UNLOCKING JUSTICE
Community Protection & Smart Spending

Conference Proceedings
October 17, 2009
Honolulu, Hawai`i
Ching Conference Center
Chaminade University of Honolulu

Conference Co-Sponsors

Alpha Phi Sigma, Iota Gamma Chapter – Chaminade University Criminal Justice Honor Society
The College of Social Sciences Public Policy Center at the University of Hawai`i at Manoa
Criminology & Criminal Justice Department – Chaminade University of Honolulu
University of Hawai`i Myron B. Thompson School of Social Work
Ka Huli Ao Center for Excellence in Native Hawaiian Law
Hawai`inuiakea School of Hawaiian Knowledge
American Civil Liberties Union of Hawai`i
Ka Lei Maile Ali`i Hawaiian Civic Club
William S. Richardson School of Law
Community Alliance on Prisons
Drug Policy Forum of Hawai`i
League of Women Voters
Life of the Land

i

Conference Funders

This conference would not have been possible without the generous support of

Hawai`i Peoples Fund

Office of Hawaiian Affairs

Hawai`i Community Foundation

The Kind and Generous People of Hawai`i Nei

Criminology & Criminal Justice Department – Chaminade University

The Wallace Alexander Gerbode Foundation and especially Stacie Ma`a

Alpha Phi Sigma, Iota Gamma Chapter – Chaminade University Criminal Justice Honor Society

ii

Acknowledgements

Conference Planning Committee
Kat Brady, Community Alliance on Prisons
Marilyn Brown, Ph.D., University of Hawai`i at Hilo
Henry Curtis, Executive Director Life of the Land
Janet T. Davidson, Ph.D., Chaminade University of Honolulu
RaeDeen Karasuda, Ph.D., Kamehameha Schools
Jeanne Ohta, Executive Director of the Drug Policy Forum of Hawai`i
Carrie Ann Shirota, J.D., 2009 Soros Justice Fellow
Hosts
Kat Brady, Coordinator of Community Alliance on Prisons
Janet T. Davidson, Chaminade University of Honolulu
Moderators
Pamela Lichty, Executive Director of the Drug Policy Forum of Hawai`i
Jeanne Ohta, President of the Drug Policy Forum of Hawai`i
Video Documentation
Henry Curtis
Orin Tsutsumi
`Olelo’s Palolo Community Media Center
Proceedings
Chaminade University of Honolulu Students:
Andrew Boyd
Kitiona Faumuina
Steffany Godinet
Danielle Lam
Chelssi Matsuda
Tiffany Pang
Laura Velarde
Elizabeth Vincent

iii

Table of Contents

Introduction .................................................................................................………………

1

Executive Summary .............................................................................................................

2

Keynote Address “‘There are No Bad Prisons in Paradise’ and Other Dangerous
Criminal Justice Myths” .....................................................................................................
Michele Deitch, J.D., M.SC., Attorney and Professor, University of Texas

4

SMART ON CRIME IN HAWAI`I: What We Know, What We Need to Know
Meda Chesney-Lind, Ph.D. ................................................................................................................ 14
Ann & Me
RaeDeen Karasuda, Ph.D. .................................................................................................................. 15
Overrepresentation of Native Hawaiians & the Politics of Data
Geri Marullo ....................................................................................................................................... 17
Impacts of Incarceration and the Drug War on Families
Marilyn Brown, Ph.D. ........................................................................................................................ 18
Making Hawai`i Accountable: What Evidence Based Policy Looks Like

Everyone Pays:
A Social Cost Analysis of Incarcerating Parents for Drug Offenses In Hawai`i .........….........21
Thomas Lengyel, Ph.D. – Scholar-in-Residence, University of Denver School of Social Work

SMART STRATEGIES
Judge Steven Alm, First Circuit ......................................................................................................... 26
HOPE Probation
Renee Schuetter – The Path Clinic .................................................................................................... 27
Giving Birth to Hope
Lisa Haan and Jackie Bissen .............................................................................................................. 29
The Transformative Power of Education
Carrie Ann Shirota ............................................................................................................................. 30
Ho`i hou i ka iwi kuamo`o (Return to the Backbone)

The National Progressive Agenda – Dr. Janet Davidson............................................................33
The Hawai`i Progressive Agenda – Kat Brady...........................................................................38
Evaluations .......................................................................................................................…........45
Appendices:
Conference Program....................................................................................................................46
Biographies of Presenters............................................................................................................47

iv

Introduction

The current economic crisis presents us with an unprecedented opportunity to improve
the quality of justice in Hawai`i with a scientific and data driven approach to policymaking.
The UNLOCKING JUSTICE conference held on Saturday, October 17, 2009
brought together national and local experts who shared current data and research as well as smart
strategies currently being implemented in Hawai`i.
The generosity of our funders made it possible for Community Alliance on Prisons to
bring in our two guest speakers and grant eight (8) travel scholarships and thirty-two (32)
conference scholarships that facilitated the attendance of students, agencies, and community
advocates from across the Hawaiian Islands .
Our Keynote Speaker shared her twenty-three years of experience in the field of
criminal justice by debunking several myths about prisons in Hawai`i and made
recommendations to fix our broken correctional system.
Our first panel of experts spoke about the data available, what’s needed, why, and
what evidence-based policy looks like.
Newly released research analyzing the social cost of incarcerating parents for drug
offenses in Hawai`i was presented and reviewed.
Our second panel of experts outlined successful strategies that are current working in
Hawai`i and that show great promise.
The conference presenters emphasized that we can reduce Hawai`i’s incarcerated
population, enhance community safety, improve the quality of justice, and save money by
reinvesting those correctional dollars into a wider range of alternatives to incarceration to lift up
all of our communities.
A preliminary reclassification study found that the majority of Hawai`i’s incarcerated
individuals are nonviolent lawbreakers who are amenable to rehabilitation and projected to be
classified as minimum or community custody, the least restrictive custody levels.
This conference validated the fact that with data driven policies, we will build a safer
and more just Hawai`i for all our people.

1

Executive Summary
The purpose of UNLOCKING JUSTICE was to remind the community that we
are the key to unlocking justice in Hawai`i. That real change is going to come from the
community and not from the government. Therefore, it is incumbent upon each of us to raise our
voices in support of a more just society.
The keynote address by Dr. Michele Deitch of the LBJ School of Public Policy at the
University of Texas - Austin entitled “'There are No Bad Prisons in Paradise' and Other
Dangerous Criminal Justice Myths" debunked many common myths that surround prisons in
general and Hawai`i, in particular. The myths she addressed were:


Myth One

“There are no bad prisons in paradise.”



Myth Two

“We need to be tough on crime by locking people up (and its corollary,
we’re only locking up dangerous people).”



Myth Three

“We are safer as a result of all this imprisonment.”



Myth Four

“Private prison companies can provide services better and cheaper.”



Myth Five

“Someone is watching to be sure our prisoners are treated appropriately”



Myth Six

“We think of the ‘front end’ of the criminal justice system as adult
probation.”



Myth Seven

“Someone else is going to take up the mantle and fix these problems.”

Deitch’s twenty-three years of experience provided an important overview of justice and
the outside observations of Hawai`i’s correctional system provided valuable perspective to the
community.
The SMART ON CRIME IN HAWAI`I panel had four dynamite speakers who spoke
about the data; what we know and what we need to know regarding the impacts of spending such
a large portion of public resources on corrections at the expense of education and other social
programs. The panelists talked about the impacts of incarceration on Native Hawaiians, the
politics of data, the impacts of the drug war on families, the importance of accountability, as well
as a model of what evidence-based policy looks like.

2

New research entitled “EVERYONE PAYS: A Social Cost Analysis of Incarcerating
Parents for Drug Offenses in Hawai`i” was presented by Dr. Thomas Lengyel. Lengyel
highlighted a scenario of the first-year social costs of incarcerating 50% of the cohort, the firstyear costs of putting the other 50% of the cohort into a residential drug treatment program, and
the wide-ranging impacts of incarcerated parents.
The SMART STRATEGIES panel gave uplifting examples of innovative programs
happening in Hawai`i such as HOPE Probation started by the Judiciary in 2004 to encourage
probation compliance, The Path Clinic for substance abusing pregnant women, the power of
education to help formerly incarcerated individuals transform their lives, and the importance of
culture to assist those who have lost their way find their path back to the community.

3

Keynote Address
“‘There are No Bad Prisons in Paradise’ and Other Dangerous Criminal
Justice Myths”
Michele Deitch, J.D., M.SC.,
Attorney and Professor, University of Texas

Myth One – “There are no bad prisons in paradise.”
Professor Deitch began by debunking the myths that there are no bad prisons in paradise.
Deitch comes from Texas, a system infamous for tough justice and considered a leader in
executions and private prisons and also a state that is now making improvements in its
correctional system.

Deitch stated that she was “fascinated by Hawai`i’s criminal justice

system.” She remembered back to her times as a law student interested in issues surrounding
prison reform. While working with the ACLU’s National Prison Project in 1984 she heard
director Al Bronstein, the country’s foremost litigator on behalf of prisoners, discuss a recent trip
to Hawai`i. Bronstein discussed his tours of the prisons here and said they were “the worst
prisons he had ever seen.” She learned then how bad the prison conditions in Hawai`i really
were.
Deitch noted Bronstein’s description, including the observation that there were “inmates
sleeping on the floors next to overflowing toilets, while the Attorney General claimed that
sleeping on the floor was part of Hawaiian culture. She noted Bronstein’s discussion of 300
pound prison guards administering beatings to inmates and saying this was how children were
taught in Samoan culture; of staff physically attacking Justice Department experts in the prison
parking lots when they sought to investigate conditions in the facilities. She realized that you
can “never assume you know what’s going on inside a prison based on your positive impressions
of the surrounding area.”
Prisons are closed institutions and, as such, people are often unable to imagine the terrible
secrets they can hold, at least until you get inside them. She then reminded the audience that the
prisons here in Hawai`i were under the Federal government’s watch for more than a decade after
the previously mentioned issues were made public. The intervention of the Department of
Justice was needed to ensure that constitutional rights were not violated. Although this situation
4

was over a decade ago, we still struggle with prison reform issues and we must find a way to fix
the system.
Deitch then went on to explain how and why we allow these types of issues to continue.
She noted that it is because “[we] operate based on myth[s].” These assumptions and myths
keep the majority of people from ever looking into these problems. She spoke of how we needed
to learn to look beneath the surface of things and find the truth and “question our assumptions.”
The many myths that we do believe in to allow us to push forth the criminal justice policies
around the country and they influence the public’s attitude towards prison.

Myth Two – “We need to be tough on crime by locking people up (and its corollary, we’re only
locking up dangerous people.”

If there is one myth out there that we would all like to believe, it is that we have to be
tough on crime. The belief is that criminals should be imprisoned, that we are allowing criminals
to cheat the system if we do not lock them up. Many believe, according to Deitch, that avoiding
prison allows criminals to “thumb their nose at the law.”
I’ve heard it said that America has a love affair with prisons. And it’s true. The
U.S. has BY FAR the largest prison population in the world, with 2.3 million
prisoners. China is the only country within shouting distance, with 1.6 million.
After that, no country has more than 900,000, and only 12 countries break the
100,000 mark. But more telling than the absolute numbers of prison beds is the
RATE at which we lock our citizens up. That’s a measure of how punitive we
are, regardless of the size of our country or state—a way of equalizing how we
measure the extent of incarceration.
The United States is at the top of the chart for international incarceration with an incarceration
rate of 756 per 100,000 citizens.
According to the numbers, Russia, our closest rival, does not even come close to our
rates. In Hawai`i, specifically, we imprison our criminals at rates that are 5-10 times higher than
those in other industrialized Western nations. Deitch, mentions, “even tough-on-crime countries
like Singapore, or dictatorships like Cuba, or countries not known for respecting human rights,
like China, don’t hold a candle to us in this regard.” She also goes on to say:

5

While Hawai`i may not yet be in a league with states like Texas, Louisiana, and
Mississippi in terms of its incarceration rates, consider this disturbing fact: If
Hawai`i were a separate country, it would be virtually tied for the fourth highest
incarceration rate in the world. Only the U.S. as a whole, Russia, and Cuba, lock
up its citizens at a higher rate than Hawai`i, and Hawai`i is in a virtual tie with
South Africa.
She believes that we need to get rid of the idea that sending people to prison is right
because it is the only way to deal with them. Our rates, nationally, are so high because we send
too many people to prison and we also impose longer sentences than anywhere else in the world.
There are alternatives to prison that are both efficient and will promote public safety. Further,
alternatives will keep individuals in the community such that they are able to maintain their
relationships with their families.

6

World Incarceration Rates
(per 100,000 of the national population)
A Comparison of Selected Countries—2009
Country

Incarceration Rate

United States

756

Russia

629

Cuba

c.531

Victimization Rate (where
available)
21%

South Africa

334

HAWAI`I

332

Taiwan

277

Singapore

267

Iran

222

Mexico

207

UK: England and Wales

152

Turkey

142

Saudi Arabia

132

Australia

129

China

119

Canada

116

24%

Netherlands

100

25%

France

96

Sweden

74

25%

Japan

63

15%



26%

30%

Source: Van Kesteren, J., Mayhew, P., & Nieuwbeerta, P. (2000), Criminal Victimization in Seventeen Industrialized
Countries: Key Findings from the 2000 International Crime Victims Survey (based on 1999 data).

Heather West and William Sabol, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prison Inmates at Midyear 2008—Statistical Tables,
NCJ #225619, Table 10 (March 2009). Available: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/pim08st.pdf.

7

We need programs that will put offenders to work on much needed community service
projects, programs that will provide them with the necessary substance abuse treatment services
and programs that will ensure that offenders pay restitution to those whom they have harmed
through their criminal behavior. Policy-makers around the country are beginning to invest more
in these forms of programs simply because “they have improved results in terms of recidivism
and rehabilitation, and because they are so much more cost-effective.” Statistics demonstrate
that, contrary to popular myths, most of the men and women are nonviolent offenders.
We have been operating under the
assumption that we cannot have people running
“When you can’t afford to keep
your inmates in-state, it’s a pretty
good indication that there’s overreaching going on, and that it’s
time to re-examine those
policies.”

the nation who are “soft on crime.” It seems
that people want and vote for those who utilize
the “tough on crime” slogan. Instead, we need
to be smart on crime, not tough, and we need to
look for other solutions that will be more

effective as well as cost-effective.

The country generally and Hawai`i specifically cannot

continue to spend millions on ‘tough on crime’ policies – policies that do not even demonstrate
positive outcomes. The state of Hawai`i can no longer support the policies we have chosen. As
a result, Hawai`i has been exporting our prisoners to the mainland to be housed in other prisons,
mainly because we cannot to house them in-state. Deitch stated, “When you can’t afford to keep
your inmates in-state, it’s a pretty good indication that there’s over-reaching going on, and that
it’s time to re-examine those policies.”
Countries and states all over the world are beginning to rethink their criminal justice
policies due to our current economic crisis. Instead of locking up people we are angry at, we
need to be smart and lock up those whom we are afraid of and that are dangers to our
communities. We need to begin to develop effective alternatives, especially drug treatment
programs, since drug addiction does seem to be at the root of so much crime in Hawai`i.

Myth Three – “We are safer as a result of all this imprisonment.”

Many people would like to argue that prisons are worth the tremendous expense because
they are effective. People believe that if a person is locked up then society is safer because
8

people are unable to commit any more crimes. Currently things are safer because crime rates are
down around the country, especially violent crimes. The question that needs to be asked is could
the decrease in crime rates have been achieved in cheaper and less punitive ways.
Deitch notes that examination of the experiences of states that had vast expansions of their
prisons system, as well as those states in which the prison population remained stable (or only
demonstrated a slight increase), showed that crime went down everywhere during the same time frame.

Over a several year period, for example, New York experienced a 53% decline in
crime while its prison population stayed virtually stable, while Texas, which
tripled the size of its prison population in a decade, had a decline of only 34%.
Vast prison expansion didn’t pay off with a proportional decline in crime. In fact,
the two factors are not as obviously correlated as we assumed they were.
Research shows prison expansion is unable to explain between 79% and 96% of the violent crime
drop. It does make a difference, but only a small one.

If there is so much success within the system

Deitch said, it should be leading us to decrease the amount of prison beds instead of expanding them. By
doing so, “we are responding to the symptom, not the crime.”
It is true that, while incarcerated, the
prisoners are not committing any crimes. But,

“the reality is our country’s
incarceration policies have made
us poorer, not safer.”

Deitch questions: “What about the vast majority of
the prisoners that are going to be released soon and

returning to the community?” Recidivism rates are high. In essence, incarcerating someone does not
solve the problem or stop the criminal behavior beyond a temporary time frame. Prison impacts the lives
of prisoners and gives them the label of criminal, which in turn makes it difficult for them to find work.
When we do not offer opportunities to those who have been released from prison and continuously turn
them away, what can we expect but for them to return to doing what they do best?
Deitch went on to explain what happens to the children of incarcerated parents and how they, too,
have high risks of being incarcerated. She believes that by continuing to incarcerate people, we are
creating future crime because “incarceration continues the cycle of crime.” We end up incarcerating
people who do not need to be incarcerated. We do this because they may scare us. But simply punishing
with imprisonment may actually make us less safe. The costs associated with expanding prisons leads
Deitch to argue that, “the reality is our country’s incarceration policies have made us poorer, not safer.”

9

Myth Four – “Private prison companies can provide services better and cheaper.”

Prison privatization is not a solution to any state’s prison issues. It can instead make
those problems worse and deeper rooted. One reason why so many problems have come about is
because they instead see prison privatization as a way to make money. In many privatized
prisons, for example, the prisoners are viewed as commodities or objects - not people. Many
private prisons have issues with human rights violations.

The facts are that private vendors compromise safety and security to keep down
costs. They save money by hiring inexperienced staff at the low-end of the wage
scale comparable to local fast food restaurants. This leads to very high turnover
rates. One study found a turnover rate in private prisons of 52% vs. 16% in public
prisons.
Private prisons do not encourage or provide much in training programs because they have a tight
budget. “That same study [mentioned earlier] found 35% fewer training hours in private facilities
compared to public prisons.” When staff members are not properly trained, and have limited
training, private facilities are going to necessarily have to worry about safety and security. They
are also understaffed which causes even more issues. “Private vendors often keep staff positions
unfilled, so the position is on the books but there are no costs associated with it” noted Deitch.
Making things even worse is that many private facilities are built on the cheap, with poor
designs and a lack of maintenance. This contributes to escapes and other security problems.
Deitch notes that perhaps it is no surprise that the performance records of private and public
correctional institutions are not comparable.
Private facilities have 49% more assaults on staff and 65% more inmate-oninmate assaults than public prisons. They’ve also been found to have higher levels
of escapes, disturbances, and drug use. One study did an apples-to-apples
comparison of a private prison and a similar public facility, and found that the
private facility had higher levels of operational problems and a comparative lack
of inmate programs, such as educational, vocational, and counseling programs,
which led to inmate idleness and a lack of preparation for re-entry.

10

Deitch went on to explain that the conditions of private prisons are bad. We recently
witnessed the return of several female prisoners from Hawai`i who had been housed in a private
facility in Kentucky. At this private prison, Hawai`i state inmates had been sexually assaulted by
the staff members.
These types of incidents do not

Research has demonstrated that “the cost
savings associated with privatization are
at best negligible, and in fact, in some
cases cost the state more than public
prisons do” noted Deitch.

only happen to inmates from Hawai`i.
Deitch put together a detailed document
of various scandals that had arisen at the

private facilities in Texas. The document listed all the incidents that occurred, such as: escapes,
physical and sexual abuse, and corruption.

There were cases in which young girls were

sexually assaulted by a group of the staff members of a private juvenile facility. These types of
incidents ended up costing millions. Deitch notes, “there were mass escapes from another private
facility, where it turned out that the perimeter security electric fence wasn’t working and never
had worked and where the guard in charge was only 18 years old. These types of problems have
arisen with every private prison company.” Incidents like those listed above are not only an
issue of human rights violations but also that it costs the states more in the end. Deitch
supported this statement with the following, “Long-term hidden costs in the forms of increased
liability, increased worker comp costs, increased law enforcement costs (due to escapes), for
example, have been estimated to be 20-30% above per diem costs.”
In thinking about policy choices, policy makers need to understand that there are hidden
costs to consider when choosing a private facility over a public one. Private vendors are known
for taking inmates that will be less expensive, such as those without medical problems or
disciplinary records. Research has demonstrated that “the cost savings associated with
privatization are at best negligible, and in fact, in some cases cost the state more than public
prisons do” noted Deitch. Further, and contrary to public perception as well as the assumptions
of many law-makers, the states ultimate liability for constitutional violations in private facilities
cannot be waived through contracting.
Hawai`i is the country’s third largest consumer of private prison services with 34% of
Hawai`i state inmates in private prisons. New Mexico and Montana are the only two states that
have a greater percentage of their prisoners in private facilities. It is hard for states to demand
improvement in the facilities if there are great numbers of people in the beds at private prisons.
11

Deitch stated, “the greater the percentage of beds that are privatized, the less leverage the state
has to demand improved conditions in facilities, to pull out its prisoners when conditions
deteriorate, or to step in and take back a
“private facilities that house outof-state prisoners operate almost
entirely without external
oversight.”

contracted facility.”

There are too many

prisoners with nowhere to house them and not
enough staff.

Myth Five – “Someone is watching to be sure our prisoners are treated appropriately.”

This tends not to be the case. There needs to be an oversight system so public officials
and citizens are informed about what is happening in these correctional institutions. Someone
who is non-biased and has a fresh set of eyes needs to be inspecting these facilities to report the
conditions. “The oversight body needs to have golden key access with the ability to enter a
facility and any part of a facility and at any time without prior notice, to talk confidentially with
any prisoner or staff member, and to review any file” noted Deitch.
The United States is without a formal independent oversight system to inspect the private
facilities. The point of these routine monitor checks would be to ensure the safety and well being
of the prisoners. Having someone inspect the prisons could prove to be a form of deterrence for
“abuse or poor conditions, and provides an informal kind of social control over staff behavior,”
Deitch said. Inspections will allow prisoners who are a part of the vulnerable populations to
voice their concerns and speak with the monitors so they do not feel forgotten. The prisoners
that are housed out-of-state represent the most vulnerable population, mainly because we have no
idea what is happening with them or whether they are being taken care of. Onsite monitors at
each facility would enable constant monitoring of the inmates. However, there is the risk that
constant monitoring will eventually lead to staff becoming colleagues/friends with the monitor
and they may no longer question what is occurring with the inmates. Deitch stated that “private
facilities that house out-of-state prisoners operate almost entirely without external oversight.”

12

Myth Six – “We think of the ‘front end’ of the criminal justice system as adult probation.”

Deitch noted that this was more of a problematic way of thinking rather than a myth per
se. What Deitch meant here is that we need to prevent crimes from happening. We want to keep
people from entering into the system. This means investing in at-risk populations. We know
who these individuals are; we also know that the children of incarcerated parents are at extreme
risk of becoming offenders themselves. We need to develop programs to work with them. Deitch
stated that the things we need are education for our students to keep them in school and to ensure
that our juvenile justice systems are effective. Further, we need to provide services for the
mentally ill and ensure that there are adequate substance abuse programs. The current system is
inefficient and ineffective, yet we continually put offenders in prison.

Myth Seven: “Someone else is going to take up the mantle and fix these problems.”

Basically, the answer to whether someone else is going to take up the mantle and fix
these problems is ‘No’. The only way to fix these issues is for us to take a stand and participate
in making a change and bring up these issues.
Deitch’s address underscored the need for alternatives to incarceration, the importance of
independent oversight of correctional facilities, and accountability and transparency because the
current system isn’t working. Instead it is costing Hawai`i lots of money while continuing to
deliver a high rate of recidivism.
The community does not want their tax dollars used to send Hawai`i’s people to U.S.
prisons to be warehoused. Private prisons are in business to make a profit for their shareholders
and the evidence shows that they do little to rehabilitate individuals.
The community does want independent oversight of the prisons in Hawai`i as well as the
private contract prisons housing Hawai`i’s incarcerated individuals.
Finally, we need to invest in education so that we can prevent future offenders. If we do
our part and make the necessary changes we will prevent myths like these from continuing,
improve the conditions of confinement in the prisons and jails housing our people, and rely on
science-based and data driven solutions to address the root cause of much of the crime in
Hawai`i instead of dealing only with the symptoms of crime.
13

Smart on Crime in Hawai`i:
What We Know, What We Need to Know
Moderator:

Pamela Lichty

Panelists:

Meda Chesney-Lind, Ph.D.
RaeDeen Karasuda, Ph.D.
Geri Marullo, Dr. PH
Marilyn Brown, Ph.D.

Ann & Me
Meda Chesney-Lind
Dr. Chesney Lind opened by saying that she received a world class education at UH
Manoa. She spoke about a student she knew named Ann, the young mother of a small son. That
woman was Stanley Ann Dunham, the mother of President Barack Obama.
Chesney-Lind highlighted the importance of education and reminded us that in the 1970’s
the prison population in Hawai`i numbered roughly 300. However, 39 years later, there are more
than 6,000 incarcerated individuals in Hawai`i – many of these are housed in the U.S. away from
their family and friends. This is because there is no space to house them in Hawai`i. She stated
that this is an issue of “chronic overcrowding.”
Chesney-Lind further stated that 60% of the incarcerated population is comprised of
people of color. Native Hawaiians are greatly overrepresented in the prison system. Hawai`i’s
prison population increased by 20% - at a time of the nation’s lowest crime rate. Even with a
decrease in the crime rate, though, the state’s focus was on incarceration. Part of this can be
explained by who we incarcerate. In Hawai`i we mainly incarcerate low-level drug offenders,
especially female offenders. Ultimately, overcrowding leads to stories of prison abuse.
Chesney-Lind then posed the following question: “How are we paying for all of this?”
Her answer: we are taking funds from higher education. The corrections system ultimately takes
money from higher education and uses it for incarceration by building cells instead of
classrooms. This is the easiest place from which to take money. Chesney-Lind noted that, for
example, the University of Hawai`i at Manoa witnessed the nation’s highest tuition increase.
She stated, “when people sign those tuition checks, we are funding the prison system.” In

14

essence, Dr. Chesney-Lind asserted that when students at the University of Hawai`i pay tuition
they are really funding cells with their tuition.

Overrepresentation of Native Hawaiians & the Politics of Data
RaeDeen Karasuda, Ph.D.
Dr. Karasuda began her presentation asking why Native Hawaiians commit crimes. She
stated that common assumptions are that they must be poor or have had bad childhoods. She
stated that there is an over-representation of Native Hawaiians in the criminal justice system. As
such, she asserts that it is not important to find out why Native Hawaiians are criminals but to
ask “why Native Hawaiians are being criminalized at disproportionate rates.”
Dr. Karasuda then discussed a 2003 symposium in which she listened to a graduate
student speak about his experience as a Halawa inmate. This student mentioned that it took
prison guards 15 minutes to call all the last names that began with the letter K during roll calls.
A vast number of Native Hawaiian last names start with K. This was a poignant reminder of the
high incarceration rates of Native Hawaiians.
She noted the impact of this experience on her educational direction, and she then
decided to do her dissertation on the incarceration rates of Native Hawaiians. She said that she
assumed she would find shelves of information at the University of Hawai`i at Manoa library.
She found surprisingly few documents about Native Hawaiians in prison.
Karasuda then described her efforts to obtain data on Native Hawaiians from to the
Department of Public Safety (PSD). PSD had always said that Hawaiians are 40% of the prison
population and 20% of the general population. She asked for files or reports to substantiate these
numbers. However, the Department of Public Safety informed her that they do not keep a
centralized system of records dealing with ethnicity or race. Dr. Karasuda asserted that a “lack of
transparency, an unwillingness to provide something that should be provided to the public” is a
real problem. Ultimately, we need to push back against the system and demand that they do
what they are paid to do, she urged.
a “lack of transparency, an
unwillingness to provide
something that should be
provided to the public” is a real
problem

Karasuda still wanted to get at the root
of Hawaiians as a criminalized population
versus Hawaiians as criminals. This moved her
to take another direction and she began her
15

research looking into the background of Queen Lili`uokalani, who had been in prison. She said
something was missing, something did not feel right. “The Queen was part of the story, but not
the root, I needed to find the root, where’s the root?”

She

discovered

that

Queen

Lili`uokalani’s grandfather was publicly hanged in 1840. This story soon ignited Karasuda’s
research. She noted that “12 years after the missionaries, they influenced King Kamehameha to
sign the first written Hawaiian constitution…14 days later, under that written constitution, Chief
Kamanawa (Lili`uokalani and Kalakaua’s grandfather) was publicly hanged in front of 800
people who were forced, under arms, to watch.”
American newspapers falsified the story, stating that Chief Kamanawa and a friend were
accused of murdering Kamanawa’s wife. Media accounts indicated that they had a fair trial and
were convicted by a jury of peers. “Kalakaua was taken by the same missionaries who influenced
him to sign the constitution, the same
missionaries who were his missionary
“With certainty, not only in
historical times, but in contemporary
times, the incarceration of Native
Hawaiians is tied to political
dispositions, tied to land
displacement, tied to the break-up of
not only entire families, but our
lahui (nation).”

teachers, to watch the hanging” Karasuda
stated.
She continued by stressing that “we
(society) need to put incarceration of
Hawaiians in a historical context…without
it we are just going to slap it on like a band-

aid.” Karasuda argued that it is not just about Native Hawaiians filling our prisons; it is about
looking at patterns that Native Hawaiians experienced. Karasuda stated, “With certainty, not
only in historical times, but in contemporary times, the incarceration of Native Hawaiians are
tied to political dispositions, tied to land displacement, tied to the break-up of not only entire
families, but our lahui (nation).”
In the end, Dr. Karasuda stated that society needs to develop a better system of
accountability and she would like to see the Department of Public Safety become more
transparent and allow more data to be viewable by the public. Dr. Karasuda concluded with the
following – “people must go in with fresh new eyes, we must do what we have to do to stop this
pattern. One person can make a difference…we must be like a constant drip on a jagged rock,
eventually the rock smoothes out and disappears.”

16

Impacts of Incarceration and the Drug War on Families
Geri Marullo, Dr.PH
Dr. Marullo spoke about the impact of incarceration and the drug war on families.
Marullo noted that it was President Richard Nixon who coined the term “war on drugs” back in
1969. Since that time our ‘war on drug’ policies have involved billions in taxpayer money to
eliminate drugs in America. During the Nixon administration, Operation Interrupt of Mexico,
Operation Just Cause in Panama, and Planet Columbia were implemented. Strategies continued
to follow with new administrations. During the Bush term, for example, the Merida Initiative
served to attack drug violence in Mexico.
Obama, however, is calling the war on drugs counterproductive. The Director of the
Office of National Drug Control Policy under the Obama administration favors treatment over
incarceration. Dr. Marullo noted that the wars in Afghanistan, Iran, and Iraq correlate with the
drug smuggling business that finances the war in the Middle East. Obama’s administration is
trying to stay away from the ‘war on drugs’ policies.
According to Marullo, “no more than ½ of 1% is spent on studying the impact on
families.” To get the best data, society must look at the number of children with incarcerated
families. She stated that, “prisoners are a researcher’s dream – they want to talk to people about
their families.” However, she went on to say that Hawai`i can only estimate the number of
children with incarcerated parents.
Criminologists know the negative effects of children who have incarcerated parents.
Marullo noted that “parent efficacy is weakened, parent-child relationship is weakened, children
have insecure attachment, have diminished cognitive ability, have weak relationships with peers,
all resulting in anti-social behavior.” This doubles the chance that the child will end up in the
criminal justice system. Marullo added that there are two types of changes encountered by
children of incarcerated parents – they are more likely to have lived in impoverished households
and to have been exposed to family violence and substance abuse. Dr. Marullo went on to stress
the importance of the relationship between parent and child. She noted that “children want to be
with their parents no matter how bad their parents are.” Yet, the state is in desperate need of
funding in this area, there are not enough resources to serve the public.
Marullo told a story about a prison in the Philippines where a child, age seven, was put in
prison with adults. After that a law was passed where a child under the age of twelve could not
17

be put into adult prison. After the boy was released, he was returned to a hut to live with his
parents. Unfortunately, his parents were always drunk and he desperately wanted some attention
from them. He had not been home for two years, he was just longing for his parents. Marullo
also mentioned a documentary detailing how kids want their parents in any way, shape, or form.
Not much was done until recently, but more could have been done.
Dr. Marullo offered a solution, “during this economic crisis, I propose that all
Intermediary Programs merge as one program.”

The State Legislature, the foundations,

corporations in Hawai`i and the unions should help fund the Intermediary programs and
organizations. The Hawai`i government needs more concrete data and information to create
proper policies. She concluded by suggesting that “this is the type of body Hawai`i has to be
aggressive about, CEOs, advocates, must take egos off the table, sit together, and figure out a
way to merge into one unit to provide for the state of Hawai`i.”

Making Hawai`i Accountable: What Evidence Based Policy Looks Like
Marilyn Brown, Ph.D
Dr. Brown argued that in Hawai`i we do not really know what works or how to spend our
money better – at least in relation to the criminal justice system. Brown notes that Hawai`i has,
“Failed to rationalize the system.” We need to apply rules of logic and reason in terms of mass
incarceration to find solutions that are relatively uninfluenced by negative passions that lead to
policies such as mass incarceration.

Hawai`i’s prison population has grown, but not our

knowledge. Brown notes that our system lacks coordination and accountability. We do not
systematically explore the impact of policy decisions on the prison population. No one is
governing which unit collects, analyzes, or uses data to make policy decisions. We do very little
in the way of program evaluations and even less cost-benefit analysis in corrections. Sound
evaluations can demonstrate programs that can both save money and reduce incarceration. A
failure to do so contributes to our failure to fix problems, such as the methamphetamine problem.
Brown noted that, “the War on Ice in Hawai`i has caused suffering.” Data that have been
collected do not seem to heavily influence policy on drug offenses. Ultimately a lack of
leadership in this area allows for the politicization of policy.

18

Brown offered a solution stemming from a model presentation from the International
Community Corrections Association meeting. A panel from the Washington State Department
of Corrections developed a system - The Government Management Accountability &
Performance System (GMAP). “Applied with corrections, this system includes state agencies
measuring and improving their performance by producing performance-based reports and using
performance-based indicators such as recidivism rates,” noted Brown.

For example, if

recidivism rates demonstrate an increase in
a certain area, the Governor and his/her

“we have to let go of the policies
and practices that make people feel
good, that feeling does not really
contribute to public safety.”

policy makers are able to move resources
to areas where they may be needed.
Governors and legislatures utilize the data

in a continuous process of feedback and improvement.
As for Washington, Brown stated, “they’re looking at a system of policies & programs
that will reduce crime, build less prisons, and save money. This can happen when society works
on an ongoing system of evaluation and feedback of the data into the decision-making process.”
Washington State transferred funds from initiatives that were not effective to programs of
demonstrated efficacy. Brown noted that this served to create an integrated system of prevention
in juvenile justice and adult system reforms. There are many examples of effective programs, in
terms of reduced recidivism and cost savings. For example, Functional Family Therapy (for
juveniles on probation) can reduce recidivism by 15.9% with a savings of $31,821 per youth net
present value (savings over the long term – less the cost of the program).
Hawai`i has instituted certain practices that hold the promise of more effective and
accountable policies. For example, a study based upon the risk and needs classification indicated
that Hawai`i does not need to incarcerate individuals who pose minimal threat or danger to the
community. The Interagency Council for Intermediate Sanctions does extraordinary work yet
they are over-worked and under-funded. We could use sentencing simulation to examine the
impact of policy on various correctional populations. In the end, though, very few programs in
Hawai`i are ever evaluated.
This, in part, leads Brown to push us to think harder about accountability in our delivery
of programs. Brown noted that what we can do is put most of the State’s prevention and funding
into proven programs, avoid spending money on programs where there is little evidence of
19

program effectiveness, evaluate currently funded programs to determine if benefits exceed costs,
stay informed about research from other jurisdictions, and pay attention to program fidelity.
When the public finds an effective program, do not let the Legislature cut funding to save
money. Brown closed with the following, “we have to let go of the policies and practices that
make people feel good but do not really contribute to public safety.”

20

New Research:
EVERYONE PAYS:

A Social Cost Analysis of Incarcerating Parents for Drug Offenses in Hawai`i
Tom Lengyel, Ph.D.
Scholar-in-Residence at the University of Denver School of Social Work

Dr. Lengyel begins with a basic concept, namely that anything that decreases or increases
total social welfare has a social cost or a social benefit. Lengyel’s study focused on a cohort of
197 drug offenders who were released from prisons in Hawai’i in the fiscal year 2006. Since Dr.
Lengyel was conducting a social costs and benefits analysis of incarcerating parents, he looked
not only at the offenders, but also at the costs and benefits to the offenders’ families as well as to
the state. Dr. Lengyel first provided a definition of social cost is as it pertains to his study: any
resource-using activity which reduces the net well-being or welfare in a society. Lengyel noted
that ‘downstream costs’ of certain actions would pose burdens on society. This includes
instances when resources are destroyed; additional needs are required due to an action, and
benefits that could have been experienced had an action not occurred. The bottom line of social
costs and benefits, said Lengyel, is that they are viewed from a society-wide perspective, over
the lifetime of their effects.
The method of calculating costs consisted of several parts. Some of the issues that must
be considered in these calculations include power (allows very unequal outcomes to be compared
in dollar terms), transparency (sometimes elaborate conceptual machinery is required to arrive at
dollar comparisons), sensitivity (results are highly determined by choice of variable and by
assumed values for certain variables), and values (external/internal cost distinction is founded on
unexamined values about responsibility).
In calculating the costs of crimes for Hawai`i, Lengyel decided to choose a representative
and well defined cohort. He looked at crimes committed in the five years prior to admission to
prison. Lengyel then examined arrest records, and applied cost of crime numbers commonly
found in literature to the appropriate type of offenses. While the types of offenses ranged from
failure to pay a moped tax to murder, the majority of crimes committed by the cohort were not
violent or personal crimes. Dr. Lengyel found that the “average drug offender” was booked for
30 felonies and/or misdemeanors per year in the five years preceding admission. He discovered
21

the following for the cohort of drug offenders (based on a database of 7,867 charges for 283
crimes in fiscal year 2006):







62.1% – Drug Offenses – Primarily Possession
19.0% – Non-Violent, Non-Personal Property Crime
6.3% – Traffic Offenses
6.1% – Weapons Possession
3.6% – Offenses Against Public Order
2.4% – Violent Crime (mostly for domestic violence)

So what does this all cost?
In further analysis of these Hawai’i crime data, Lengyel was able to assign costs to each
crime. He did this using a systematic method drawing from the cost of crime literature.
Following are some of his more salient findings:


Crimes committed by drug offenders in Hawai’i cost the community (including
victims) about $850 on average.
o Note: Some cost close to zero, others have enormous costs.



The community bears costs of about $27,000 in the first year from the crimes of the
average drug offender who is on the street.



The cost savings of these crimes per offender over the average length of stay (39
months) is about $85,000 and approximately $16.8 million for the full cohort.

While $16.8 million in averted crimes savings sounds profitable for the state and
community-at-large, Dr. Lengyel points out that the cost of prison in Hawai’i itself well exceeds
the savings it provides as a by-product of housing drug offenders. There are several costs of
prison to consider: criminal justice system costs; cost of prison bed space; family support of
inmates (such as monetary, calls, and visits); lost of productivity (wages and benefits); lost taxes
on lost wages; pain and suffering of prisoners and their families (quality of life costs); and
depleted neighborhood economic strength and quality of living.
Over the average 39 month length of stay, the price per offender to have a prison bed is
$123,000. The following chart provides a clearer picture of the estimated social costs of
incarceration and who pays:

22

Social Cost Type

State cost

Family cost

Offender cost

Total Social Cost

CJS Processing: Arrest to conviction

$4,716

$0

$0

$4,716

Prison bed

$122,919

$0

$0

$122,919

Family support of prisoner

n.d.

Lost productivity and benefits

$31,731

Lost taxes on lost wages

$50,579

$12,959

$82,310
$12,959

Pain and suffering: Prisoner

$94,356

Pain and suffering: Family
Depleted neighborhood strength

$0

$243,724
n.d.

$94,356
$243,724
$0

n.d. = no data

When adding in the various social costs, Lengyel discovered an additional $600,000 in
social costs. The net cost for the state to incarcerate the entire cohort would total $15.6 million,
and with offender costs of $46.1 million and the offender’s extended family costs of $40.1
million added in, the final total is then $102 million.

Social Benefits of Prison

Along with the $85,000 in estimated costs savings per incarcerated drug offender through
averted crimes, Lengyel discussed theoretical social benefits of incarcerating offenders. They
include deterrence, incapacitation and retribution. With deterrence, the commission of a crime is
averted because the potential perpetrator fears the consequence. The effect is largest with
property crimes that have low social costs. With incapacitation, the commission of a crime is
averted because the potential perpetrator is unable to commit crime. The benefit here is greatest
with violent crimes. As for retribution, Lengyel notes that it is hard to place a ‘dollar’ value on
this.
Lengyel notes that the currency used is the public welfare, and this price is indeed a
heavy one. Yet there are also social benefits to prison. He notes the following as social benefits:
averted crime, reduced cost of insurance, increased value of property, increased economic
activity, lowered cost of personal security, removal of harmful influence from the home, removal

23

of harmful role model in neighborhood, and improvements in offender health and human capital.
These costs must also be considered in calculating the costs of imprisonment.

Social Benefit Type

State cost

Averted crime

$85,407

$85,407

Reduced cost of insurance

n.d.

$0

Lowered cost of personal security

n.d.

$0

Removal of harmful influence: home
Removal of harmful role model: neighborhood

Family cost

Offender cost

n.d.
n.d.

Total Social Cost

$0
$0

Improvements in offender health

$0

* n.d. = no data

According to Lengyel, the most (socially) costly crimes are murder, rape, assault,
robbery, child abuse and neglect, while the least costly crimes are drug offenses, public order
offenses, burglary, auto theft, and larceny.
Alternatives to Prison: Residential Treatment
Community-based residential drug treatment has been found to be effective for drug
offenders.

However, while there are programs available in Hawai’i, there are not enough

programs available in the community or in Hawai`i’s correctional facilities. Further, communitybased residential drug treatment programs are insufficiently funded and receive little community
support. The costs of residential drug treatment per offender were provided as:




$12,200 base residential treatment cost for 18 weeks (at Hina Mauka).
$4,610 for Integrated Case Management for 34 weeks.
$14,810 total drug treatment costs for one year.

Lengyel highlighted a scenario of the first-year social costs of incarcerating 50% of the
cohort and the first-year costs of putting the
other 50% of the cohort into a residential

Community-based residential drug
treatment has been found to be
effective for drug offenders.

drug treatment program.
In doing so, the State’s savings can be
broken down as follows:
24

Cohort Sub-group

State Savings

Per Parent

$42,179

Per Non-parent

$41,893

50% of parents

$2,476,161

50% of non-parents

$1,667,097

50% of Total Cohort

$4,143,258

Case Study Findings and Recommendations


Putting a person in prison scatters costs across a wide range of actors and institutions.
o Practice selective non-incarceration, shifting from incarceration to community
supervision. Invest savings in programs such as drug abuse treatment and
education, job training, and economic opportunity.



The family of the prisoner and the prisoner bear very heavy costs that persist over time.
o Initiate supports for family and extended family, including respite care, housing
assistance, parenting support, and material support.



Alternatives to prison would likely be cost-effective for all but the most violent offenders.
o Parent prisoners should be placed on the basis of the “best interest of the family”.



Further work is required to complete the profile of both costs and benefits.
o

Presentence investigations should include an estimate of the social costs of the
recommended prison term based on the parameters documented in this study, as
well as the cost of the best reasonable alternative. Judges should acknowledge in
court the weight given to them.

25

Smart Strategies
Moderator:

Jeanne Ohta, Executive Director of the Drug Policy Forum of Hawai`i

Panelists:

Judge Steven Alm, First Circuit Court
Renee Schuetter, The Path Clinic
Lisa Haan and Jackie Bissen
Carrie Ann Shirota, J.D. & 2009 Soros Justice Fellow

HOPE Probation
Judge Steven Alm
Judge Alm began with a discussion of an alternative program he created in Hawai`i HOPE probation (Hawai`i’s Opportunity Probation with Enforcement). Alm stated that about
8,277 offenders are on felony probation or deferral in O`ahu. The probation officers on O`ahu
have very high caseloads to contend with given caseloads of up to 180 probationers. Further,
most of the offenders that they deal with have other problems, including drug addiction, and this
serves to contribute to the workload. In most cases, those who need the most help are not getting
it and, thus, face a higher risk of violating their probation. With this comes the problem of
(re)incarceration. This is where HOPE Probation comes into play.
The target population for this program is high risk probationers. This includes exoffenders, offenders who fail probation on a regular basis and are headed for revocation of
probation, and domestic violence offenders. HOPE implements immediate consequences for
offenders who violate any terms of their probation terms. HOPE probation begins by first giving
offenders a warning that if they violate the rules of their community supervision, they will go to
jail. Probationers are required to call a hotline each weekday morning to find out if they must
take a drug test that day. Random drug testing is done at least once a week for the first two
months. Warrants for arrests will be issued for probationers who test positive. They are arrested
immediately if they test positive, fail to appear for a drug test, or violate any other terms of
probation. It is important to note the jail terms range from several days to a few weeks,
depending on which rule was broken. Long term incarceration is not used as a sanction. Alm
stated that a lot of people can get off of drugs on their own and the ones that cannot do it on their
own will receive help to get into treatment.

26

The random drug testing via the hotline is considered an integral part of HOPE – it
encourages probationers to be successful. HOPE Probation has been able to be successful in
reducing positive drug testing by 86%,
missed probation appointments by 80%,

HOPE Probation has been able to
be successful in reducing positive
drug testing by 86%, missed
probation appointments by 80%,
revocations of probation by more
than 50% and the reduction of new
crimes by more than 50% since
the program was started in 2004.

revocations of probation by more than 50%
and the reduction of new crimes by more
than 50% since the program was started in
October of 2004.

The Path Clinic – Giving Birth to Hope
Renee Schuetter, RN
Renee Schuetter discussed the Path Clinic, a clinic that provides prenatal care and other
help to substance-using pregnant women. This is the only prenatal addiction clinic in Hawai`i. It
is designed to eliminate the barriers substance-addicted women encounter in finding care while
pregnant. The clinic provides transportation to and from the center before and after the baby’s
birth, counseling for their addiction, and social service support. Schuetter notes that the clinic
provides essential services without judgment for women who generally do not seek these
services.
There are several reasons why these women do not often seek treatment. First, they are
primarily afraid that they will lose their baby. But, they are also afraid of the criminal justice
system (many of these women have a history of incarceration) as well as the negative judgment
they receive from healthcare providers. Schuetter mentioned that healthcare is one of the biggest
obstacles because healthcare workers oftentimes judge these women the most and feel as if they
have a right to do so. The Path Clinic works to help the women feel comfortable by creating a
safe and supportive environment and gains their trust so that they feel that they are not being
judged and are in a place in which people really do want to help them. Further, women who
have addictions do not handle bureaucracy very well.

27

The Path Clinic was created in April 2007 and has served over 165 women to date. 55%
of them are part-Hawaiian; about half
have a history of incarceration. Further,

Since the clinic opened in 2007, 61
of 65 deliveries were full-term and
the clinic’s preterm birthrate
(6.2%) is much better than the
national average of 12.7% and
12.2% for Hawai`i.

99% of the women are on Medicaid or
Quest. Schuetter stated that among the
goals of the program are that healthy
babies be born and that the women are

able to care for the babies. Whether a baby is healthy is determined by length of the pregnancy
(e.g., do the women make it to full term) and by birth weight. This can be hard to achieve with
the population served by the Path Clinic, many of whom are addicted to methamphetamine.
However, the clinic is doing just as well as private practice when it comes to birth weight.
Since the clinic opened in 2007, 61 of 65 deliveries were full-term and the clinic’s pre-term
birthrate (6.2%) is much better than the national average of 12.7% and 12.2% for Hawai`i. Low
birth weights are also about half of the national percentage. The cost of 50 births was about
$250,000 per year at the clinic - premature babies cost ten times as much. However, since the
majority of these women deliver at full-term and have normal weight babies, the program is able
save approximately $550,000 per year.

Thus, this is a cost-effective clinic and program.

Additionally, most of the women (61 out of 65) tested clean at the time of delivery.
The program has also been successful in helping these women keep custody of their
children. Most of the women who are in the program have lost custody of a child in the past, to
foster care or other, and they really do not want to lose custody of their babies. Most of the
women involved with the Path Clinic, are able to retain custody of their children – 95% of the
women have custody of their babies that delivered with help from the Path Clinic. It also
motivates them to find a job to help support themselves and their child. Schuetter notes that the
most amazing part of this is that these women really do care about their babies, their care, and
their health - contrary to popular belief. Beyond the birth of the babies, though, it is also
important to note that 87% of the women demonstrated a decrease in the use of drugs and 80% of
these women become abstinent from substance abuse. Many of the women want to continue
treatment – they feel they need more treatment after the program to continue living a better life.

28

The Transformative Power of Education
Lisa Haan and Jackie Bissen
Lisa Haan and Jackie Bissen are both single mothers who have similar histories of
incarceration but who nonetheless found different ways to achieve their goals of successful
reintegration. Both of the women have histories of drug use and incarceration. Both also spoke
about the years of struggle they encountered and, ultimately, the power of education in
transforming their lives.
Bissen finished high school but took time off from college. She came from a middle class
background and is one who seemingly had it all. She graduated from Punahou but got into drugs
when her partner at the time sold drugs; she ultimately began using as well. She had a great job
at the Bank of Hawai`i but she lost that job due to her addiction to drugs. She went on to describe
a dysfunctional life and how, ultimately, the transformative power of education changed her life
for the better. She received her AAS in diesel mechanics, prompted to do so after taking
educational opportunities offered to her while she was incarcerated. She is now a CDL driver for
Pomaikai Transport Services and has also worked at Keiki O Ka `Aina, a program that assists
children of incarcerated parents.
Haan, on the other hand, dropped out of high school and came from a family that did not
have much. She later earned her GED and is currently pursuing a B.A. degree, where she is on
the Dean’s list. Due to opportunities while on furlough, Lisa became interested in and involved
with research. She is currently a research analyst and manager at SMS Research, where she
received three promotions in her first few years.
Things were not always so good for these women. By their thirties both of these women
found themselves in prison. Both had abused drugs, and one got pregnant as a teen and the other
after being released. However, they both got to a point in their lives where they knew they had
to change for the better or else they would end up back in prison.
They both found a passion that kept them occupied and focused. These women work in
diesel mechanics and research – earning them a decent income. They also stated that women who
exit incarceration should leave with job skills that help them to support their families.

29

Haan and Bissen demonstrated that education can provide a better future and opportunity
for people, even those with past histories of offending and drug use. They counter the mindset of
many Americans who think ‘once a
criminal, always a criminal’ and that
What matters most was that through
all of their respective struggles and
past problems they both ultimately
made decisions, coupled with
available opportunities, to change their
futures for the better.

these types of individuals are unable to
make positive and substantial life
changes. Indeed, both Haan and Bissen
mentioned that theirs was not an easy
road; yet, they stuck to their respective

programs and now feel that anything and everything is possible. What matters most was that
through all of their respective struggles and past problems they both ultimately made decisions,
coupled with available opportunities, to change their futures for the better.

Ho`i hou i ka iwi kuamo`o (Return to the Backbone)
Carrie Ann Shirota, 2007 Soros Justice Fellow
Carrie Ann Shirota began her presentation with an `Olelo No`eau, or Native Hawaiian
proverb, “Ho`i hou i ka iwi kuamo`o.”

Literally translated, this means to “Return to the

Backbone.” The kaona, or hidden meaning, is to return home or to your family after being away.
With this `Olelo no`eau as context, Shirota focused on cultural approaches, education and
training as a tool for changing one’s path, as exemplified by Maui Economic Opportunity’s
Being Empowered and Safe Together Reintegration Program (“BEST Program”).

Shirota

discussed a cultural approach to healing and successful reentry. She mentioned that successful
reentry should begin inside the prison walls. As such, this program begins with men and women
who are behind bars. The program consists of a reintegration program which offers case
management support, employment and housing assistance, substance abuse and mental health
treatment referrals, cultural renewal training, and various other support services in partnership
with the Judiciary (probation) and Department of Public Safety (i.e. MCCC, Maui Intake
Services, Parole).
The Cultural Renewal component of BEST has included Hula, theatrical productions,
family reunification and the reading circle. Through these programs, participants learn values
that are empowering and counter the “culture of prison,” that often breeds negativity, violence,
30

lack of responsibility and bitterness. In contrast, culturally based programs emphasize values,
practices, and cultural identity that facilitate their reconnection with their `ohana (family), `aina
(land) and communities. Culture
is
the BEST program also saves thousands of
dollars - from $13,643 to $7,998 per client
at one year. It is also an effective program.
Approximately 24% of BEST clients
compared to 42.3% of a control group were
convicted of a new offense during the study
period and only 41% of the clients versus
56.4% of the control group were rearrested.

empowering

promotes

the

because
creation

it
of

informal “positive peer” support
groups,

helps

formerly

incarcerated persons transform
their

self-image,

acknowledge

their

and
gifts and

kuleana (responsibility). The Hula Halau fulfills participants’ desire to learn more Hawaiian
culture in the form of oli (chants) and mele (songs). In turn, this perpetuates the life of the
Native Hawaiian culture.
These culturally competent programs teach valuable skills to incarcerated and formerly
incarcerated men and women.

Participants learn patience, discipline, hard work, respect,

working together to accomplish a shared goal, and how to use their time wisely. Through hula,
one learns about aloha, doing what is pono (righteous), and the interconnection of Ke Akua
(Creator), na kupuna (ancestors), `ohana and `aina.
The holistic and comprehensive approach to the BEST Programs helps men and women
return to their families and communities as “transformed” individuals. Many of those who are
released from prison still stay in the program and bring their families to learn Hawaiian culture.
This helps men and women focus on hula, something that is positive in their life while
incarcerated, as well as when they return to their communities. In effect, cultural education
programs facilitate healing – within the person and within families.
Shirota also noted that the BEST program is cost effective, saving tax payers thousands
of dollars. Citing a third party evaluation report by Dr. Marilyn Brown, Dr. Joe Allen and Dr.
Janet Davidson, Shirota emphasized that BEST saves from $13,643 to $7,998 per client at one
year. In addition, the report concluded that approximately 24% of BEST clients compared to
42.3% of a control group were convicted of a new offense during the study period and only 41%
of the clients versus 56.4% of the “high risk” control group were rearrested.

31

In the end, Shirota recommends that we recognize the value in and support cultural
programs – both those inside the prison walls and within the community. Although cultural
training and education has worked for centuries, Shirota acknowledged the modern day
importance of evaluating and validating these programs to gain recognition as a “best practice.”
Additionally, she emphasized the importance of ensuring that incarcerated persons earn credit for
participating in these types of programs. These programs can and should serve as alternatives to
incarceration for many individuals entangled in the criminal justice system.
Finally, Shirota concluded that cultural education programs should be viewed as part of
the solution to returning incarcerated men and women from Hawai`i that have been transferred to
private for profit prisons in the continental United States. The restoration and strengthening of
familial relationships requires a return to cultural values and practices, and close contact with
families and the `aina.

32

The National Progressive Agenda
Janet T. Davidson, Ph.D.
Chaminade University of Honolulu

This conference offered a number of smart solutions and research-based alternatives to
our current model of ‘tough’ justice. There are indeed options to the now traditional method of
processing offenders through the system in ever tough and restrictive ways. Indeed, the national
progressive agenda offers alternatives to achieving justice – ones that are both smarter and serve
to enhance public safety. What follows draws heavily from the Justice Policy Institute, a leader
in promoting evidence-based alternatives to ‘doing’ justice.
Eric Holder’s remarks at Vera’s Annual Justice Address provide a guiding impetus for us
to get smarter with regard to crime by, first and foremost, using data to guide our practices, to
move beyond partisanship, and to move beyond rhetoric and ideology. These remarks, by our
current U.S. Attorney General, really are at the root of the National Progressive Agenda. But,
how do we move forward wisely and, too, in a way that serves to enhance public safety?
Luckily the most important response here is that we can move forward responsibly and
safely, in ways that do serve to save money and make our communities safer. We know there is,
at best, only a minimal connection between incarceration and crime rates. Importantly, we also
know that many states that reduced their incarceration rates have also demonstrated greater
reductions in crime than those who have increased their rates. Incarceration as an answer to
crime is simply too reductionist.
So what can we do differently? What else should be on the crime-control agenda? Outlined
below is a list of progressive alternatives. This is certainly not an exhaustive list. Rather, the list
represents what can be considered a top 5 list of data-driven recommendations to improve public
safety and simultaneously save money.

These recommendations are doable and could be

implemented in the short term yet also have the possibility of very significant long-term benefits.
But first, an overriding mantra of the National Progressive Agenda is this:


Increase public safety via evidence-based approaches.

33

This should also be the mantra of policy makers everywhere. Science should trump rhetoric in
this area. As such, there are many ways to increase public safety – but building and spending
more money on prisons is not one of these approaches. Improving public safety and saving
money are not mutually exclusive categories – they actually go together. Research can and
should lead the way. The following ‘top 5’ list thus stems from the premise that evidencedbased approaches should be the basis of most major reforms.

Number One:

Re-examine policies that drive incarceration rates - such as

incarceration based on technical violations of parole conditions (rather than new
crimes) and the incarceration of non-violent offenders.

Community-based alternatives should be explored. Increasing the availability of parole could
save government agencies millions of dollars. For example, releasing just 10% of the prison
population (based on 2007 numbers) could save the state and federal governments roughly $3
billion dollars.
Keeping technical violators of parole in the community rather than sending them back to
prison can save money. Technical violators of parole (and probation) are those who violate some
condition of their supervised release. But it should be stressed that technical violations are not
new criminal violations. The Justice Policy Institute estimates that, based on 2007 data, Hawai`i
alone could have saved almost $3 million dollars by keeping its technical violators in the
community rather than in prison.

Number Two: Implement policies that can safely increase releases from prison through
parole and other community-based programs.

We can safely accomplish this with the use of actuarial based risk and need assessment
instruments to help guide release, supervision, and the most effective treatment services for
individual offenders. Many jurisdictions have embraced the use of risk and needs assessment
instruments (including Hawai`i), yet these instruments need to be fully utilized in order to
completely realize this goal. Namely, the results from risk and need assessments should guide the

34

provision of programs that match the offenders’ needs. The latter implies that we must also
invest in programs, and programs that work, to rehabilitate offenders.
We can also look at both helping offenders who are in the community (on probation, parole,
or other) become successful. This implies that we must challenge our assumptions about
offenders and what reentry really means. The community is an important component of
successful offender reentry and reintegration.
The National Institute of Correction provides a good model of change via its 8 principles of
effective intervention. Following are those 8 principles
(http://www.nicic.org/ThePrinciplesofEffectiveInterventions):
o Assess offenders’ risks and needs with actuarial risk/need instruments;
o Effectively enhance motivation for initiating and maintaining behavior changes
via motivational interviewing techniques rather than traditional persuasion tactics;
o Target interventions: prioritize services to high risk offenders, match programs
with needs; be responsive to offender’s learning, gender, and cultural
backgrounds; and integrate treatment with sentence requirements;
o Provide evidence-based programming that delivers cognitive-behavioral strategies
by well trained staff;
o Increase positive reinforcement;
o Engage ongoing support in the communities to which offenders come from or will
return;
o Measure relevant processes and practices; and
o Provide measurement feedback.

In response to NIC’s 8 principles, coupled with corresponding reductions in recidivism
elsewhere, Hawai`i has been working to implement these principles. Specifically, Hawai`i
formed the Interagency Council on Intermediate Sanctions (ICIS) to implement these principles.
Finally, we know that we can develop effective systems of graduated responses to
violations of community supervision. Review the section in these proceedings about HOPE here
in Hawai`i. This is Judge Alm’s project that is demonstrating success via a reduction in arrests,
positive drug tests, and missed appointments. Importantly, HOPE sanctions are swift and certain,
but specifically serve to avoid long-term incarceration for most offenders.
35

Number Three: Closing prisons realizes the largest financial savings, so policymakers
should look at reforms that close a facility or portion of a facility.

This does not imply a need to target institutions without specific goals. Institutions that provide
needed treatment for offenders, ones who may not be safely supervised in the community, are
not likely good targets for closure. Rather, institutions that house largely non-violent and low
risk offenders should receive priority for closure.

Number Four: Money saved from closing prisons should be redirected to communitybased services that have been proven to improve both public safety and the life
outcomes of individuals.

Community-based programs, in general, are both cost effective and serve to improve
public safety. We know that we have a lot of substance abusers in prison, yet prison (with or
without treatment) simply comes at high monetary and social costs. Substance abuse treatment in
the community costs significantly less than prison.
The Washington State Institute for Public Policy (WSIPP) conducted meta-analyses of
quality program evaluations. In one of these meta-analytic studies, WSIPP found that spending
$1 dollar on drug treatment in prison yields nearly $6 dollars in savings in terms of increased
public safety. However, that same $1 dollar invested in community-based drug treatment yields
over $18 dollars in cost savings. WSIPP also found that intensive-supervision oriented programs
net a 16.7% reduction in recidivism, while drug treatment in prison nets a 5.7% reduction. The
bottom line – we can save more money and demonstrate a greater increase in public safety via
community rather than prison based treatment.
One more item deserves mention here. We must do a better job with our mentally ill
offenders. Jails and prisons cannot nor should they remain de-facto mental health institutions.
This process has served to be simply expensive and ineffective.

Number Five: To achieve long-term public safety gains, money saved on incarceration
should be invested in social institutions that build strong communities, including
education, employment training, housing, and treatment.
36

Money spent on incarceration could be reinvested in other social institutions, such as
education, including vocational, mental and physical health fields, treatment, and housing. We
know about programs that simply help to prevent crime from occurring in the first place, but
these are investments. Early education provides a good example. Education in general is a
known deterrent to crime and is an effective means to reduce recidivism. Yet, according to a
report by the Pew Center for Public Policy, our spending on education has risen 21% between
1987 and 2007 while spending on corrections increased by 127%.
The logic is simple – spend less – and increase public safety via the use of data, evidencebased programs, and investment in our communities and our people. These recommendations
stem from transparent data.

The challenge is to view what is available – such as these

recommendations from the Justice Policy Institute, the Vera Institute of Justice, and the
Washington State Public Policy Institute. We need to use sound evidence to guide our future
choices with regard to crime prevention, public safety, and the use of jails and prisons.
It is important to reiterate that we did not become the world’s leader in incarceration
because of our exceptionally higher crime rates. Rather, we became the world’s leader in
incarceration because of our choices. We can simply no longer afford the choices of the past few
decades. We now know that there are better choices to be made both nationally and locally, and
these choices can be justified through evidence – the best, most scientifically based justification
of all.

37

The Hawai`i Progressive Agenda
Kat Brady, Coordinator
Community Alliance on Prisons

As highlighted by the Smart Strategies panel, Hawai`i has begun implementing some
progressive methods for addressing crime and wrongdoing in our communities. HOPE
Probation’s recent evaluation shows real promise for the high risk, non-compliant probationers in
the program. The percentage of HOPE probationers, compared with control group probationers,
found that the missed appointments were only 9% compared to 23% for the control group,
positive urine tests were 13% compared to 46% for the control group, new arrests were 21%
compared to 47% for the control group, the revocation rate was 7% compared to 15% for the
control group, and incarceration for HOPE probationers were calculated at 138 days compared to
267 days for the control group. In regards to the persistence of the HOPE effect, the evaluation
states, “At the time this evaluation was conducted, it was not possible to assess long term effects
as the number of probationers who had completed their probation term was too small to support
a rigorous statistical analysis. Probationers placed on HOPE when HOPE was first
implemented are beginning to complete their terms. In the near future there will be a sufficient
number of HOPE probationers who have completed their probation term to permit an
assessment of whether the effects of HOPE persist.” The ongoing evaluations of innovative
programs like HOPE Probation are a crucial for policymakers to consider the best way to expend
public resources.
The outcomes of the Path Clinic, another innovative program to help pregnant substance
abusing women, clearly indicate that supportive, non-judgmental, and excellent medical care can
have a significant impact on Hawai`i’s children, families, and communities. The majority of
deliveries were full term and while 87% of the women demonstrated a decrease in the use of
drugs, 80% of these women become abstinent. The Path clinic delivers healthy babies, supports
healthy mothers, and builds stronger families for Hawai`i.
The transformative power of education was clearly demonstrated by two formerly
incarcerated women who have returned to their communities as success stories and, more
importantly, symbols of hope for others struggling in similar situations. Their paths were not
easy, but their commitment to create better lives through higher education for themselves and
38

their families helped them stay focused. The success of these two amazing women is shared by
the community and illustrates how important it is for policymakers to establish mentoring
programs and fund educational resources as pathways out of crime for Hawai`i’s lawbreakers.
Research demonstrates that higher education is one of the most effective means of transforming
an individual’s life and reducing recidivism. A standout among such reports was the Three State
Recidivism Study. The 2001 study, headed by Stephen Steurer, examined more than 3,600
former inmates who had been released for at least three years from prisons in Maryland,
Minnesota and Ohio. The study found that “simply attending school behind bars reduces the
likelihood of re-incarceration by 29 percent.”

Further, the study reported fiscal savings,

“Translated into savings, every dollar spent on education returns more than two dollars to the
citizens in reduced prison costs.” A preliminary report by consultants hired by the Department
of Public Safety found that the majority of Hawai`i’s incarcerated population is comprised of
nonviolent individuals with more than two-thirds of the women and more than half of the men
projected to be classified at the minimum and community custody levels, the least restrictive
levels of incarceration. Access to education, therefore, is a crucial component to community
revitalization.
Since Hawai`i incarcerates a disproportionate number of Native Hawaiians, using culture
as a basis for reintegrating individuals returning home is powerfully illustrated in the outcomes
of Maui Economic Opportunity’s Being Empowered and Safe Together Reintegration Program
(“BEST Program”). Approximately 24% of BEST clients compared to 42.3% of a control group
were convicted of a new offense during the study period and only 41% of the clients versus
56.4% of the control group were rearrested. Culture is empowering because it promotes the
creation of informal “positive peer” support groups, helps formerly incarcerated persons
transform their self-image, and acknowledge their gifts and kuleana (responsibility). These are
the values that rebuild lives, restore `ohana and revitalize communities. Hawai`i has a unique
opportunity to not only repair the harms caused by incarceration, but to prevent wrongdoing by
using cultural concepts to connect individuals and their communities. Culturally competent
programs teach valuable skills to incarcerated and formerly incarcerated men and women and
should be employed on all islands as a successful strategy for reintegration and for strengthening
communities.

39

There is still more we can do more to shift our priorities from punishment to restoration
in order to rebuild lives, restore `ohana, and revitalize our communities.

1. Use Science and Data to Create Smart Policies

Policies based on fear and worst case scenarios are partly responsible for Hawai`i’s
economic woes and have done little to protect public safety. Public policies must be science and
data driven. Programs must include outcome evaluations so that policymakers can assess their
efficacy. Hawai`i has many world-class researchers that can assist in policymakers in utilizing
data to formulate policies that make sense while using our resources wisely to achieve successful
outcomes.

2. Implement Phase 2 of the Successful RDAP (Residential Drug Abuse Program)

Hawai`i uses the Bureau of Prisons’ RDAP treatment program (Phase 1) in its facilities,
as well as in the private Corrections Corporation of America prisons. However Phase 2 has never
been implemented by Hawai`i. A formerly incarcerated person describes RDAP Phase 1 as ‘the
drivers’ manual’ where one learns the rules of the road and Phase 2 as ‘getting behind the wheel’
and employing all those skills learned in Phase 1. The literature about after-care is very clear
that a continuum of care is absolutely necessary to help an individual successfully transition to
the community.

3. Create a Comprehensive Reentry/Reintegration System

Hawai`i has a few reentry/reintegration programs, but no real reentry system to address
the needs of a formerly incarcerated individual. Creating a comprehensive reentry/reintegration
system will reduce recidivism and revitalize communities. Funds currently used to incarcerate
community custody individuals should be reallocated to create an effective reentry/reintegration
system with a diverse array of evidence-based practices.

40

4. Improve Probation and Parole

Improving probation and parole services and supports could save states millions of
dollars. Approximately 26 percent of people on parole in 2007 returned to prison for a technical
violation. By shifting the modality of supervision to one of support and service, states could send
fewer people back to prison for technical violations.

1

In Hawai`i 1 in 48 individuals is under

some form of community supervision (1 in 53 on probation and 1 in 531 on parole). 2

5. Mandate Accountability and Transparency

Policymakers must demand accountability and transparency from the Department of
Public Safety to accurately assess the efficacy of their policies. They need the flexibility to shift
resources to areas where they are needed in order to address the changing needs of our
incarcerated population. Contracts, research, program evaluations, criteria for transfers,
monitors’ reports, etc. should be made easily accessible on a website available to the public.

6. Establish Independent Community Oversight Boards

One effective way of achieving accountability and transparency is by establishing an
Independent Community Oversight Board that has golden key access to all Hawai`i institutions
as well as those private contract facilities housing Hawai`i individuals. These boards would be
mandated to file reports on the conditions of confinement, the management of facilities, and the
rehabilitation opportunities available to Hawai`i’s incarcerated individuals.

7. Address the Needs of Children of Incarcerated Parents

The data show that children of incarcerated parents are six to seven times more likely to
end up incarcerated themselves. This is a clarion call to policymakers that if we are to stem the
flow of individuals into our prisons and jails, we must address the needs of these children and

1
2

Pruning Prisons: How Cutting Corrections Can Save Money and Protect Public Safety, Justice Policy Institute, May 2009.
Probation and Parole in the United States, 2008 can be found at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/ppus08.htm.

41

youth. Hawai`i currently has a task force but alas no funding to implement programs to help the
thousands of children and youth with an incarcerated parent.

8. Reform Sentencing Laws

Repealing mandatory sentencing laws for nonviolent law violators would dramatically
reduce Hawai`i’s incarcerated population. Since the majority of Hawai`i individuals are
incarcerated for nonviolent crimes, as shown by the preliminary classification report released by
the Department of Public Safety, wasting precious resources on long prison sentences and
sending our people thousands of miles from home has been counter-productive. The data show
that longer sentences only make it more difficult for individuals to successfully reintegrate and
reconnect with their families. Hence, it makes both common and economic sense to restore
judicial discretion and allow the court to assess the appropriate sanctions for lawbreakers.

9. Increase Community-Based Substance Abuse Treatment

Substance abuse treatment provided in the community is more cost-effective than
imprisonment. Individuals with substance abuse histories compose the majority of Hawai`i’s
prison population. Substance use/abuse plays a role in the commission of certain crimes. “As of
October 2003 the Department of Public Safety reported that 2,690 males (54% of 2003 ADP3)
and 347 females (52% of 2003 ADP4) were identified as being in need of substance abuse
treatment.” The Report also made reference to the 1991 Plan which noted that “75% of a sample
of inmates admitted drug use.”5 Treatment delivered in the community is one of the most costeffective ways to prevent such crimes. For every $1 spent on drug treatment in the community,
approximately $18 can be saved.6

3

ADP Males – include male sentenced (felons, probation felons, and misdemeanors), pretrial (felons and misdemeanors), other jurisdiction inmates,
and probation/parole violators.
4
ADP Females – include female sentenced (felons, probation felons, and misdemeanors), pretrial (felons and misdemeanors), other jurisdiction
inmates, and probation/parole violators.
5
10 Year Corrections Master Plan Update 2003,
http://www.hawaii.gov/psd/documents/10yrrpt/2003%20Master%20Plan%20Update%20Final%20Report.pdf
6
Aos, Steve, Polly Phipps, Robert Barnoski, and Roxanne Lieb. 2001. The comparative costs and benefits of programs to reduce crime. Olympia:
Washington State Institute for Public Policy.

42

10. Institute Community-Based Alternatives to Incarceration

Community-based programs are cost effective and improve public safety. Communitybased alternatives to prison can ensure that people stay in the community with educational and
employment opportunities, family, and other support systems. For youth, especially, there are a
growing number of evidence-based alternatives that cost less and are more effective than
incarceration, such as Multisystemic Therapy.

11. Increase Community Programs for the Mentally Ill

Incarcerating people with mental illnesses is expensive and ineffective. Approximately
17% of Hawai`i’s incarcerated population suffers from mentally illness. Prisons and jails make
poor treatment facilities for people with a mental illness. Increasing investments in communitybased treatment, improving diversion from prison and jail, and ensuring that those leaving these
facilities have adequate care, all will reduce the financial burden of imprisoning people with a
mental illness.

12. Implement Policies for Justice Reinvestment
Justice Reinvestment is a grant program to help reduce spending on corrections, control
growth in the prison and jail populations, and increase public safety. It calls for enacting policy
changes to effectively lower the corrections budget and reinvesting a portion of those savings in
strategies that will reduce crime and strengthen communities. Reinvesting money now spent on
incarceration in other social institutions will improve public safety in the long term. Making
smart investments in communities and social institutions is the most effective way of improving
public safety and supporting communities. Investments in housing also correlate with lower
incarceration rates. Making budgetary cuts in services that increase opportunities and strengthen
communities could result in increases in crime - and its resultant costs – in the future. Some
states have already started to reduce their prison populations to save money. In order to keep out
communities safe, government agencies should take cues from states like Texas, Nevada, New

43

York, New Jersey and Georgia, who have significantly reduced prison populations through
increased use of release mechanisms like parole and investments in communities and are
realizing a decreasing crime rate.

The Strategy
Justice reinvestment staff, with the help of expert consultants, work closely with state
policymakers to advance fiscally-sound, data driven criminal justice policies to break the cycle
of recidivism, avert prison expenditures and make communities safer.
To assist state policymakers, justice reinvestment staff is providing technical assistance to a
limited number of states that demonstrate a bipartisan interest in the strategy:


Step 1: Analyze the prison population and spending in the communities to which people
in prison often return.



Step 2: Provide policymakers with options to generate savings and increase public safety.



Step 3: Quantify savings and reinvest in select high-stakes communities.



Step 4: Measure the impact and enhance accountability.

Work in the States
The Council of State Governments Justice Center is working with a handful of states to
implement justice reinvestment strategies. These states are designing policies to manage the
growth of the corrections system, improve the accountability and integration of resources
concentrated in particular communities, and reinvest a portion of the savings generated from
these efforts to make communities receiving the majority of people released from prison safer,
stronger, and healthier. This section is intended for state policymakers, criminal justice
practitioners, and other stakeholders responsible for determining corrections and sentencing
policies.
The justice reinvestment project is in the process of identifying other states to add to the
select number of jurisdictions receiving technical assistance to pursue justice reinvestment
strategies.

44

Evaluations
The evaluation form asked eleven questions about the conference. The responses were
overwhelmingly positive and convinced the Planning Committee that the community is hungry for
accurate information about Hawai`i’s correctional policies and that they want more gathering like this
with more time for questions and answers and networking. The planning committee has already started
working on unlocking justice 2010 and will build in more time for these specific areas.
1. The conference increased my understanding of issues related to criminal justice data
71.7% Strongly Agree; 28.3% Agree
2. I appreciated the richness of perspectives offered by the speakers and panelists
76.1% Strongly Agree; 23.9% Agree
3. I will integrate things learned at the conference in my work
63.0% Strongly Agree; 21.7% Agree; 6.5% Neutral; 6.5% Not Applicable;
2.2% No Response
4. The conference raised my awareness about justice issues
65.2% Strongly Agree; 23.9% Agree; 6.5% Neutral; 4.4% Not Applicable
5. I have a greater understanding of alternative strategies
58.7% Strongly Agree; 34.8% Agree; 6.5% Neutral
6. The quality of presentations was excellent
82.6% Strongly Agree; 15.5% Agree; 2.2% Neutral
7. There was adequate time during presentations to discuss ideas and ask questions
37.8% Strongly Agree; 33.3% Agree; 13.3% Neutral; 8.9% Disagree; 2.2% Strongly Disagree;
4.4% Not Applicable
8. The conference provided sufficient resources, networking opportunities, and program information
69.6% Strongly Agree; 21.7% Agree; 4.3% Neutral; 4.4% Disagree
9. Presenters and speakers were available for those who wished to contact them for more information
58.7% Strongly Agree; 26.0% Agree; 8.7% Neutral; 2.2% Not Applicable; 4.4% No Response
10. Overall, I learned a great deal from this conference
76.1% Strongly Agree; 19.6% Agree; 4.4% Neutral
11. Based on my experience, I would attend another conference like this in the future
76.1% Strongly Agree; 21.7% Agree; 2.2% Not Applicable

45

Appendices
Program: unlocking justice, Saturday, October 17, 2009, Chaminade University
8:00 - 8:30

REGISTRATION AND NETWORKING

8:30 - 8:45

WELCOME

8:45 – 8:55

REMARKS FROM state legislative public safety
chairs
Senator Will Espero
Representative Faye Hanohano

8:55 - 9:00

Introduction of Keynote - Michele Deitch, J.D., M.Sc.
Attorney and Professor at the University of Texas—LBJ School of Public Affairs

9:00 – 9:45

KEYNOTE address
“‘There are No Bad Prisons in Paradise' and Other Dangerous Criminal Justice
Myths”
Q & A with Keynote

9:45 –10:00
10:00 – 10:20

BREAK

10:20 - 11:30

Smart on Crime in Hawai`i: What We Know, What We Need to Know
Panelists:
Meda Chesney-Lind – Ann & Me
Rae Deen Karasuda, Ph.D. – Overrepresentation of Native Hawaiians & the Politics of Data
Geri Marullo – Impacts of Incarceration and the Drug War on Families
Marilyn Brown, Ph.D. – Making Hawai`i Accountable: What Evidenced Based Policy Looks Like
Moderator: Robert Perkinson

11:30 – 11:50

Q&A with Panel #1

11:50 – 1:10
1:10 - 1:15

LUNCH & NETWORKING
Introduction of Dr. Thomas Lengyel
Scholar-in-Residence at the University of Denver School of Social Work

1:15 – 2:00

2:00 – 2:20

Dr. Thomas Lengyel
EVERYONE PAYS
A Social Cost Analysis of Incarcerating Parents for Drug Offenses in Hawai`i
Q&A with Dr. Tom Lengyel

2:20 – 2:40

BREAK

2:40 – 3:50

smart STRATEGIES
Panelists:
Judge Steven Alm – HOPE Probation
Renee Schuetter – The Path Clinic – Giving Birth to Hope
Lisa Haan and Jackie Bissen - The Transformative Power of Education
Carrie Ann Shirota – Ho`i hou i ka iwi kuamo`o (Return to the Backbone)
Moderator: Jeanne Ohta

3:50 – 4:10

Q&A with Panel #2

4:10 – 4:30

CALL TO ACTION
The National Progressive Agenda
Hawai`i’s Progressive Agenda

4:30 – 4:45

Closing & MAHALo

46

Biographies of Presenters:
Steven s. alm (HOPE Probation) was sworn in as a First Circuit judge on May 14, 2001. He is

currently assigned to the felony Criminal Division. Judge Alm currently chairs the Corrections
Population Management Commission, appointed by the governor to establish maximum inmate
population limits for each correctional facility and to formulate policies and procedures to prevent the
inmate population from exceeding the capacity of each correctional facility and is co-chair of the
Interagency Council on Intermediate Sanctions, whose vision is the reduction of recidivism and the
prevention of future victimization by adult offenders.
Prior to his judicial appointment, Judge Alm served as the United States Attorney for the District of
Hawai`i from November 1994 until April 2001. From 1985 to 1994, Judge Alm served as Deputy
Prosecuting Attorney for the City and County of Honolulu. During that time, he served as a Felony Team
Supervisor and as Director of the District and Family Court division and personally handled complex
homicide cases. Judge Alm worked as a Westlaw Editor for West Publishing Company from 19831985. Judge Alm received his law degree from the University of the Pacific's McGeorge School of Law in
1983 and his Master's degree in Education from the University of Oregon in 1979.
In 2004, Judge Alm brought together stakeholders to design and implement HOPE Probation (Hawai`i's
Opportunity Probation with Enforcement). The program, the first and only of its kind in the nation, relies
on high-intensity supervision to reduce probation violations by drug offenders and others at high risk of
recidivism.


Jackie Bissen (The Transformative Power of Education) was born and raised in Kaneohe, and is

the single mother of one energetic 8 year old boy. She graduated from Punahou in 1986 but did not go to
college until later. Jackie has experienced the transformative power of education, having earned her AAS
in diesel mechanics and taking advantage of educational opportunities while incarcerated [for drug related
charges] and continuing her education in the community. Jackie has worked for Keiki o Ka `Aina, has
earned her Commercial Driver’s License (CDL) and is currently employed as a driver for Pomaikai
Transport Services.




Kat Brady (The Hawai`i Progressive Agenda) is a long-time Justice Advocate and Coordinator of

Community Alliance on Prisons, a community initiative working to improve the conditions of
confinement for Hawai`i’s 6,000 incarcerated individuals, enhance community safety, and promote smart
justice policies. She is also Assistant Executive Director of Life of the Land, a 40-year old local
environmental and community action group, Chair of the Honolulu County Committee on the Status of
Women, the Prisoner Advocate on the University of Hawai`i’s Institutional Review Board, Vice President
of the Drug Policy Forum of Hawai`i, Secretary of the Drug Policy Action Group, and an active member
of Ka Lei Maile Ali`i Hawaiian Civic Club and the Hawai`i Women’s Coalition. Kat is a frequent guest
lecturer at universities and community groups. Her work for justice includes educating communities on
important social issues and encouraging public participation to inform and reform public policy.
Kat was the recipient of the 2009 Hawai`i Friends of Civil Rights Martin Luther King, Jr. Friends Award,
recognized as the 2005 Friend of Social Work, recipient of the 2005 Hawai`i Senate Certificate of
Recognition for Social Justice Advocacy, 2004 recipient of The Interfaith Alliance of Hawai`i
Community Mobilization Award, and the 2003 recipient of the Kako`o o Kalaniana`ole Award as the
2003 Outstanding Non-Hawaiian for Service to the Hawaiian Community awarded by the National
Association of Hawaiian Civic Clubs.
47

Marilyn Brown (Making Hawai`i Accountable: What Evidence Based Policy Looks Like) is

Associate Professor of Sociology at the University of Hawai`i at Hilo where she teaches courses in
criminology, corrections, gender and crime, and juvenile delinquency. Her research targets local justicerelated policy issues including parenting women on parole, children of incarcerated parents, evaluation,
and reentry.
Marilyn has participated in a number of workshops and panels to educate the community on issues such
as three strikes (Hawai`i passed a three strikes law in 2006), reentry, and the impact of parental
incarceration on children. She continues to been an important community resource and collaborator. Her
research and participation in advocacy, education of policy makers, and outreach on justice issues to the
general public have all been very important to our local justice reform efforts. Because of her excellent
work, she has been appointed by the Legislature to a number of justice advisory groups on issues such as
children of incarcerated parents and reentry. Marilyn’s work has been cited in a number of bills that are
now law including equality for female offenders (Act 258, 2006), children of incarcerated parents (Act
256, 2006), and reentry for individuals exiting incarceration (Act 8 2007). These successes have been
realized not only through the hard work of a relatively small cohort of justice advocates, but through the
studies conducted by a similarly small number of criminology researchers. Fortunately, Marilyn Brown
has made herself available to work closely with us in formulating evidenced-based policies that can
promote justice in Hawai`i. She has also leveraged the resources of the University to educate the public in
general about justice issues through events such as a conference on issues related to female offenders,
three strikes laws, and other important justice topics. Marilyn has also been an invited speaker at the
Hawai`i County League of Women Voters gathering to share her dissertation research entitled
Motherhood on the Margins as well as at the 2009 Fertile Grounds for Reproductive Justice Conference
sponsored by The Women’s Fund of Hawai`i. She is the author of a number of book chapters, technical
reports, and articles in the field of criminology


Meda Chesney-Lind (Ann & Me) is Professor of Women’s Studies at the University of Hawaii at Manoa.
Nationally recognized for her work on women and crime, the author of seven books, she has just finished
two books on trends in girls’ violence, entitled Beyond Bad Girls: Gender, Violence and Hype written
with Katherine Irwin and Fighting for Girls co-edited with Nikki Jones. She received the Bruce Smith, Sr.
Award “for outstanding contributions to Criminal Justice” from the Academy of Criminal Justice
Sciences in April, 2001. She was named a fellow of the American Society of Criminology in 1996 and
has also received the Herbert Block Award for service to the society and the profession from the
American Society of Criminology. She has also received the Donald Cressey Award from the National
Council on Crime and Delinquency for “outstanding contributions to the field of criminology,” the
Founders award of the Western Society of Criminology for "significant improvement of the quality of
justice,” and the University of Hawaii Board of Regent's Medal for "Excellence in Research."
Finally, Chesney-Lind has recently joined a group studying trends in youth gangs organized by the
National Institute of Justice, and she was among the scholars working with the Office of Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention’s Girls Study Group. In Hawaii, she has worked with the Family Court,
First Circuit advising them on the recently formed Girls Court as well as helping improve the situation of
girls in detention with the recent JDAI Initiative.



48

Janet T. Davidson (The National Progressive Agenda) is Assistant Professor of Criminology

& Criminal Justice at Chaminade University. Dr. Davidson has a Ph.D. in Sociology with a specific focus
on crime, law and deviance. She also earned an M.A. and B.A. in sociology. Her research interests
include institutional and community corrections, recidivism, and issues related to gender and crime. She
has published numerous peer viewed and applied research publications, most recently, as the author of
Female Offenders and Risk Assessment: Hidden in Plain Sight (2009, LFB Scholarly Publications).
Dr. Davidson teaches Introduction to Criminal Justice Systems, Criminology, Corrections: Prisons and
Community Alternatives, Ethics in Criminal Justice, and Women and Crime at the undergraduate level.
She also teaches Research Methods & Statistics at the graduate level. Further, she advises both
undergraduate and graduate students regarding their programs of study. She has been at Chaminade
University full time since the 2005 academic year. Prior to CUH, she worked at the Hawaii Department of
the Attorney General as a Research Analyst.


Michele Deitch (“‘There Are No Bad Prisons in Paradise’ and Other Dangerous Criminal

Justice Myths”) teaches criminal justice policy at the University of Texas—Lyndon B. Johnson School of
Public Affairs. An attorney, she has over 23 years experience working on a variety of criminal justice
policy issues and juvenile justice matters with state and local policymakers, corrections, officials,
practitioners, and advocates. Her particular areas of expertise and interest include independent prison
oversight, prisoners’ rights and prison conditions, jail crowding and alternatives to incarceration, prison
privatization, sentencing reform, and trying juveniles as adults. Professor Deitch is considered one of the
nation’s leading experts on the issue of independent prison oversight and was awarded a Soros Senior
Justice Fellowship for her work in this area. She has written and testified extensively about the need for
effective prison oversight mechanisms, especially when dealing with vulnerable populations. She is also
the lead author of the book-length report “From Time Out to Hard Time: Young Children in the Adult
Criminal Justice System,” (LBJ School of Public Affairs, July 2009). The report has received nationwide
media attention, including an endorsement in a lead editorial in the New York Times. Deitch is also a
frequent commentator in the media on issues related to prison privatization and prison conditions.
Michele Deitch recently served for three years as the drafter of the American Bar Association’s proposed
standards on prisoners’ rights. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, she served as a full-time courtappointed monitor of conditions in the Texas prison system in the landmark civil rights case of Ruiz v.
Estelle; as General Counsel to the Texas Senate Criminal Justice Committee; and as the Policy Director
for the Texas Punishment Standards Commission, the state’s sentencing commission. She has maintained
an independent consulting practice since 1993. She holds a J.D. with honors from Harvard Law School, a
M.Sc. in psychology from Oxford University and a B.A. with honors from Amherst College.




Will Espero (Senate Chair of the Public Safety and Military Affairs Committee) represents the

20th District ('Ewa Beach, 'Ewa by Gentry, Ocean Pointe, `Ewa Villages, West Loch, Honouliuli, Lower
Waipahu). He has a BA in Business Management and has worked as Community Relations Manager for
D.R. Horton, General Manager for `Ewa by Gentry, Property Manager for Chaney Brooks and Company,
Operations Manager for Coalition for a Drug Free Hawai`i and Executive Secretary of the Neighborhood
Commission for the City and County of Honolulu. Senator Espero has served in leadership positions in
numerous community organizations and is Vice Chair of the Special Senate Committee to Consider
Approaches to Teacher Furloughs as well as a member of the Commerce and Consumer Protection,
Health, Joint Task Force to Conduct a Review of the State Highway Fund, and the Transportation,
International and Intergovernmental Affairs Committees.
49

Lisa Haan (The Transformative Power of Education) dropped out of high school, but later earned

her GED and continues to further her higher education. Currently, she is enrolled at Devry University
and has earned recognition on the Dean’s List. She is studying to become a Research Analyst and is a
current manager at SMS Research, having earned a promotion within 2 years. Lisa is also the mother of a
23 year old son and is grateful for the opportunity to share where she has been and where she is going.


Faye P. Hanohano (House Chair of the Public Safety Committee) is the Assistant Majority

Floor Leader in the House where she represents the 4th District (Puna, Pahoa, Hawaiian Acres, Kalapana).
She was born and raised in Pahoa, Hawai`i and graduated from Kamehameha Schools. Representative
Hanohano holds a BA in Sociology as well as a Masters in Business Administration. She retired after
serving as an Adult Correctional Officer and Acting Captain/Administrative Lieutenant at Kulani
Correctional Center for 25 years. She was also a Hawaiian Studies Lecturer at Hawai`i Community
College and Program Coordinator at Kalani Honua and Honua Hawai`i. Representative Hanohano serves
as a member of the Education, Higher Education, Labor & Public Employment, and Transportation
Committees.




RaeDeen Keahiolalo-Karasuda (The Impact of Incarceration on Native Hawaiians

& the Politics of Data) received her PhD in political science from the University of Hawai’i-Mānoa in
2008. Her dissertation, “The Colonial Carceral and Prison Politics in Hawai‘i” highlights the fallacy that
the majority Hawaiian prison population equates to a group that is more criminally prone than others.
Speaking to the prison as a site of colonial subjugation, RaeDeen’s research focuses on historical and
contemporary patterns of criminalizing Hawaiians for the purposes of land theft and political usurpation.
Her research begins with Chief Kamanawa (the grandfather of Lili’uokalani and Kalākaua) who was
publicly hanged before eight hundred natives under arms, including then four-year old Kalākaua who was
forced to witness the execution by his missionary teachers. Following this story, RaeDeen moves forward
to explain how opium policies and discourses advanced the downfall of the monarchy, how modern drug
discourses tend to be deployed in the face of Hawaiian political resistance, and how neocolonialism
continues through the current trend of exiling Hawaiians to foreign prisons. In 2007, RaeDeen was
awarded a Soros Justice Fellowship from the Open Society Institute where she piloted a political
reintegration curriculum that put her dissertation research into practice by increasing political literacy and
civic leadership among prisoners. Her curriculum, “E Holomua Me Ka ‘Ike Pono: Go Forward with the
Correct Knowledge” continues to influence policy and has taught in various venues, including prisons,
residential group homes, and treatment facilities.


Thomas E. Lengyel (EVERYONE PAYS: A Social Cost Analysis of Incarcerating Parents

for Drug Offenses in Hawai`i) Dr. Lengyel’s professional work, beginning with academic training and
research, dates to 1976, covering a span of 35 years. After several years of teaching in the fields of
anthropology and sociology, Dr. Lengyel entered the profession of social work and provided direct
services and supervision for 12 years at a public social work agency. He returned to graduate school in
1994 and earned a Master’s Degree in social work, complementing his earlier Ph.D. in anthropology.
From that point forward he engaged in applied policy research in social work related subjects ranging
from program evaluation to fundamental research on poverty, disabilities, behavioral health, health
service delivery and corrections. Dr. Lengyel’s applied research endeavors began with an internship at the
Planning Council for Health and Human Services in Milwaukee in 1994, subsequently joining the regular
50

staff. He accepted an appointment as Director of Research for the Alliance for Children and Families in
1996, and worked in that post for eleven years. The work products of this period are diverse in terms of
subjects and methods, and are available at: http://www.alliance1.org/Research/artsarchives.htm
His most recent work reflects the diversity of his training and expertise. A recently completed study,
funded by a foundation, applies novel methods to the cost-benefit analysis of incarceration. A second
study, submitted for publication to a peer reviewed journal, proposes a new method for measuring the
outcomes of prenatal health care, a health care delivery system that currently lack any outcome indicators.
Dr. Lengyel reviews articles for several professional journals, and has served as Senior Editor for the
journal Criminology and Public Policy. He has authored a substantial number of peer reviewed
publications and reports that are available upon request. Lengyel currently holds an appointment as
Scholar in Residence at the University of Denver School of Social Work.


Pam Lichty (Moderator, Smart on Crime in Hawai`i) is President and Co-Founder of the Drug

Policy Forum of Hawai‘i (DPFH), a non-profit organization established in 1993 to encourage discussion
and promote public education about current and alternative drug policies and related issues. DPFH
advocates approaches such as community- based alternatives to incarceration, treatment on demand, and
elimination of mandatory minimums. She has been a board member of the national Drug Policy Alliance,
the nation's leading organization working to end the war on drugs, since its founding. She has served on
the Board of Directors of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Hawai‘i for more than two
decades and sits on their Legislative and Executive Committees. She also chairs the state of Hawaii’s
Sterile Needle Exchange Oversight Committee. She was instrumental in the start-up of the state's syringe
exchange program, the nation’s first statewide program, and in the passage of Hawai`i’s 2000 Medical
Marijuana law, the first to be enacted via the legislative process. She has a Masters in Public Health from
the University of Hawai`i.


Geri Marullo (The impact of incarceration & the drug war on families), Dr. PH, serves the

NorthStar Family of Companies as Senior Vice President and Managing Director. Her career spans 35
years leading various large diverse agencies, organizations and foundations in the State of Hawai`i, in
Washington, D.C. and throughout the world.
Dr. Marullo originally came to Hawaii to pursue her Master’s Degree in Nursing and went on to become
the Executive Director of the Hawaii Nurses’ Association. In 1989, Dr. Marullo was appointed Deputy
Director of Health by then Governor John Waihee III, where she provided leadership for the over $100
million community services component of the Dept. of Health, including primary care, public health
nursing, school health, developmental disabilities, family health and personal health services. Dr.
Marullo went on to head the American Nurses Association in Washington, D. C., where she directed all
aspects of services for more than 250,000 member nurses in all 50 States and in two U.S. territories.
She returned to Hawaii as the Director of Child and Family Services, Hawaii’s largest private, non-profit
human service agency. After eight years at Child and Family Services, Dr. Marullo joined the Consuelo
Foundation-Hawaii where she directed all aspects of the foundation both in Hawaii and abroad, with
special emphasis in the Philippines, providing services for children to aid in the prevention of child abuse
and neglect. Dr. Marullo was named “Hawaii Nurse of the Year” in 1985, inducted into the Hunter
College Hall of Fame in 1992, and was named by Pacific Business News as the “Businesswoman of the
Year” in 2004.

51

Jeanne Y. Ohta (Moderator – Smart Strategies) is currently Executive Director of the Drug

Policy Forum of Hawai`i. The Honolulu native was formerly the Interim Executive Director of the
Hawai`i State Commission on the Status of Women. In the private sector for more than twenty years, she
was formerly Account Executive for the Procter and Gamble Distributing Company, where she held
positions in sales and logistics.
She holds a Master of Business Administration degree in Marketing and Bachelor degrees in Economics
and Accounting from the University of Hawai`i. She also holds a Certified Public Accountant Certificate.
She is an advocate for social justice issues, many of which are underfunded, unpopular, misunderstood
and controversial; and which often involve women, girls, poor people, immigrants, and those society has
oppressed and cast aside She is active in the `Aina Haina Community Association, the PATH Clinic,
Planned Parenthood, and the Kokua Council.


Carrie Ann Shirota (Ho`i hou i ka iwi kuamo`o (Return to the Backbone) is one of

seventeen individuals selected nationwide as a Soros Justice Fellow by The Open Society Institute in
2009 to work to restore fairness to the United States’ deeply flawed criminal justice system. Shirota, an
attorney and justice advocate on the island of Maui, will work to mitigate and reduce the transfer of
incarcerated men and women from Hawai`i to mainland prisons thousands of miles away. Shirota will
collect data relating to out-of-state prisoner transfers and assess strategies employed in other U.S.
jurisdictions that have reduced this practice. She will also examine native imprisonment and banishment
within the U.S., with particular emphasis on how this problem impacts Native Hawaiians.
Shirota earned her undergraduate degree from Santa Clara University and law degree from the William S.
Richardson School of Law at the University of Hawai`i. Previously, Shirota worked as an enforcement
attorney for the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission, as a public defender, and as the director of Maui
Economic Opportunity's Being Empowered and Safe Reintegration (BEST) Program. She is also an
active member of Community Alliance on Prisons.


Renee Schuetter (Giving Birth to Hope) is the first Executive Director of the Path Clinic, the

only comprehensive perinatal addiction clinic in Hawaii. During her 30 years as an RN, professional
counselor and Nurse Manager, she has worked in community, outpatient, and acute inpatient healthcare
settings; with a focus on maternal/child and behavioral health. She is particularly interested in and
committed to creating environments that allow people to find their own way to health.
In 2007, Renee began working with Tricia Wright, M.D. to create The Path Clinic, a cost-effective
outpatient clinic that serves pregnant and recently delivered women struggling with addictions. She
attributes the excellent outcomes achieved at the clinic to the nonjudgmental, flexible manner in which a
woman is supported in finding her unique path to a healthy birth and capable parenting.



52

Law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and
when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously
structured dams that block the flow of social progress.
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

53