and social 
engagement,46 but perhaps most importantly, 
educational attainment is the foundation for 
access to well‐paying employment. For people 
returning to the community from prison, 
education and job training is particularly 
important: nationally, about two‐thirds of 
people in prison do not have a high school 
diploma.47 Education is increasingly important 
in the job market. In Baltimore City, over half of 
the new jobs that will be created between 2012 
and 2020 will require more than a high school 
diploma.48 In addition, the jobs that don’t 
require at least some college pay less than a 
living wage.49 Job training also seems out of 
reach to the one‐third of Baltimore area job 
seekers who report that they are unable to afford 
even professional clothes or work boots.50  
 
The indicators, percent of the population 25 
years and over with less than a high school 
diploma or GED and percent of 9th to 12th grade 
students that are chronically absent, are the 
two indicators indicative of the high 
incarceration communities’ challenges related to 
educational attainment.  
 
Addiction  
Challenges with drugs can impede a person’s 
ability to succeed, as well as negatively impact a 
whole community. Research shows that 
substance abuse can interfere with a person’s 
ability to get and keep a job, maintain housing, 
get an education, and stay out of prison.51 For 
people coming out of prison who are from 
Baltimore, these challenges are particularly 
salient: the justice system alone accounts for 30 
percent of admissions to treatment.52 The 
availability of treatment outside of the criminal 
justice system is not only important for keeping 
people from becoming involved in the justice 
system from the outset, but also for ensuring 

30

that people returning to the community from 
prison do not return to the system.53 Addiction 
and access to treatment outside the justice 
system has played a role in Maryland’s prison 
reform challenges.54 
 
The availability of help in drug‐related 
emergencies is an important public health 
service in Baltimore City. If there is a drug 
problem in their community that warrants it, 
people should make an emergency call. In the 
absence of data about the number of people in 
need of treatment in Baltimore City across 
communities, this report uses the number of 
narcotics calls for service per 1,000 residents as 
a proxy indicator for the drug treatment 
challenge facing these Baltimore communities.   
 
Physical Health 
Good physical health is critical to holding a job 
or attending school regularly.55 Coupled with 
other logistical barriers to work, like a long 
commute time, for example, someone with a 
health condition is unlikely to be able to work. 
The Urban Institute reports work‐limiting 
physical and behavioral health as the second 
most cited barrier to work after lack of 
education.56  
 
Because people who have a shorter lifespan are 
less likely to be in good health, this report uses 
mortality for young people ages 15‐24 and 
average life expectancy as indicators of good 
health. Combined with incarceration and cost 
data, it is possible to see how high incarceration 
communities fair in supporting the good health 
of their residents.  
 
Housing 
Stable, quality housing supports a variety of 
other activities, such as working, going to 
school, and maintaining good health. But 
housing is out of reach for many residents of 
Baltimore communities, which relates to the 
income level, job opportunities, and educational 
attainment of the residents. In Baltimore City in 
December 2014, average monthly rents for a 
one‐bedroom apartment were $1,024, 

31

JUSTICE POLICY INSTITUTE & PRISON POLICY INITIATIVE

amounting to a yearly total of $12,288,57 but the 
median income in some communities in 
Baltimore is as low as $13,500.  
 
Baltimore City anticipates continued economic 
development that will add housing stock to 
some parts of the City, while others will 
continue to struggle with vacant or abandoned 
houses and dilapidated housing. The presence 
of empty and abandoned houses has been found 
to be correlated with feelings of community 
disassociation. Communities that are the least 
cohesive tend to have higher levels of 
incarceration and lower levels of employment 
and education.58  
 
Quality housing is just as important as 
availability of housing. Lead is often found in 
lower‐quality, deteriorating housing59 and has 
been found to affect a child’s brain 
development, negatively impacting the ability to 
learn and interact with others.60 Elevated blood‐
lead levels have been found to be correlated 
with involvement in the justice system, and can 
have serious and long‐term consequences for 
young people throughout their lifetime.61  
 
Percentage of residential properties that are 
vacant and abandoned and percent of children 
age 0‐6 with elevated blood‐lead levels are 
indicators of unavailable or poor‐quality 
housing used to show the challenge that high 
incarceration communities face housing their 
residents.  
 
Public safety 
Many factors influence crime rates. One factor is 
related to the sense that community members 
trust one another and have a sense of unity, both 
of which are formed over long periods of time. 
Neighborhoods in which many people move or 
are removed—sent to prison, for example—
struggle to form the bonds that have a way of 
insulating a community from crime.62 In 
addition, removing people from their 
communities and sending them to prison further 
erodes public safety by creating a population of 
“custodial citizens” who are not invested in 

their communities because they believe the 
government does not care about them.63 
Incarceration fuels a cycle of feelings of neglect, 
community disassociation, and crime. As Vesla 
Weaver, professor at Yale University observes in 
a recent opinion in the Baltimore Sun: “The 
expansion of criminal justice into the 
neighborhoods of our fellow citizens here in 
Baltimore and elsewhere is not just an expensive 
way to deal with crime. It destabilizes 
communities socially and economically.” 64   
 
Research in Maryland and Baltimore City 
confirms these findings, showing that the 
communities that saw the highest rates of justice 
involvement continued to see high rates of 
violent crime65—an indicator that simply locking 
more people up does not necessarily make a 
community safer. 
 
To provide additional context related to the 
safety and well‐being of high incarceration 
communities, the report includes the indicator, 
violent crime rates per 1,000 residents. 
 
Limitations related to social indicators 
The indicators included here suggest that the 
same communities that have the most people in 
prison also struggle with employment, 
education, addiction, housing, health, and 
public safety.   
 
Overall, these associations appear to grow 
stronger as the number of people in prison in a 
community increases. Ten out of 12 indicators in 
this analysis worsened as the number of people 
in prison increased in the 25 high incarceration 
communities, the 5 “higher” incarceration 
communities, and the “highest” incarceration 
community.66  
 
The data presented in the following maps and 
tables represents a first step towards concretely 
understanding what is happening in high 
incarceration communities, and what may, or 
may not be the implications of correctional 
investment on social policy. However, this 
analysis included no tests of significance, 

THE RIGHT INVESTMENT?

therefore any associations between the 
indicators mentioned in this report cannot be 
considered statistically significant or any 
evidence of causation.  
 
Nonetheless, the challenges that Baltimore City 
communities face increases in intensity the more 
people that are in prison. Even without 
sophisticated statistical analyses, it is apparent 

32

that incarceration is doing little to improve 
community well‐being. Maryland taxpayers, 
policymakers, and stakeholders would do well 
to reassess spending priorities so that any 
community in Baltimore City, or otherwise, has 
the resources and opportunities it needs to help 
residents get and keep jobs, earn enough for a 
sustainable life, succeed in school, stay healthy, 
and stay safe.

33

JUSTICE POLICY INSTITUTE & PRISON POLICY INITIATIVE

APPENDIX B:

Additional Data
Baltimore City Community Prison and Jail Population
Census
population,
2010

Number of
people in
state prison,
2010

Incarceration
rate per
100,000 (state
prison only)

Estimated
annual cost to
incarcerate
residents in
state prison

Jail
population
(estimated),
2010

Combined
prison and
jail
population
(estimated),
2010

Incarceration
rate per
100,000
(state prison
and city jail)

Allendale/Irvington/S. Hilton

16,217

280

1,727

$10,360,000

129

409

2,521

Beechfield/Ten Hills/West Hills

12,264

96

783

$3,552,000

44

140

1,143

Belair-Edison

17,416

252

1,447

$9,324,000

116

368

2,113

Brooklyn/Curtis Bay/Hawkins Point

14,243

129

906

$4,773,000

59

188

1,322

Canton

8,100

21

259

$777,000

10

31

379

Cedonia/Frankford

23,557

219

930

$8,103,000

101

320

1,357

Cherry Hill

8,202

154

1,878

$5,698,000

71

225

2,741

Chinquapin Park/Belvedere

7,756

70

903

$2,590,000

32

102

1,318

Claremont/Armistead

8,231

88

1,069

$3,256,000

40

128

1,561

Clifton-Berea

9,874

298

3,018

$11,026,000

137

435

4,406

Cross-Country/Cheswolde

13,034

14

107

$518,000

6

20

157

Dickeyville/Franklintown

4,101

41

1,000

$1,517,000

19

60

1,460

Dorchester/Ashburton

11,786

155

1,315

$5,735,000

71

226

1,920

Downtown/Seton Hill

6,446

44

683

$1,628,000

20

64

997

Edmondson Village

7,900

134

1,696

$4,958,000

62

196

2,476

Fells Point

9,039

33

365

$1,221,000

15

48

533

Forest Park/Walbrook

9,849

167

1,696

$6,179,000

77

244

2,476

Glen-Fallstaff

14,914

88

590

$3,256,000

40

128

861

Community Statistical Area (CSA)

THE RIGHT INVESTMENT?

34

Baltimore City Community Prison and Jail Population
Census
population,
2010

Number of
people in
state prison,
2010

Incarceration
rate per
100,000 (state
prison only)

Estimated
annual cost to
incarcerate
residents in
state prison

Jail
population
(estimated),
2010

Combined
prison and
jail
population
(estimated),
2010

Incarceration
rate per
100,000
(state prison
and city jail)

Greater Charles Village/Barclay

16,391

130

793

$4,810,000

60

190

1,158

Greater Govans

10,681

150

1,404

$5,550,000

69

219

2,050

Greater Mondawmin

9,322

172

1,845

$6,364,000

79

251

2,694

Greater Roland Park/Poplar Hill

7,377

3

41

$111,000

1

4

59

Greater Rosemont

19,259

411

2,134

$15,207,000

189

600

3,116

Greenmount East

8,184

258

3,152

$9,546,000

119

377

4,603

Hamilton

13,002

66

508

$2,442,000

30

96

741

Harbor East/Little Italy

5,407

52

962

$1,924,000

24

76

1,404

Harford/Echodale

16,839

80

475

$2,960,000

37

117

694

Highlandtown

7,250

49

676

$1,813,000

23

72

987

Howard Park/West Arlington

10,873

125

1,150

$4,625,000

58

183

1,678

Inner Harbor/Federal Hill

12,855

34

264

$1,258,000

16

50

386

Lauraville

12,273

73

595

$2,701,000

34

107

868

Loch Raven

15,311

94

614

$3,478,000

43

137

896

Madison/East End

7,781

281

3,611

$10,397,000

129

410

5,273

Medfield/Hampden/Woodberry/Remington

17,388

82

472

$3,034,000

38

120

689

Midtown

15,020

65

433

$2,405,000

30

95

632

Midway/Coldstream

9,624

290

3,013

$10,730,000

133

423

4,399

Morrell Park/Violetville

8,964

52

580

$1,924,000

24

76

847

Mount Washington/Coldspring

5,168

4

77

$148,000

2

6

113

North Baltimore/Guilford/Homeland

17,464

15

86

$555,000

7

22

125

Northwood

16,643

145

871

$5,365,000

67

212

1,272

Community Statistical Area (CSA)

35

JUSTICE POLICY INSTITUTE & PRISON POLICY INITIATIVE

Baltimore City Community Prison and Jail Population
Census
population,
2010

Number of
people in
state prison,
2010

Incarceration
rate per
100,000 (state
prison only)

Estimated
annual cost to
incarcerate
residents in
state prison

Jail
population
(estimated),
2010

Combined
prison and
jail
population
(estimated),
2010

Incarceration
rate per
100,000
(state prison
and city jail)

Oldtown/Middle East

10,021

244

2,435

$9,028,000

112

356

3,555

Orangeville/East Highlandtown

9,131

68

745

$2,516,000

31

99

1,087

Patterson Park North & East

14,549

191

1,313

$7,067,000

88

279

1,917

Penn North/Reservoir Hill

9,668

206

2,131

$7,622,000

95

301

3,111

Pimlico/Arlington/Hilltop

11,816

241

2,040

$8,917,000

111

352

2,978

Poppleton/The Terraces/Hollins Market

5,086

107

2,104

$3,959,000

49

156

3,072

Sandtown-Winchester/Harlem Park

14,896

458

3,075

$16,946,000

211

669

4,489

South Baltimore

6,406

18

281

$666,000

8

26

410

Southeastern

6,260

73

1,166

$2,701,000

34

107

1,703

Southern Park Heights

13,284

294

2,213

$10,878,000

135

429

3,231

Southwest Baltimore

17,885

413

2,309

$15,281,000

190

603

3,371

The Waverlies

7,753

109

1,406

$4,033,000

50

159

2,053

Upton/Druid Heights

10,342

269

2,601

$9,953,000

124

393

3,798

Washington Village/Pigtown

5,503

67

1,218

$2,479,000

31

98

1,778

Westport/Mount Winans/Lakeland

7,119

120

1,686

$4,440,000

55

175

2,461

Community Statistical Area (CSA)

THE RIGHT INVESTMENT?

36

Investments in Opportunity: Number of people that could be served
with tax dollars spent on incarceration
Number that could be served with for $37,000

Community Statistical Area (CSA)

Number of
people in
state prison,
2010

Estimated
annual cost to
incarcerate
residents in
state prison

Drug treatment
for adults
($4,494) –
Adults

Employment
training
($5,000) People

Housing per
month
($1,252) Families

GED course
($1,000) Students

Allendale/Irvington/S. Hilton

280

$10,360,000

2,305

2,072

8,275

10,360

Beechfield/Ten Hills/West Hills

96

$3,552,000

790

710

2,837

3,552

Belair-Edison

252

$9,324,000

2,075

1,865

7,447

9,324

Brooklyn/Curtis Bay/Hawkins Point

129

$4,773,000

1,062

955

3,812

4,773

Canton

21

$777,000

173

155

621

777

Cedonia/Frankford

219

$8,103,000

1,803

1,621

6,472

8,103

Cherry Hill

154

$5,698,000

1,268

1,140

4,551

5,698

Chinquapin Park/Belvedere

70

$2,590,000

576

518

2,069

2,590

Claremont/Armistead

88

$3,256,000

725

651

2,601

3,256

Clifton-Berea

298

$11,026,000

2,453

2,205

8,807

11,026

Cross-Country/Cheswolde

14

$518,000

115

104

414

518

Dickeyville/Franklintown

41

$1,517,000

338

303

1,212

1,517

Dorchester/Ashburton

155

$5,735,000

1,276

1,147

4,581

5,735

Downtown/Seton Hill

44

$1,628,000

362

326

1,300

1,628

Edmondson Village

134

$4,958,000

1,103

992

3,960

4,958

Fells Point

33

$1,221,000

272

244

975

1,221

Forest Park/Walbrook

167

$6,179,000

1,375

1,236

4,935

6,179

Glen-Fallstaff

88

$3,256,000

725

651

2,601

3,256

Greater Charles Village/Barclay

130

$4,810,000

1,070

962

3,842

4,810

37

JUSTICE POLICY INSTITUTE & PRISON POLICY INITIATIVE

Investments in Opportunity: Number of people that could be served
with tax dollars spent on incarceration
Number that could be served with for $37,000

Community Statistical Area (CSA)

Number of
people in
state prison,
2010

Estimated
annual cost to
incarcerate
residents in
state prison

Drug treatment
for adults
($4,494) –
Adults

Employment
training
($5,000) People

Housing per
month
($1,252) Families

GED course
($1,000) Students

Greater Govans

150

$5,550,000

1,235

1,110

4,433

5,550

Greater Mondawmin

172

$6,364,000

1,416

1,273

5,083

6,364

Greater Roland Park/Poplar Hill

3

$111,000

25

22

89

111

Greater Rosemont

411

$15,207,000

3,384

3,041

12,146

15,207

Greenmount East

258

$9,546,000

2,124

1,909

7,625

9,546

Hamilton

66

$2,442,000

543

488

1,950

2,442

Harbor East/Little Italy

52

$1,924,000

428

385

1,537

1,924

Harford/Echodale

80

$2,960,000

659

592

2,364

2,960

Highlandtown

49

$1,813,000

403

363

1,448

1,813

Howard Park/West Arlington

125

$4,625,000

1,029

925

3,694

4,625

Inner Harbor/Federal Hill

34

$1,258,000

280

252

1,005

1,258

Lauraville

73

$2,701,000

601

540

2,157

2,701

Loch Raven

94

$3,478,000

774

696

2,778

3,478

Madison/East End

281

$10,397,000

2,314

2,079

8,304

10,397

Medfield/Hampden/Woodberry/Remington

82

$3,034,000

675

607

2,423

3,034

Midtown

65

$2,405,000

535

481

1,921

2,405

Midway/Coldstream

290

$10,730,000

2,388

2,146

8,570

10,730

Morrell Park/Violetville

52

$1,924,000

428

385

1,537

1,924

Mount Washington/Coldspring

4

$148,000

33

30

118

148

THE RIGHT INVESTMENT?

38

Investments in Opportunity: Number of people that could be served
with tax dollars spent on incarceration
Number that could be served with for $37,000

Community Statistical Area (CSA)

Number of
people in
state prison,
2010

Estimated
annual cost to
incarcerate
residents in
state prison

Drug treatment
for adults
($4,494) –
Adults

Employment
training
($5,000) People

Housing per
month
($1,252) Families

GED course
($1,000) Students

North Baltimore/Guilford/Homeland

15

$555,000

123

111

443

555

Northwood

145

$5,365,000

1,194

1,073

4,285

5,365

Oldtown/Middle East

244

$9,028,000

2,009

1,806

7,211

9,028

Orangeville/East Highlandtown

68

$2,516,000

560

503

2,010

2,516

Patterson Park North & East

191

$7,067,000

1,573

1,413

5,645

7,067

Penn North/Reservoir Hill

206

$7,622,000

1,696

1,524

6,088

7,622

Pimlico/Arlington/Hilltop

241

$8,917,000

1,984

1,783

7,122

8,917

Poppleton/The Terraces/Hollins Market

107

$3,959,000

881

792

3,162

3,959

Sandtown-Winchester/Harlem Park

458

$16,946,000

3,771

3,389

13,535

16,946

South Baltimore

18

$666,000

148

133

532

666

Southeastern

73

$2,701,000

601

540

2,157

2,701

Southern Park Heights

294

$10,878,000

2,421

2,176

8,688

10,878

Southwest Baltimore

413

$15,281,000

3,400

3,056

12,205

15,281

The Waverlies

109

$4,033,000

897

807

3,221

4,033

Upton/Druid Heights

269

$9,953,000

2,215

1,991

7,950

9,953

Washington Village/Pigtown

67

$2,479,000

552

496

1,980

2,479

Westport/Mount Winans/Lakeland

120

$4,440,000

988

888

3,546

4,440

39

JUSTICE POLICY INSTITUTE & PRISON POLICY INITIATIVE

Cities and Towns
Select Cities and Towns

Census
population,
2010

Number of
people in
state prison

Incarceration
rate per
100,000

Select Cities and
Towns

Census
population,
2010

Number of
people in
state prison

Incarceration
rate per
100,000

Aberdeen

14,959

105

702

Hyattsville

17,557

15

85

Accident

325

1

308

Indian Head

3,844

21

546

Annapolis

38,394

152

396

Keedysville

1,152

2

174

Baltimore

620,961

7,795

1,255

Kensington

2,213

1

45

Barclay

120

1

833

Kitzmiller

321

0

0

Barnesville

172

0

0

La Plata

8,753

23

263

Barton

457

0

0

Landover Hills

1,687

5

296

Bel Air

10,120

13

128

Laurel

25,115

26

104

Berlin

4,485

11

245

Laytonsville

353

0

0

Berwyn Heights

3,123

1

32

Leonardtown

2,930

9

307

Betterton

345

1

290

Loch Lynn Heights

552

0

0

Bladensburg

9,148

21

230

Lonaconing

1,214

5

412

Boonsboro

3,336

2

60

Luke

65

0

0

Bowie

54,727

36

66

Manchester

4,808

6

125

Brentwood

3,046

7

230

Mardela Springs

347

2

576

Brookeville

134

0

0

Martin's Additions

933

0

0

Brookview

60

0

0

Marydel

141

1

709

Brunswick

5,870

7

119

Middletown

4,136

0

0

Burkittsville

151

0

0

Midland

446

0

0

Cambridge

12,326

114

925

Millington

642

2

312

Capitol Heights

4,337

14

323

Morningside

2,015

2

99

Cecilton

663

1

151

Mount Airy

9,288

5

54

Centreville

4,285

7

163

Mount Rainier

8,080

21

260

THE RIGHT INVESTMENT?

40

Cities and Towns
Select Cities and Towns

Census
population,
2010

Number of
people in
state prison

Incarceration
rate per
100,000

Select Cities and
Towns

Census
population,
2010

Number of
people in
state prison

Incarceration
rate per
100,000

Charlestown

1,183

0

0

Mountain Lake Park

2,092

3

143

Chesapeake Beach

5,753

11

191

Myersville

1,626

0

0

Chesapeake City

673

2

297

New Carrollton

12,135

27

222

Chestertown

5,252

29

552

New Market

656

0

0

Cheverly

6,173

10

162

New Windsor

1,396

3

215

Chevy Chase

2,824

0

0

North Beach

1,978

1

51

Chevy Chase Section Five

658

0

0

North Brentwood

517

3

580

Chevy Chase Section Three

760

0

0

North Chevy Chase

519

0

0

Chevy Chase View

920

0

0

North East

3,572

7

196

Chevy Chase Village

1,953

0

0

Oakland

1,925

8

416

Church Creek

125

0

0

Ocean City

7,102

8

113

Church Hill

745

3

403

Oxford

651

0

0

Clear Spring

358

0

0

Perryville

4,361

4

92

College Park

30,413

14

46

Pittsville

1,417

4

282

Colmar Manor

1,404

3

214

Pocomoke City

4,184

16

382

Cottage City

1,305

3

230

Poolesville

4,883

3

61

Crisfield

2,726

20

734

Port Deposit

653

2

306

Cumberland

20,859

70

336

Port Tobacco Village

13

0

0

Deer Park

399

0

0

Preston

719

0

0

Delmar

3,003

10

333

Princess Anne

3,290

27

821

Denton

4,418

18

407

Queen Anne

222

1

450

District Heights

5,837

25

428

Queenstown

664

0

0

Eagle Harbor

63

0

0

Ridgely

1,639

9

549

41

JUSTICE POLICY INSTITUTE & PRISON POLICY INITIATIVE

Cities and Towns
Select Cities and Towns

Census
population,
2010

Number of
people in
state prison

Incarceration
rate per
100,000

Select Cities and
Towns

Census
population,
2010

Number of
people in
state prison

Incarceration
rate per
100,000

East New Market

400

1

250

Rising Sun

2,781

8

288

Easton

15,945

71

445

Riverdale Park

6,956

6

86

Edmonston

1,445

2

138

Rock Hall

1,310

2

153

Eldorado

59

0

0

Rockville

61,209

32

52

Elkton

15,443

40

259

Rosemont

294

0

0

Emmitsburg

2,814

4

142

Salisbury

30,343

264

870

Fairmount Heights

1,494

9

602

Seat Pleasant

4,542

26

572

Federalsburg

2,739

17

621

Secretary

535

0

0

Forest Heights

2,447

16

654

Sharpsburg

705

0

0

Frederick

65,239

160

245

Sharptown

651

0

0

Friendsville

491

0

0

Smithsburg

2,975

2

67

Frostburg

9,002

4

44

Snow Hill

2,103

7

333

Fruitland

4,866

25

514

Somerset

1,216

0

0

Funkstown

904

2

221

St. Michaels

1,029

4

389

Gaithersburg

59,933

55

92

Sudlersville

497

1

201

Galena

612

1

163

Sykesville

4,436

1

23

Galestown

138

0

0

Takoma Park

16,715

14

84

Garrett Park

992

0

0

Taneytown

6,728

16

238

Glen Echo

255

1

392

Templeville

138

0

0

Glenarden

6,000

34

567

Thurmont

6,170

4

65

Goldsboro

246

0

0

Trappe

1,077

3

279

Grantsville

766

1

131

Union Bridge

975

1

103

Greenbelt

23,068

29

126

University Park

2,548

0

0

THE RIGHT INVESTMENT?

42

Cities and Towns
Select Cities and Towns

Census
population,
2010

Number of
people in
state prison

Incarceration
rate per
100,000

Select Cities and
Towns

Census
population,
2010

Number of
people in
state prison

Incarceration
rate per
100,000

Greensboro

1,931

7

363

Upper Marlboro

631

2

317

Hagerstown

39,662

410

1,034

Vienna

271

1

369

Hampstead

6,323

4

63

Walkersville

5,800

6

103

Hancock

1,545

5

324

Washington Grove

555

0

0

Havre de Grace

12,952

53

409

Westernport

1,888

0

0

Hebron

1,084

6

554

Westminster

18,590

53

285

Henderson

146

0

0

Willards

958

1

104

Highland Beach

96

0

0

Williamsport

2,137

4

187

Hillsboro

161

0

0

Woodsboro

1,141

1

88

Hurlock

2,092

11

526

43

 

JUSTICE POLICY INSTITUTE & PRISON POLICY INITIATIVE

County

Census population, 2010

Number of people in state
prison, 2010

Incarceration
rate per 100,000

Allegany

75,087

103

137

Anne Arundel

537,656

777

145

Baltimore County

805,029

2022

251

Baltimore City

620,961

7795

1,255

Calvert

88,737

166

187

Caroline

33,066

111

336

Carroll

167,134

207

124

Cecil

101,108

179

177

Charles

146,551

383

261

Dorchester

32,618

166

509

Frederick

233,385

274

117

Garrett

30,097

27

90

Harford

244,826

568

232

Howard

287,085

172

60

Kent

20,197

69

342

Montgomery

971,777

572

59

Prince George's

863,420

1701

197

Queen Anne's

47,798

101

211

Somerset

26,470

102

385

St. Mary's

105,151

206

196

Talbot

37,782

108

286

Washington

147,430

535

363

Wicomico

98,733

540

547

Worcester

51,454

94

183

THE RIGHT INVESTMENT?

 

Baltimore City Council Districts
Council members serving as of January 2015

 

City Council
District

City Council
Representative

Number of people in state
prison, 2010

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

James B. Kraft

314
393
273
317
300
704
741

8
9
10
11
12
13
14

Helen Holton
William Welch

Brandon M. Scott
Robert Curran
Bill Henry
Rochelle Spector
Sharon Green Middleton
Nick Mosby

Edward Reisinger
Eric Costello
Carl Stokes
Warren Branch
Mary Pat Clark

554
888
497
709
784
904
417

44

45

JUSTICE POLICY INSTITUTE & PRISON POLICY INITIATIVE

Maryland Senate Districts
Senators serving in the 2015 Maryland legislative session as of February 23, 2015
Senate
District

Senator Name

Number of people
in state prison,
2010

Senate
District

Senator Name

Number of people
in state prison,
2010

1

George C. Edwards

157

25

Ulysses Currie

297

2

Andrew Serafini

508

26

C. Anthony Muse

278

3

Ronald N. Young

195

27

Thomas V. Mike Miller, Jr.

234

4

Michael J. Hough

89

28

Thomas M. Middleton

336

5

Justin D. Ready

177

29

Stephen Waugh

253

6

Johnny Ray Salling

591

30

John C. Astle

225

7

J.B. Jennings

244

31

Bryan W. Simonaire

252

8

Katherine A. Klausmeier

242

32

James E. DeGrange, Sr.

181

9

Gail H. Bates

43

33

Edward R. Reilly

90

10

Delores G. Kelley

312

34

Bob Cassilly

390

11

Robert A. (Bobby) Zirkin

125

35

H. Wayne Norman, Jr.

227

12

Edward J. Kasemeyer

222

36

Stephen S. Hershey, Jr.

302

13

Guy Guzzone

97

37

Adelaide C. Eckardt

726

14

Karen S. Montgomery

74

38

James N. Mathias, Jr.

328

15

Brian J. Feldman

45

39

Nancy J. King

118

16

Susan C. Lee

4

40

Catherine E. Pugh

1,855

17

Cheryl Kagan

91

41

Lisa A. Gladden

1,185

18

Richard S. Madaleno, Jr.

74

42

James Brochin

93

19

Roger Manno

71

43

Joan Carter Conway

1,096

20

Jamin B. (Jamie) Raskin

95

44

Shirley Nathan-Pulliam

1,167

21

James C. Rosapepe

108

45

Nathaniel J. McFadden

1,779

22

Paul G. Pinsky

215

46

William C. Ferguson IV

1,031

23

Douglas J. J. Peters

122

47

Victor R. Ramirez

294

24

Joanne C. Benson

348

THE RIGHT INVESTMENT?

Maryland House of Delegates Districts
Delegates serving in the 2015 Maryland legislative session, as of February 23, 2015
House District
(2012)

Delegate Name

Number of
people in state
prison, 2010

House District
Delegate Name
(2012)

Number of
people in state
prison, 2010

1A

Wendell R. Beitzel

36

25

Angela Angel

297

1B

Jason C. Buckel

48

25

Dereck E. Davis

297

1C

Mike McKay

73

25

Darryl Barnes

297

2A

Vacant

98

26

Tony Knotts

278

2A

Neil Parrott

98

26

Kriselda Valderrama

278

2B

Brett Wilson

410

26

Jay Walker

278

3A

Carol L. Krimm

169

27A

James E. Proctor, Jr.

89

3A

Karen Lewis Young

169

27B

Michael A. Jackson

51

3B

William "Bill" Folden

26

27C

Mark N. Fisher

94

4

Kathryn L. Afzali

89

28

Sally Y. Jameson

336

4

Kelly M. Schulz

89

28

C.T. Wilson

336

4

David E. Vogt III

89

28

Edith J. Patterson

336

5

Vacant

177

29A

Matt Morgan

73

5

Susan W. Krebs

177

29B

114

5

Haven Shoemaker

177

29C

6

Robin L. Grammer, Jr.

591

30A

Deb Rey
Anthony J. (Tony)
O'Donnell
Michael E. Busch

6

Bob Long

591

30A

Herb McMillan

182

6

Ric Metzgar

591

30B

Seth Howard

43

7

Richard K. Impallaria

244

31A

Edward (Ned) Carey

146

7

Patrick L. McDonough

244

31B

Nicholaus R. Kipke

106

7

Kathy Szeliga

244

31B

Meagan C. Simonaire

106

8

Christian Miele

242

32

Pamela Beidle

181

8

Eric M. Bromwell

242

32

Mark S. Chang

181

8

John W.E. Cluster, Jr.

242

32

Theodore Sophocleus

181

66
182

46

47

JUSTICE POLICY INSTITUTE & PRISON POLICY INITIATIVE

Maryland House of Delegates Districts
Delegates serving in the 2015 Maryland legislative session
House District
(2012)

Delegate Name

Number of
people in state
prison, 2010

House District
Delegate Name
(2012)

Number of
people in state
prison, 2010

9A

Trent Kittleman

33

33

Tony McConkey

90

9A

Warren E. Miller

33

33

Sid Saab

90

9B

Robert "Bob" Flanagan

10

33

Cathy Vitale

90

10

Benjamin Brooks

312

34A

Mary Ann Lisanti

351

10

Adrienne A. Jones

312

34A

Glen Glass

351

10

Hasan "Jay" Jalisi

312

34B

Susan K. McComas

39

11

Shelly Hettleman

125

35A

Kevin Bailey Hornberger

77

11

Dan K. Morhaim

125

35B

Andrew Cassilly

150

11

Dana M. Stein

125

35B

Teresa Reilly

150

12

Eric Ebersole

222

36

Jeff Ghrist

302

12

Terri L. Hill

222

36

Jay Jacobs

302

12

Clarence K. Lam

222

36

Steven J. (Steve) Arentz

302

13

Vanessa Atterbeary

97

37A

Sheree Sample-Hughes

519

13

Shane E. Pendergrass

97

37B

Christopher T. Adams

207

13

Frank S. Turner

97

37B

Johnny Mautz

207

14

Anne R. Kaiser

74

38A

Charles J. Otto

158

14

Eric G. Luedtke

74

38B

Carl Anderton, Jr.

106

14

Craig J. Zucker

74

38C

Mary Beth Carozza

64

15

Kathleen M. Dumais

45

39

Charles Barkley

118

15

David Fraser-Hidalgo

45

39

Kirill Reznik

118

15

Aruna Miller

45

39

Shane Robinson

118

16

C. William Frick

4

40

Frank M. Conaway, Jr.

1855

16

Ariana B. Kelly

4

40

Antonio Hayes

1855

16

Marc Korman

4

40

Barbara Robinson

1855

17

Kumar P. Barve

91

41

Jill P. Carter

1185

THE RIGHT INVESTMENT?

Maryland House of Delegates Districts
Delegates serving in the 2015 Maryland legislative session
House District
(2012)

Delegate Name

Number of
people in state
prison, 2010

House District
Delegate Name
(2012)

Number of
people in state
prison, 2010

17

James W. Gilchrist

91

41

Nathaniel T. Oaks

1185

17

Andrew Platt

91

41

Samuel I. Rosenberg

1185

18

Alfred C. Carr, Jr.

74

42A

Stephen W. Lafferty

25

18

Ana Sol Gutierrez

74

42B

Susan L.M. Aumann

68

18

Jeffery D. Waldstreicher

74

42B

Chris West

68

19

Marice I. Morales

71

43

Curtis Stovall Anderson

1096

19

Bonnie L. Cullison

71

43

Maggie McIntosh

1096

19

Benjamin F. Kramer

71

43

Mary L. Washington

1096

20

Sheila E. Hixson

95

44A

Keith E. Haynes

849

20

David Moon

95

44B

Charles E. Sydnor III

318

20

Will Smith

95

44B

Pat Young

318

21

Benjamin S. Barnes

108

45

Talmadge Branch

1779

21

Barbara A. Frush

108

45

Cheryl D. Glenn

1779

21

Joseline A. Pena-Melnyk

108

45

Cory V. McCray

1779

22

Tawanna P. Gaines

215

46

Luke Clippinger

1031

22

Anne Healey

215

46

Peter A. Hammen

1031

22

Alonzo T. Washington

215

46

Brooke Elizabeth Lierman

1031

23A

Geraldine Valentino-Smith

45

47A

Diana Fennell

245

23B

Joseph F. Vallario, Jr.

77

47A

Jimmy Tarlau

245

23B

Marvin E. Holmes, Jr.

77

47B

Will Campos

49

24

Carolyn J.B. Howard

348

24

Erek Barron

348

24

Michael L. Vaughn

348

48

49

JUSTICE POLICY INSTITUTE & PRISON POLICY INITIATIVE

                                                            
 Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services, p.21, Secretary’s End of Year Report FY2010 (Towson, MD: 
Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services, 2010). 
www.dpscs.state.md.us/publicinfo/publications/pdfs/2010_DPSCS_End_of_Year_Report.pdf 
2 See Appendix B for an explanation of Baltimore’s 55 Community Statistical Areas.  
3 The estimated total cost of incarceration for 25 Community Statistical Areas in Baltimore City is $288 million. Calculated 
using an estimate from the Maryland Department of Legislative Services indicating that it costs $37,200 per year to incarcerate 
one person. An underestimate of $37,000 is used for the purpose of this report. See Appendix B for a longer discussion of the 
estimated cost of incarceration in Maryland. Maryland Department of Legislative Services, Maryland General Assembly, 2014 
Session, HB 104 Fiscal and Social Policy Note: Contraband‐Places of Confinement‐Penalty, 
http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2014rs/fnotes/bil_0004/hb0084.pdf 
4 The Pew Charitable Trusts, “Prison and Crime: A Complex Link,” September 2014. www.pewtrusts.org/en/multimedia/data‐
visualizations/2014/prison‐and‐crime 
5 For example, there are ongoing discussions about building a new, larger jail in Baltimore, which has included a budgetary 
line item. (See Department of Legislative Services, Special Joint Commission on Public Safety and Security in State and Local 
Correctional Facilities, (Annapolis, MD: Maryland Office of Policy Analysis, December 2013). www.wbaltv.com/blob/view/‐
/23438840/data/1/‐/rns7skz/‐/Jail‐complex‐legislative‐recommendations.pdf  
6 Patrick Starkey, Stuck in Place: Urban Neighborhoods and the End of Progress Toward Racial Equality (Chicago: University 
of Chicago Press, 2013). 
7 Elizabeth Kneebone, The Growth and Spread of Concentrated Poverty, 2000 to 2008‐2012 (Washington, DC: Brookings Institute, 
2014). www.brookings.edu/research/interactives/2014/concentrated‐poverty#/M12580  
8 Don Stemen, Reconsidering Incarceration: New Directions for Reducing Crime (New York, NY: Vera Institute of Justice, January 
2007). www.vera.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/veraincarc_vFW2.pdf 
9 Maryland Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation, “Civilian Labor Force, Employment & Unemployment by Place 
of Residence (LAUS) ‐ Maryland,” December 19, 2014, accessed January 20, 2015. 
http://www.dllr.state.md.us/lmi/laus/maryland.shtml 
10 Maryland Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation, “Civilian Labor Force, Employment & Unemployment by Place 
of Residence (LAUS) ‐ Maryland,” December 19, 2014, accessed January 20, 2015. 
http://www.dllr.state.md.us/lmi/laus/maryland.shtml 
11 This indicator was calculated using the BNIA indicator “Percent population 16‐64 employed (2008‐2012). This indicator is 
intended to capture all people who are not working regardless of circumstance or choice.  
12 Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, Education Indicators in Focus (Paris, France: Organisation for 
Economic Cooperation and Development, January 2013). www.oecd.org/education/skills‐beyond‐school/EDIF%202013‐‐
N%C2%B010%20%28eng%29‐‐v9%20FINAL%20bis.pdf  
13 Caroline Wolf Harlow, Education and Correctional Populations (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice 
Statistics, January 2003). www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/ecp.txt 
14 Beth M. Huebner, Drug Abuse, Treatment, and Probationer Recidivism, (Chicago, IL: Illinois Criminal Justice Information 
Authority), 8; Hunger and Homelessness Survey, (Washington, DC: U.S. Conference of Mayors, 2008), 
http://usmayors.org/pressreleases/documents/hungerhomelessnessreport_121208.pdf, 19; Substance Abuse among 12th Grade 
Aged Youths and Drop Out Status, (Washington, DC: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2013) , 
http://archive.samhsa.gov/data/2k13/NSDUH036/SR036SubstanceUseDropouts.htm, 1; National Council on Alcoholism and 
Drug Dependence, “Drugs and the Workplace,” https://ncadd.org/learn‐about‐drugs/workplace. 
15 Rebecca Mitchell and Paul Bates, “Measuring Health‐Related Productivity Loss,” Population Health Management 14, no. 2 
(2011): 93‐98. 
16 Dan Bloom, Pamela Loprest, and Sheila Zedlewski, TANF Recipients with Barriers to Employment (Washington, DC: Urban 
Institute, August 2011). www.urban.org/uploadedpdf/412567‐tanf‐recipients‐with‐barriers‐to‐employment.pdf 
1

 

THE RIGHT INVESTMENT?

50

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    
 Elaine Wedlock, Crime and Cohesive Communities, (London, UK: The Home Office, 2006), 2. 
 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Undated. Lead Awareness Program. www.epa.gov/lead/, accessed August 22, 2007. 
19 Mueller, Elizabeth J., and J. Rosie Tighe. 2007. Making the case for affordable housing: Connecting housing with health and 
education outcomes. Journal of Planning Literature 21(4). 
20 Keith Harries, “Violence Change and Cohort Trajectories: Baltimore Neighborhoods, 1990‐2000”. 
Urban Geography. Vol. 25, p. 16. 2004. 
21The only two indicators which did not increase from the five “higher” to the “highest” incarceration community were 
Mortality by Age 15‐24 years old and Life Expectancy. Please see the table on page 12, “As the number of people in prison 
increases, on average, indicators of community well‐being worsen.”  
22Three of these communities, Edmondson Village ($4,958,000), Greater Charles Village/Barclay, ($4,810,000), and 
Brooklyn/Curtis Bay/Hawkins Point ($4,773,000) each account for “about” $5 million in corrections spending.  
23The five higher incarceration communities ranked 5th through 9th for highest unemployment in Baltimore City.  
24
The five higher incarceration communities had the 6th to the 10th lowest incomes in Baltimore City.
25 Drug Policy in New York: From the Rockefeller Drug Laws to a Health and Public Safety Approach 
Explaining the 2009 Reforms, December, 2009. www.drugpolicy.org/docUploads/ndny_rdlreforms.pdf  
26Right‐on‐Crime, “Right‐on‐Crime: State Initiatives—Texas.” www.rightoncrime.com/reform‐in‐action/state‐initiatives/texas/  
27California Legislative Analysts Office, Initiative Statute (November 2014),  www.lao.ca.gov/ballot/2014/prop‐47‐110414.aspx 
28 Department of Legislative Services, Task Force to Study the Laws and Policies Relating to Representation of Indigent Criminal 
Defendants by the Office of the Public Defender – Final Report (Annapolis, MD: Maryland Office of Policy Analysis, December 13, 
2013), pgs. 6‐7. http://dls.state.md.us/data/polanasubare/polanasubare_coucrijusncivmat/Task‐Force‐To‐Study‐The‐Laws‐and‐
Policies‐Relating‐To‐Representation‐of‐Indigent‐Criminal‐Defendants.pdf  
29 People in prison remain residents of their home districts, but at redistricting time, they are assigned to the district where 
they are incarcerated. This skewed population assignment means that the more people in prison that are counted in a district, 
the fewer actual constituents the prison district legislator has, but is still allowed a full vote in the General Assembly. 
Therefore, people who live near prisons each get a stronger say in state government than people who live in a district without 
any of these “phantom constituents.” For more information about prison gerrymandering in Maryland see Importing 
Constituents at www.prisonersofthecensus.org/md/report.html  
30 Fletcher v. Lamone, 831 F.Supp.2d 887, 897 (2011), aff’d 567 U.S. __, (June 25, 2012, No. 11‐1178) 
31 http://planning.maryland.gov/redistricting/2010/dataDownload.shtml 
32 The reallocated population was 16,986, a figure smaller than the 22,087 figure for the total Maryland Department of Public 
Safety and Correctional Services. This discrepancy exists because 1,321 residents of other states were not reallocated to 
addresses outside the prison, and some other individuals had addresses that could not be found within the state. The slight 
discrepancy between the totals of some of our tables in the appendix is the result of minor incompatibilities between the 
geography files that we used, for example, the county maps do not precisely align with some other maps in a way that 
introduces the geographic equivalent of a very minor rounding error. 
33 For the purposes of getting a full picture of the number of people of working age who are not working regardless of ability 
to work, this report uses the inverse of the indicator “Percent of the Population 16‐64 employed” (2008‐2012). 
34In the brief, the author shows that investments in education, employment and housing can have a public safety impact.  Don 
Stemen, Reconsidering Incarceration: New Directions for Reducing Crime (New York, NY: Vera Institute of Justice, January 2007). 
www.vera.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/veraincarc_vFW2.pdf 
35 In the Appendix, the authors also provide an estimate of how many people from each Community Statistical Area are 
incarcerated in the Baltimore City Detention Center. (This is the same facility sometimes referred to as the Baltimore City Jail.) 
This estimate is based on the assumption that the jail population is distributed proportionally to the prison population, and 
we encourage future researchers to test that assumption and explore the reasons for any differences. We simply calculated the 
ratio between the number of people in state prisons the No Representation Without Population Act credited back to the city of 
17
18

 

51

JUSTICE POLICY INSTITUTE & PRISON POLICY INITIATIVE

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    
Baltimore (7,795) to the total population of the Baltimore jail (3,595) on the same April 2010 date.  This ratio of 0.46 was 
applied to each Community Statistical Area and then the number rounded to the nearest whole number.  
36 See Leah Sakala, Paying the price of mass incarceration, Prison Policy Initiative at 
www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2014/05/23/price‐of‐incarceration/ 
37 To review the three different variations of costs used by the Department of Legislative Services in their analysis of House 
and Senate bills, see: Department of Legislative Services, Maryland General Assembly, 2014 Session, HB 104 Fiscal and Social 
Policy Note: Contraband‐Places of Confinement‐Penalty,  http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2014rs/fnotes/bil_0004/hb0084.pdf or 
Department of Legislative Services, Maryland General Assembly, 2014 Session, SB 113 Fiscal and Policy Note: Criminal Law – 
Contraband – Telecommunication Devices – Penalty, http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2014RS/fnotes/bil_0003/sb0113.pdf.  The 
authors note that in 2012, in the Vera Institute of Justice report “The Price of Prisons: What Incarceration Costs Taxpayers, the 
organization estimated that it cost taxpayers $38,383 in 2010 as the average cost per incarcerated person, and that in a former 
Secretary Gary D. Maynard of the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services said in 2012 that the average cost of 
incarceration per person was $32,000. Both these figures place the cost estimate used by the researchers well within an 
acceptable range.  See: www.dpscs.state.md.us/publicinfo/features/Reentry/md_reentry‐ppt.pdf.  
38 Christian Henrichson and Ruth Delaney, The Price of Prisons: What Incarceration Costs Taxpayers (New York, NY: Vera 
Institute, 2012). www.vera.org/files/price‐of‐prisons‐maryland‐fact‐sheet.pdf. 
39 Don Stemen, Reconsidering Incarceration: New Directions for Reducing Crime (New York, NY: Vera Institute of Justice, January 
2007). www.vera.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/veraincarc_vFW2.pdf 
40 Maryland Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation, “Civilian Labor Force, Employment & Unemployment by Place 
of Residence (LAUS) ‐ Maryland,”December 19, 2014, accessed January 20, 2015. 
http://www.dllr.state.md.us/lmi/laus/maryland.shtml 
41 Maryland Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation, “Civilian Labor Force, Employment & Unemployment by Place 
of Residence (LAUS) ‐ Baltimore City,” December 26, 2014, accessed January 20, 2015. 
www.dllr.state.md.us/lmi/laus/baltimorecity.shtml  
42 Sean Miskell, Benjamin Orr, Debra Okeke, and Matthew Weinstein, State of Working Maryland, 2013 (Silver Spring: MD, 
Progressive Maryland, February 2014), pg. 2 http://pmef.org/reports/2014/StateofWorkingMaryland2013.pdf 
43 RDA Global, Inc, Barriers to Employment Opportunities in the Baltimore Region (Baltimore, MD: Opportunity Collaborative, 
June 2014), pg. 16. www.opportunitycollaborative.org/assets/Barriers_Study_Final_052714.pdf?18cd4b&18cd4b 
44 This indicator was calculated using the BNIA indicator “Percent population 16‐64 employed (2008‐2012). This indicator is 
intended to capture all people who are not working regardless of circumstance or choice.  
45 Elizabeth Lower‐Basch and Mark Greenberg, “Single Mothers in the Era of Welfare Reform,“ in The Gloves‐off Economy: 
Workplace Standards at the Bottom of America’s Labor Market (Champaign IL: Labor and Employment Relations Association, 
2008), 163–190. Available at: 
www.clasp.org/admin/site/publications/files/0490.pdf 
46 Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, Education Indicators in Focus (Paris, France: Organisation for 
Economic Cooperation and Development, January 2013). www.oecd.org/education/skills‐beyond‐school/EDIF%202013‐‐
N%C2%B010%20%28eng%29‐‐v9%20FINAL%20bis.pdf  
47 Caroline Wolf Harlow, Education and Correctional Populations (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice 
Statistics, January 2003). www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/ecp.txt 
48 RDA Global, Inc, Barriers to Employment Opportunities in the Baltimore Region (Baltimore, MD: Opportunity Collaborative, 
June 2014), pg. 7. www.opportunitycollaborative.org/assets/Barriers_Study_Final_052714.pdf?18cd4b&18cd4b 
49RDA Global, Inc, Baltimore Regional Talent Development Pipeline Study (Baltimore, MD: Opportunity Collaborative, October 
2013). 
50 RDA Global, Inc, Barriers to Employment Opportunities in the Baltimore Region (Baltimore, MD: Opportunity Collaborative, 
June 2014). www.opportunitycollaborative.org/assets/Barriers_Study_Final_052714.pdf?18cd4b&18cd4b 

 

THE RIGHT INVESTMENT?

52

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    
 Beth M. Huebner, Drug Abuse, Treatment, and Probationer Recidivism, (Chicago, IL: Illinois Criminal Justice Information 
Authority), 8; Hunger and Homelessness Survey, (Washington, DC: U.S. Conference of Mayors, 2008), 
http://usmayors.org/pressreleases/documents/hungerhomelessnessreport_121208.pdf, 19; Substance Abuse among 12th Grade 
Aged Youths and Drop Out Status, (Washington, DC: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2013) , 
http://archive.samhsa.gov/data/2k13/NSDUH036/SR036SubstanceUseDropouts.htm, 1; National Council on Alcoholism and 
Drug Dependence, “Drugs and the Workplace,” https://ncadd.org/learn‐about‐drugs/workplace. 
52 Greg Warren, Outlooks and Outcomes FY 2011 (Baltimore, MD: Baltimore Substance Abuse Systems, Inc., 2012). 
http://www.bhsbaltimore.org/site/wp‐content/uploads/2012/06/BSAS‐Outlook‐and‐Outcomes‐FY2011‐07‐16‐2012‐
revision2.pdf 
53 Laurie Robinson and Jeremy Travis, “Managing Prisoner Reentry for Public Safety,” Federal Sentencing Reporter 12, no. 5 
(2000): 258‐265. 
54 Doug McVay, Vincent Shiraldi, and Jason Ziedenberg, Treatment or Incarceration: National and State Findings on the Efficacy 
and Cost Savings of Drug Treatment Versus Imprisonment, (Washington, DC: Justice Policy Institute, 2004), pg. 3. 
www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/justicepolicy/documents/04‐01_rep_mdtreatmentorincarceration_ac‐dp.pdf 
55 Rebecca Mitchell and Paul Bates, “Measuring Health‐Related Productivity Loss,” Population Health Management 14, no. 2 
(2011): 93‐98. 
56 Dan Bloom, Pamela Loprest, and Sheila Zedlewski, TANF Recipients with Barriers to Employment (Washington, DC: Urban 
Institute, August 2011). www.urban.org/uploadedpdf/412567‐tanf‐recipients‐with‐barriers‐to‐employment.pdf 
57RentJungle.com, “Rent trend data in Baltimore, Maryland,” accessed January 13, 2015. www.rentjungle.com/average‐rent‐in‐
baltimore‐rent‐trends/  Totaled by multiplying the average rent of $1,024 by 12 to get a yearly figure.  
58 Elaine Wedlock, Crime and Cohesive Communities, (London, UK: The Home Office, 2006), 2. 
59 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Undated. Lead Awareness Program. www.epa.gov/lead/, accessed August 22, 2007. 
60 Mueller, Elizabeth J., and J. Rosie Tighe. 2007. Making the case for affordable housing: Connecting housing with health and 
education outcomes. Journal of Planning Literature 21(4). 
61 Nevin, Rick. 2000. How lead exposure relates to temporal changes in IQ, violent crime, and unwed pregnancy. Environmental 
Research 83(1).    
62 Robert J. Sampson, Stephen W. Raudenbush, and Felton Earls. “Neighborhoods and Violent 
Crime: A Multilevel Study of Collective Efficacy”. Science. 277 (15), p. 918‐924. Aug. 1997. www.econ‐
pol.unisi.it/bowles/Institutions%20of%20capitalism/sampson%20it%20al%20on%20chicago%20efficacy.pdf 
63 Amy E. Lerman and Vesla M. Weaver, Arresting Citizenship: The Democratic Consequences of American Crime Control (Chicago, 
IL: University of Chicago Press, 2014).  
64 Vesla Weaver, “High Incarceration may be more harmful than high crime,” Baltimore Sun, December 21, 2014. 
www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs‐ed‐incarceration‐rates‐20141221‐story.html 
65 Keith Harries, “Violence Change and Cohort Trajectories: Baltimore Neighborhoods, 1990‐2000”. 
Urban Geography. Vol. 25, p. 16. 2004. 
66The only two indicators which did not increase from the five “higher” to the “highest” incarceration community were 
Mortality by Age 15‐24 years old and Life Expectancy. Please see the table on page 12, “As the number of people in prison 
increases, on average, indicators of community well‐being worsen.”
51

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Amanda Petteruti, Aleks Kajstura, Marc Schindler, Peter Wagner, and Jason Ziedenberg authored this
report.
The authors would like to acknowledge JPI researchers Natacia Canton, Hope DeLap, Jasper Burroughs,
Daniel Landsman, and Kathleen Kelly for their assistance with The Right Investment? Corrections Spending
in Baltimore.
The authors would like to thank Dr. Seema D. Iyer and Cheryl Knott of the Baltimore Neighborhood
Indicators Alliance-Jacob France Institute (BNIA) at the University of Baltimore for recommendations on
how to use BNIA’s data in this report.
The authors are grateful to the members of the Greater Baltimore Grassroots Criminal Justice Network for
their insight, technical assistance, and suggestions through the development of this report. JPI and PPI
would like to specifically thank Gregory Carpenter of Jericho Reentry and Katie Allston of Marian House.
JPI and PPI would like to thank Bill Cooper, demography consultant, for preparing the data produced by
Maryland’s “No Representation Without Population Act” data for us.
JPI and PPI would also like to thank Marie Sennett for her thoughtful suggestions.
The authors would like to acknowledge Marie Roda, communications consultant, for her editorial review
of the final draft and summary materials, Julie Holman, design consultant, for her design assistance with
the maps and Bob Machuga, design consultant, for the cover.
The Prison Policy Initiative thanks the Open Society Foundation and the Public Welfare Foundation for
supporting the organization’s national advocacy to end prison gerrymandering.
This report would not have been possible without the generous support of the Open Society Institute—
Baltimore.