Vera Evidence Brief

For the Record

The Prison Paradox: More Incarceration
Will Not Make Us Safer
Don Stemen, Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology, Loyola University Chicago;
Member, Vera Research Advisory Board	

July 2017
Summary*
to property crime. Research consistently shows that

Despite two decades of declining crime rates and a decade
of efforts to reduce mass incarceration, some policymakers

higher incarceration rates are not associated with lower

continue to call for tougher sentences and greater use of

violent crime rates.4

incarceration to reduce crime.1 It may seem intuitive that increasing incarceration would further reduce crime: incarcer-

››

stances. In states with high incarceration rates and

ation not only prevents future crimes by taking people who

neighborhoods with concentrated incarceration, the

commit crime “out of circulation” (incapacitation), but it also

increased use of incarceration may be associated with

may dissuade people from committing future crimes out of

increased crime.5

fear of punishment (deterrence).2 In reality, however, increasing incarceration rates has a minimal impact on reducing

Increases in incarceration rates have a small impact on
crime rates and each additional increase in incarceration rates has a smaller impact on crime rates than
previous increases.

››

››

Incarceration is expensive. The United States is spending
heavily on jails and prisons and under-investing in less

crime and entails significant costs:
››

Incarceration may increase crime in certain circum-

expensive, more effective ways to reduce and prevent
crime.6
*	 This brief uses the broad term “incarceration,” which can
encompass confinement in both prisons and jails. Much of

3

Any crime reduction benefits of incarceration are limited

Why won’t more incarceration
reduce crime?
Incarceration has a marginal impact
on crime
There is a very weak relationship between higher incarceration rates and lower crime rates. Although studies differ
somewhat, most of the literature shows that between 1980

the research conducted to date, however, examines imprisonment only, and not incarceration in America’s jails.

and 2000, each 10 percent increase in incarceration rates
was associated with just a 2 to 4 percent lower crime rate.7
Since then, only one empirical analysis (a study that requires
corroboration) has examined the relationship between
incarceration and crime.8 Overall, the increased use of
incarceration through the 1990s accounted for between 6
and 25 percent of the total reduction in crime rates.9 Since
2000, however, the increased use of incarceration accounted
for nearly zero percent of the overall reduction in crime.10
This means that somewhere between 75 and 100 percent of

About these briefs
Public policy—including decisions related to criminal justice and immigration—has far-reaching consequences, but too often is swayed by political
rhetoric and unfounded assumptions. The Vera Institute of Justice has created a series of briefing papers to provide an accessible summary of
the latest evidence concerning justice-related topics. By summarizing and synthesizing existing research, identifying landmark studies and key
resources, and, in some cases, providing original analysis of data, these briefs offer a balanced and nuanced examination of some of the significant
justice issues of our time.

233 Broadway, 12th Floor, New York, NY 10279	

212 334 1300	

vera.org

Incarceration will increase crime in states
and communities with already high
incarceration rates

the reduction in crime rates since the 1990s is explained by
other factors. Research has shown that the aging population,
increased wages, increased employment, increased graduation rates, increased consumer confidence, increased law
enforcement personnel, and changes in policing strategies
were associated with lower crime rates and, collectively,
explain more of the overall reduction in crime rates than
does incarceration.11

Although it may seem counterintuitive, research has shown
that incarceration may actually increase crime. At the state
level, there may be an “inflection point” where increases in
state incarceration rates are associated with higher crime
rates.20 This state-level phenomenon mirrors a similar
occurrence in specific neighborhoods, where communities
may reach an incarceration “tipping point” after which future
increases in incarceration lead to higher crime rates.21 The
argument is that high rates of imprisonment break down the
social and family bonds that guide individuals away from
crime, remove adults who would otherwise nurture children,
deprive communities of income, reduce future income
potential, and engender a deep resentment toward the legal
system; thus, as high incarceration becomes concentrated in
certain neighborhoods, any potential public safety benefits
are outweighed by the disruption to families and social
groups that would help keep crime rates low.22
At the individual level, there is also some evidence that
incarceration itself is criminogenic, meaning that spending
time in jail or prison actually increases a person’s risk of
engaging in crime in the future.23 This may be because
people learn criminal habits or develop criminal networks
while incarcerated, but it may also be because of the
collateral consequences that derive from even short periods
of incarceration, such as loss of employment, loss of stable
housing, or disruption of family ties.24

Incarceration has a diminishing impact
on crime
The relationship between higher incarceration rates and
lower crime rates is weak, and is getting weaker.12 Research
shows that each additional increase in incarceration rates
will be associated with a smaller and smaller reduction in
crime rates.13 This is because individuals convicted of serious
or repeat offenses receive prison sentences even when
overall rates of incarceration are low. To continue to increase
incarceration rates requires that prisons be used for individuals convicted of lower-level or infrequent offenses as well.
Thus, since the early 1990s, the crime reduction benefits of
additional prison expansion have been smaller and more
expensive to achieve.14 This diminishing impact of incarceration also explains the lack of crime reduction benefits of
higher incarceration rates through the 2000s. Increases in
correctional populations when incarceration rates are already
high have less impact on crime than increases in populations
when incarceration rates are low.15

Incarceration has little to no effect
on violent crime

Incarceration is an expensive way to
achieve little public safety

The weak association between higher incarceration rates and
lower crime rates applies almost entirely to property crime.16
Research consistently shows that higher incarceration rates
are not associated with lower violent crime rates.17 This is
because the expansion of incarceration primarily means
that larger numbers of individuals convicted of nonviolent,
“marginal” offenses—drug offenses and low-level property
offenses, as well as those who are convicted of “infrequent”
offenses—are imprisoned.18 Those convicted of violent and
repeat offenses are likely to receive prison sentences regardless of the incarceration rate. Thus, increasing incarceration
rates for those convicted of nonviolent, marginal offenses
does nothing to impact the violent crime rate.19

The United States incarcerated 1.2 million more people in
prison in 2000 than in 1975 to achieve little public safety
benefit. By 2000, the incarceration rate was 270 percent
higher than in 1975, but the violent crime rate was nearly
identical to the rate in 1975 and the property crime rate was
nearly 20 percent lower than in 1975. Put another way, the
United States was spending roughly $33 billion on incarceration in 2000 for essentially the same level of public safety
it achieved in 1975 for $7.4 billion—nearly a quarter of the
cost.25 But the costs of high incarceration rates go well beyond the financial costs to government. Mass incarceration
also imposes significant social, cultural, and political costs
on individuals, families, and communities.26 Incarceration
reduces employment opportunities, reduces earnings, limits
2

economic mobility and, perhaps more importantly, has an
intergenerational impact that increases the chances that
children of incarcerated parents will live in poverty and
engage in delinquent behavior.27

share of violent crime, 2) advise such individuals that they
will be subjected to intensified enforcement if they continue
to engage in violence, and 3) provide targeted individuals
with access to social services. Evaluations of such programs
have shown significant reductions in violent crime, including
homicides and gun-related offenses.32 Finally, several studies
also have shown that jurisdictions working with residents
to increase collective crime prevention techniques or to
implement situational crime prevention techniques can
reduce property crimes in targeted neighborhoods.33

What can policymakers do to
reduce crime without the use of
incarceration?
Prior research indicates several factors associated with lower
crime rates: aging population, increased wages, increased
employment, increased graduation rates, increased consumer
confidence, increased law enforcement personnel, and
changes in policing strategies.28 Policymakers have many
tools at their disposal to address crime rates based on these
factors in the long term. They can implement policies that
require investment outside the criminal justice system to
increase graduation rates, employment, income, or consumer
confidence. But there are short-term solutions to reducing
crime as well. Research points to several criminal justice
practices that policymakers can adopt that are more effective
and less expensive than incarceration at reducing crime.

Increase the availability and use of alternative-to-incarceration programs
Several types of alternative-to-incarceration programs that
offer supportive services (like mental health, substance abuse,
employment, housing, Medicaid, public benefits, and community health centers) can reduce criminal activity among
participants.34 For example, law enforcement-led diversion
programs that divert individuals at the point of arrest and
prosecution-led diversion programs that divert individuals
either pre-charge or defer prosecution post-charge have
been shown to reduce future criminal activity of program
participants.35 Several meta-analyses show that participation
in drug courts—specialized courts that combine drug treatment with supervision to reduce drug use and drug-related
crime—can significantly reduce recidivism among participants.36 Research also suggests that other specialty courts
may reduce criminal activity of targeted groups. Mental
health courts, for example, combine treatment-oriented and
problem-solving strategies to reduce recidivism and contact
with the criminal justice system among individuals with
mental health issues.37 Juvenile diversion programs divert
youth out of traditional criminal case processing and into a
variety of alternatives, including restorative justice programs,
community service, substance abuse treatment, skills-building programs, or family treatment.38

Use community crime prevention strategies
Several policing and community-engagement strategies can
reduce the incidence of crime in local jurisdictions.29 Placebased problem-oriented policing approaches, for example,
significantly reduce crime rates; such approaches involve
carefully analyzing crime and disorder in small geographic
areas and addressing such problems through tailor-made
solutions, such as situational crime prevention measures
(repairing fences, improving lighting, erecting road barriers)
and community improvements (removing graffiti, nuisance
abatement).30 Similarly, several jurisdictions also have
renewed efforts to implement and improve community policing approaches—such as working with business owners to
identify neighborhood problems, conducting citizen surveys
and outreach, and improving recreational opportunities for
youth—in order to engage more closely with communities
to identify and solve crime problems. Evaluations show
that such programs can reduce both violent and property
crimes.31
To address violent crime, several jurisdictions have implemented focused deterrence strategies that 1) identify highrisk individuals who are responsible for a disproportionate

Employ community corrections approaches
Several community corrections approaches, which provide
supervision and services to individuals in the community
post-conviction, can reduce criminal activity among participants without the use of incarceration.39 Reducing caseloads
for probation officers and focusing on evidence-based
practices like risk/needs assessments, separate specialized
caseloads, intensive wraparound services, and comprehensive case management can significantly reduce re-arrest rates
3

It is possible to reduce
incarceration and crime

among high-risk probationers.40 In addition, community
supervision programs that target moderate- and high-risk
adults and incorporate cognitive behavioral therapy have
been shown to reduce recidivism rates among program participants.41 Investment in reentry programs for those already
incarcerated, such as pre-release programming and aftercare
services, in-prison therapeutic communities, and transitional
planning, can significantly reduce criminal activity of those
released from incarceration.42

Experiences in several states offer evidence that policymakers can reduce crime without increasing imprisonment.
In fact, 19 states reduced both imprisonment and crime
rates over the last 15 years.43 (See Figure 1 below.) These
states represent a diverse cross-section of the United States,
including large states like Texas and small states like Alaska;
Northeastern states like Connecticut and Midwestern states
like Michigan; Southern states like Louisiana and Western
states like Hawaii. Socially liberal states like New York,

Figure 1

Percent change in state crime rates and imprisonment rates, 2000-2015.
New Jersey
New York
California
Texas
South Carolina
Connecticut
Maryland
Utah
Nevada
Delaware
Hawaii
Mississippi
Michigan
Alaska
Colorado
Georgia
Vermont
Louisiana
Illinois
Wisconsin
Washington
Idaho
North Carolina
Iowa
Montana
Maine
Rhode Island
Alabama
Kansas
Tennessee
Missouri
Florida
Virginia
Ohio
Alabama
Arizona
South Dakota
New Hampshire
Massachusetts
Wyoming
Oregon
New Mexico
Nebraska
Indiana
Pennsylvania
Arkansas
Kentucky
North Dakota
Minnesota
West Virginia



-60%

-40%

-20%

0%

20%

Crime rate

40%

Percentage change

4

60%



Incarceration rate

80%

100%

wealthy states like Maryland, and states with low crime
rates like Vermont simultaneously reduced incarceration and
crime rates, but so did socially conservative states like Utah,
economically distressed states like Mississippi, and states
with high crime rates like Nevada.
The experiences across states also indicate that the
relationship between incarceration and crime is neither
predictable nor consistent. The state with the largest decrease in incarceration rates—New Jersey (with a 37 percent
decrease between 2000 and 2015)—also experienced a 30
percent decrease in crime rates during the same period. The
state with the largest increase in incarceration rates—West
Virginia (with an 83 percent increase between 2000 and
2015)—also experienced a 4 percent increase in crime rates.
Among the 10 states with the largest decreases in crime
rates between 2000 and 2015, five also reduced incarceration
rates.44 Indeed, the state with the largest decrease in crime
rates—Vermont—also reduced incarceration rates. Between
2000 and 2015, only four states—Arkansas, North Dakota,
South Dakota, and West Virginia—experienced increases in
crime rates, and all four also experienced increased incarceration rates.
The practices and programs adopted at the state and local
levels in many of these states—community-based crime
prevention, innovative policing strategies, diversion, and
community corrections programs—likely explain these

disparate trends in incarceration rates and crime rates over
the last 15 years. As national policymakers call for increased
incarceration and many state and local policymakers feel
pressure to introduce measures to keep crime rates low, officials would do well to look toward states that have reduced
both incarceration and crime for examples of innovation.

Conclusion
After 25 years of consistently declining crime rates, policymakers continue to feel pressure to introduce measures
to address even small upticks in crime. This is understandable—policymakers should seek solutions to the problems
of violence and embrace practices and policies that can keep
crime rates low. Filling the nation’s prisons is not one of
them. The impact of incarceration on crime is limited and
has been diminishing for several years. Increased incarceration has no effect on violent crime and may actually lead
to higher crime rates when incarceration is concentrated in
certain communities. Instead, policymakers can reduce crime
without continuing to increase the social, cultural, and political costs of mass incarceration by investing in more effective
and efficient crime reduction strategies that seek to engage
the community, provide needed services to those who are
criminally involved, and begin to address the underlying
causes of crime.

Resources
Clear, Todd R. “The Effects of High Imprisonment Rates on

sion.” In The Crime Drop in America, edited by A. Blumstein

Communities.” Crime and Justice 37, no. 1 (2008), 97-132.

and J. Wallman. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2000.

Lee, Stephanie, Steve Aos, Elizabeth Drake, Annie Pennucci, Marna Miller, and L. Anderson. Return on Investment: Evi-

The Pew Charitable Trusts. Collateral Costs: Incarceration’s

dence-Based Options to Improve Statewide Outcomes. Olym-

Effect on Economic Mobility. Washington, DC: Pew Charitable

pia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy, 2012.

Trusts, 2010.

Liedka, Raymond V., Anne Morrison Piehl, and Bert Useem.

The Sentencing Project. “Criminal Justice Facts: State-by-

“The Crime-Control Effect of Incarceration: Does Scale Matter?”

State Data.” https://perma.cc/XPC5-8AS9

Criminology & Public Policy 5, no. 2 (2006), 245-76.

Travis, Jeremy and Bruce Western (eds.). The Growth of

National Institute of Justice. CrimeSolutions.gov. https://

Incarceration in the United States: Exploring Causes and Con-

www.crimesolutions.gov.

sequences. Washington, DC: The National Research Council,
2014.

Raphael, Steven and Michael Stoll, eds. Do Prisons Make Us
Safer? The Benefits and Costs of the Prison Boom. New York:

Visher, Christy, Jennifer Yahner, and Nancy La Vigne. Life

Russell Sage Foundation, 2009.

After Prison: Tracking the Experiences of Male Prisoners Returning to Chicago, Cleveland, and Houston. Washington, DC: The

Roeder, Oliver, Lauren-Brook Eisen, and Julia Bowling.

Urban Institute, 2010.

What Caused the Crime Decline? New York: Brennan Center

Western, Bruce. Punishment and Inequality in America. New

for Justice, 2017.
Spelman, William. “The Limited Importance of Prison Expan-

York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2006.
5

Endnotes
1	 The crime rate is defined as the number of crimes reported to

mandatory minimum sentences”), https://www.justice.gov/opa/

police per 100,000 people, based on the Uniform Crime Reports

press-release/file/965896/download.

produced annually by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. When

2	 For a review of research examining the incapacitative and deterrent

analysts or the media refer to the “crime rate,” they generally mean

effects of incarceration, see Jeremy Travis and Bruce Western (eds.),

the index crime rate, which is based on a set of seven violent and

The Growth of Incarceration in the United States: Exploring Causes

property crimes—murder and non-negligent manslaughter, forcible

and Consequences (Washington, DC: The National Research

rape, aggravated assault, robbery, burglary, larceny-theft, and

Council, 2014), https://perma.cc/D2Q6-7HEJ.

motor vehicle theft. Analysts may also use the violent crime rate
(which is based only on the crimes of murder and non-negligent

3	 The incarceration rate is defined as the number of sentenced

manslaughter, forcible rape, aggravated assault, and robbery)

persons in prison per 100,000 people. Analysts use either the

or the property crime rate (which is based only on the crimes of

national incarceration rate (the number of sentenced persons

burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft). See Federal

in state or federal prison per 100,000 U.S. population) or state

Bureau of Investigation, “UCR Offense Definitions,” https://perma.

incarceration rates (the number of sentenced persons in a particular

cc/SF7A-SM9F. Violent and property crime rates both declined

state’s prisons per 100,000 state population). By definition, this

roughly 50 percent between their peak in 1992 and 2015. For crime

figure does not include the nation’s jail populations. For more

rates through 2013, see Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Uniform

information about the U.S. jail population, see Bureau of Justice

Crime Reporting Statistics, State and National Estimates by Year,”

Statistics, “Data Collection: Annual Survey of Jails,” https://perma.

https://perma.cc/LHV6-2G3R. For crime rates in 2014 and 2015,

cc/D7QZ-CM46. For the impact of increased incarceration rates

see Federal Bureau of Investigation, “2015 Crime in the United

on crime rates, see, generally, James Austin and Tony Fabelo, The

States,” Table 1, https://perma.cc/BW2M-JBC6. For a review of state

Diminishing Returns of Increased Incarceration: A Blueprint to

sentencing and corrections reforms aimed at reducing the size of

Improve Public Safety and Reduce Costs (Washington, DC: JFA

state prison populations, see Rebecca Silber, Ram Subramanian,

Institute, 2004), https://perma.cc/N9K7; Jenni Gainsborough and

and Maia Spotts, Justice in Review: New Trends in State Sentencing

Marc Mauer, Diminishing Returns: Crime and Incarceration in the

and Corrections 2014-2015 (New York: Vera Institute of Justice,

1990s (Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project, 2000), https://

2016), https://perma.cc/RX3U-K9R3; Ram Subramanian, Rebecka

perma.cc/HV5E-J4YQ; Steven Raphael and Michael A. Stoll, A New

Moreno, and Sharyn Broomhead, Recalibrating Justice: A Review

Approach to Reducing Incarceration While Maintaining Low Rates of

of 2013 State Sentencing and Corrections Trends (New York: Vera

Crime (Washington, DC: The Hamilton Project, 2014), https://perma.

Institute of Justice, 2014), https://perma.cc/L2D2-YUAA; Ram

cc/46B2-6G4M.

Subramanian and Rebecka Moreno, Drug War Détente? A Review

4	 For reviews of studies examining the relationship between

of State-level Drug Law Reform, 2009-2013 (New York: Vera Institute

incarceration and crime in the 1990s, see Don Stemen,

of Justice, 2014), https://perma.cc/N2SF-LH86; and Christine S.

Reconsidering Incarceration: New Directions for Reducing Crime

Scott-Hayward, The Fiscal Crisis in Corrections: Rethinking Policies

(New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2007), 4 (describing studies

and Practices (New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2009), https://

that showed no relationship or a very weak relationship between

perma.cc/AMT6-6U44. For policymaker statements on crime, see,

incarceration rates and violent crime rates through the 1990s),

e.g., Jeff Sessions, “Being soft on sentencing means more violent

https://perma.cc/T8PJ-QBCD; Oliver Roeder, Lauren-Brook Eisen,

crime. It’s time to get tough again,” Washington Post, June 16, 2017

and Julia Bowling, What Caused the Crime Decline? (New York:

(arguing for the use of mandatory sentences and prison for drug

Brennan Center for Justice, 2017) (analyzing incarceration rates

offenses), https://perma.cc/7GJA-A6ZU; see also Rachel Weiner and

and crime rates through 2015 and showing no relationship between

Sari Horwitz, “Sessions Vows Crackdown on Drug Dealing and Gun

incarceration rates and crime rates in the 2000s), https://perma.cc/

Crime,” Washington Post, March 15, 2017, https://perma.cc/Z28L-

NTL9-5Z24.

Y8TR; Office of the Attorney General, Memorandum for All Federal
Prosecutors, “Department Charging and Sentencing Policy,” May 10,

5 	 For a review of research on the effects of incarceration at the local

2017 (directing federal prosecutors to “charge and pursue the most

level, see Todd R. Clear, “The Effects of High Imprisonment Rates on

serious, readily provable offense…[defined as] those that carry

Communities,” Crime and Justice 37, no. 1 (2008), 97-132 (describing

the most substantial guidelines sentence, including mandatory

several studies that find high incarceration rates associated with

minimum sentences” and requiring prosecutors to “disclose to the

higher crime rates at the neighborhood level), https://perma.

sentencing court all facts that impact the sentencing guidelines or

cc/5L73-2DGT; see also Raymond V. Liedka, Anne Morrison Piehl, and
6

Bert Useem, “The Crime-Control Effect of Incarceration: Does Scale

Steven D. Levitt, “Using Electoral Cycles in Police Hiring to Estimate

Matter?” Criminology & Public Policy 5, no. 2 (2006), 245-76.

the Effect of Police on Crime: Reply,” American Economic Review
92, no. 4 (2002), 1244-50 (finding a significant effect of increased

6	 John J. Donohue III, “Assessing the Relative Benefits of Incarceration:

numbers of law enforcement officers on property and violent crime

The Overall Change over the Previous Decades and the Benefits on

rates), https://perma.cc/XZ87-5849; Steven Raphael and Rudolf

the Margin,” in Do Prisons Make Us Safer? The Benefits and Costs of

Winter-Ebmer, “Identifying the Effect of Unemployment on Crime,”

the Prison Boom, edited by Steven Raphael and Michael Stoll (New

Journal of Law and Economics 44, no. 1 (2001), 259-83 (finding that

York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2009) (arguing that “social spending”

higher unemployment rates were associated with higher property

on programs such as preschool and early-childhood education,

crime rates and that higher per capita income was associated with

family therapy, programs for juvenile delinquents, and labor-market

lower violent crime rates); Steven D. Levitt, “Alternative Strategies for

interventions could generate greater reductions in crime at a lower

Identifying the Link between Unemployment and Crime,” Journal

social cost than incarceration).

of Quantitative Criminology 17, no. 4 (2001), 377-90 (finding that

7	 See Don Stemen, Reconsidering Incarceration (2007); and Oliver

higher unemployment rates were associated with higher property

Roeder, Lauren-Brook Eisen, and Julia Bowling, What Caused the

crime rates); Raymond V. Liedka, Anne Morrison Piehl, and Bert

Crime Decline? (2017).

Useem, “The Crime-Control Effect of Incarceration” (2006) (finding
that higher per capita income was associated with lower crime

8	 Ibid. Roeder, Eisen, and Bowling, 2017.

rates); Richard Rosenfeld and Robert Fornango, “The Impact of

9	 William Spelman, “The Limited Importance of Prison Expansion,” in

Economic Conditions on Robbery and Property Crime: The Role of

The Crime Drop in America, edited by Alfred Blumstein and Joel

Consumer Sentiment,” Criminology 45, no. 4 (2007), 735-69 (finding

Wallman (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 2000)

that increased consumer confidence was associated with lower

(finding that 25 percent of the decrease in index crime rates in the

rates of robbery, burglary, larceny, and motor vehicle theft rates);

1990s was explained by higher incarceration rates); in contrast, see

Sara Markowitz, An Economic Analysis of Alcohol, Drugs, and Violent

Oliver Roeder, Lauren-Brook Eisen, and Julia Bowling, What Caused

Crime in the National Crime Victimization Survey (Cambridge,

the Crime Decline? (2017), 23 (arguing that once the diminishing

MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2000) (finding that

returns of incarceration are accounted for, only 6 percent of the

increases in the number of alcohol distribution outlets is associated

decrease in property crime rates and 0 percent of the decrease

with increased probability of assault), https://perma.cc/4XUB-

in violent crime rates in the 1990s were explained by higher

L3A4; Lance Lochner and Enrico Moretti, “The Effect of Education

incarceration rates; however, the authors note that even for property

on Crime: Evidence from Prison Inmates, Arrests, and Self-Reports,”

crime, higher incarceration could account for anywhere from 0 to 12

American Economic Review 94, no. 1 (2004), 155-89 (finding that

percent of the decline).

increases in individuals’ education levels are associated with lower
crime rates).

10	 Ibid. Roeder, Eisen, and Bowling, 2017, 23 (stating that “increased
incarceration accounted for less than one one-hundredth of the

12	 This is generally referred to as the “diminishing marginal returns”

decline of property crime in the 2000s…[and] had no observable

of incarceration. See, e.g., James F. Austin and Tony Fabelo, The

effect on the violent crime decline … in the 2000s”).

Diminishing Returns of Increased Incarceration (2004); Jenni
Gainsborough and Marc Mauer, Diminishing Returns (2000);

11	 For reviews of studies examining the relationship between these

Steven Raphael and Michael Stoll, A New Approach to Reducing

factors and crime, see Don Stemen, Reconsidering Incarceration

Incarceration (2004); Franklin Zimring and Gordon Hawkins, Crime

(2007). For a review and reanalysis of these factors see Oliver

Is Not the Problem: Lethal Violence in America (Oxford, England:

Roeder, Lauren-Brook Eisen, and Julia Bowling, What Caused the

Oxford University Press, 1997).

Crime Decline? (2017) (finding that lower unemployment rates,
higher per capita income, higher consumer confidence, lower

13	 See, e.g., Oliver Roeder, Lauren-Brook Eisen, and Julia Bowling,

alcohol consumption, aging population, and the introduction

What Caused the Crime Decline? (2017), 18-19 (the authors look

of COMPSTAT were associated with lower crime rates). For the

across states and demonstrate the diminishing marginal returns

results of specific studies, see, e.g., Hope Corman and H. Naci

of increases in incarceration over time); see also Steven D. Levitt,

Mocan, “A Time-Series Analysis of Crime, Deterrence, and Drug

“Understanding Why Crime Fell in the 1990s: Four Factors that

Abuse in New York City,” American Economic Review 90, no. 3

Explain the Decline and Six that Do Not,” Journal of Economic

(2000), 584-604 (finding a significant effect of increased numbers

Perspectives 18, no. 1 (2004), 163-90; Ilyana Kuziemko and Steven

of law enforcement officers on lower burglary and robbery rates);

D. Levitt, “An Empirical Analysis of Imprisoning Drug Offenders,”

7

Journal of Public Economics 88, no. 9-10 (2004), 2043-66; Raymond

17	 See, e.g., Thomas B. Marvell and Carlisle E. Moody, “Prison

V. Liedka, Anne Morrison Piehl, and Bert Useem, “The Crime-Control

Population Growth and Crime Reduction,” Journal of Quantitative

Effect of Incarceration” (2006); Anne Morrison Piehl and John J.

Criminology 10, no. 2 (1994), 109-40 (finding that higher

DiIulio, “‘Does Prison Pay?’ Revisited” The Brookings Review 13, no. 1

incarceration rates were generally related to lower index crime

(1995) (findings indicate that when those convicted of drug offenses

rates but had little or no impact on murder, rape, or assault);

are included in calculations, continued prison expansion is not

Steven D. Levitt, “Alternative Strategies for Identifying the Link

cost effective); Tomislav V. Kovandzic and Lynne M. Vieraitis, “The

between Unemployment and Crime” (2001) (finding a very modest

Effect of County-Level Prison Population Growth on Crime Rates,”

association between incarceration rates and property crime rates

Criminology & Public Policy 5, no. 2 (2006), 213-44; Washington

but no association between incarceration rates and violent crime

State Institute for Public Policy, The Criminal Justice System in

rates); Robert H. DeFina and Thomas M. Arvanites, “The Weak Effect

Washington State: Incarceration Rates, Taxpayer Costs, Crime Rates,

of Imprisonment on Crime: 1971-1998,” Social Science Quarterly

and Prison Economics (Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for

83, no. 3 (2002), 635-53 (finding that higher incarceration rates

Public Policy, 2003) https://perma.cc/WP6A-XN3J; William Spelman,

were associated with lower crime rates for burglary, larceny, and

“Jobs or Jails? The Crime Drop in Texas,” Journal of Policy Analysis

motor vehicle theft, but not for murder, rape, assault, or robbery),

and Management 24, no. 1 (2005), 133-65.

http://www.antoniocasella.eu/nume/DeFina_Arvanites_2002.pdf;
Tomislav V. Kovandzic and Lynne M. Vieraitis, “The Effect of County-

14	 Washington State Institute for Public Policy, The Criminal Justice

Level Prison Population Growth on Crime Rates” (2006) (finding no

System in Washington State (2003). Washington State, for example,

association between incarceration rates and crime rates); Oliver

concluded that while more incarceration had led to less crime in

Roeder, Lauren-Brook Eisen, and Julia Bowling, What Caused the

the state in the 1990s, the benefits of additional prison expansion

Crime Decline? (2017).

would be smaller and more expensive to achieve. Specifically,
the state concluded that an increase in the incarceration rate

18	 See, e.g., Franklin Zimring and Gordon Hawkins, Crime Is Not the

in 2003 prevented considerably fewer crimes than did previous

Problem (1997). Zimring and Hawkins argue that by the late 1980s

similar size increases in the state’s prison population. The state

U.S. prisons already housed those convicted of the most serious,

further concluded that while incarcerating individuals convicted of

violent offenses and did not need to expand to get more such

violent and high-volume property offenses continued to generate

individuals off of the streets; the prison expansion since the 1980s

more benefits than costs, each additional person incarcerated for

resulted in nothing more than the imprisonment of large numbers

these crimes would result in fewer prevented crimes than previous

of people convicted of nonviolent, “marginal” offenses. Thus, the

persons. Washington even found that increasing the incarceration

authors argue that increasing incarceration rates does nothing to

rate for people convicted of drug offenses in the 1990s actually

impact the crime rate since those convicted of the most serious

cost more than the average value of the crimes prevented by their

offenses were already incarcerated.

imprisonment and was, thus, no longer cost-effective.

19	Ibid.

15	 Raymond V. Liedka, Anne Morrison Piehl, and Bert Useem, The Crime-

20	Raymond V. Liedka, Anne Morrison Piehl, and Bert Useem, “The

Control Effect of Incarceration (2006) (finding that increases in

Crime-Control Effect of Incarceration” (2006). Liedka, Piehl, and

prison populations in states with already large prison populations

Useem argue that there is an “inflection point” where increases

have less impact on crime than increases in states with smaller

in incarceration rates are associated with higher crime rates.

prison populations; states experience “accelerating declining

According to the authors, this inflection point occurs when a

marginal returns”—meaning that the percent reduction in crime gets

state’s incarceration rate reaches some point between 325 and

ever smaller with larger prison populations. The authors concluded

429 inmates per 100,000 people. In other words, states with

that increases in incarceration rates are associated with lower crime

incarceration rates above this range can expect to experience

rates at low levels of imprisonment, but the size of that association

higher crime rates with future increases in incarceration rates.

shrinks as incarceration rates get bigger).

21	 For a theoretical discussion of this phenomenon, see Dina R. Rose

16	 See, e.g., Oliver Roeder, Lauren-Brook Eisen, and Julia Bowling, What

and Todd R. Clear, “Incarceration, Social Capital, and Crime:

Caused the Crime Decline? (2017) (re-analyzing data from previous

Implications for Social Disorganization Theory,” Criminology

studies and analyzing data from 2000 to 2015; finding either no

36, no. 3 (1998), 441-80. For empirical studies confirming an

relationship between incarceration rates and violent crime rates or a

association between higher incarceration rates and higher crime

very small relationship).

rates, see, e.g., Todd R. Clear et al.,“Coercive Mobility and Crime:

8

A Preliminary Examination of Concentrated Incarceration and

and Nancy La Vigne, Life After Prison: Tracking the Experiences

Social Disorganization,” Justice Quarterly 20, no. 1 (2003), 33-64;

of Male Prisoners Returning to Chicago, Cleveland, and Houston

Brian C. Renauer et al.,“Tipping the Scales of Justice: The Effect of

(Washington, DC: The Urban Institute, 2010) (finding that those

Overincarceration on Neighborhood Violence,” Criminal Justice

individuals with employment, stable housing, and strong family

Policy Review 17, no. 3 (2006), 362-79. For a review of empirical

ties were less likely to recidivate after release from prison), https://

research confirming these findings, see Todd R. Clear, “The Effects

perma.cc/82QC-UNVW.

of High Imprisonment Rates on Communities” (2008) at 118-20.

25	These data include only state expenditures on corrections: 1975

22	 See generally Todd R. Clear, “The Effects of High Imprisonment Rates

expenditures were $2.2 billion; adjusted for inflation, this would

on Communities” (2008).

have totaled $7.4 billion in 2000. For expenditures in 1975, see U.S.
Department of Justice, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration,

23	See, e.g., José Cid, “Is Imprisonment Criminogenic? A Comparative

and U.S. Bureau of the Census, Expenditure and Employment

Study of Recidivism Rates between Prison and Suspended Prison

Data for the Criminal Justice System, 1975 (Washington, DC: U.S.

Sanctions,” European Journal of Criminology 6, no. 6 (2009), 459-80

Government Printing Office, 1977), 271, Table 40. For expenditures

(finding that individuals given suspended sentences had a lower risk

in 2000, see Bureau of Justice Statistics, “Justice Expenditure and

of reconviction than those given custodial sentences); Cassia Spohn

Employment Extracts, 2000,” December 1, 2003, Table 9 (Justice

and David Holleran, “The Effect of Imprisonment on Recidivism Rates

system expenditure of state governments by activity and character

of Felony Offenders: A Focus on Drug Offenders,” Criminology 40,

and object, fiscal 2000), available for download at http://www.bjs.

no. 2 (2002), 329-58 (finding that individuals sentenced to prison

gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=1028.

had higher recidivism rates and recidivated more quickly than
individuals sentenced to probation); Lynne M. Vieraitis, Tomislav

26	 See, e.g., The Pew Charitable Trusts, Collateral Costs:

V. Kovandzic, and Thomas B. Marvell, “The Criminogenic Effects

Incarceration’s Effect on Economic Mobility (Washington, DC: Pew

of Imprisonment: Evidence from State Panel Data, 1974–2002,”

Charitable Trusts, 2010), https://perma.cc/XHL8-KHVA

Criminology & Public Policy 6, no. 3 (2007), 589-622 (finding that

27	Ibid.

increased prison releases are associated with higher crime rates
and arguing that this is due to the criminogenic effects of prison).

28	For reviews of studies examining the relationship between these

Some research suggests that even short terms of incarceration in

factors and crime, see Don Stemen, Reconsidering Incarceration

jail can increase an individual’s likelihood of engaging in future

(2007); and Oliver Roeder, Lauren-Brook Eisen, and Julia Bowling,

criminal activity. See, e.g., Paul S. Heaton, Sandra G. Mayson, and

What Caused the Crime Decline? (2017).

Megan Stevenson, “The Downstream Consequences of Misdemeanor

29	For a list of community crime prevention programs that have been

Pretrial Detention,” Stanford Law Review 69, no. 3 (2017), 711-96

evaluated and reviewed to be effective, see National Institute of

(finding those individuals detained pretrial were more likely than

Justice, Office of Justice Programs, CrimeSolutions.gov, https://

individuals not detained to commit future crime, suggesting that

www.crimesolutions.gov.

detention may have a criminogenic effect); Arpit Gupta, Christopher
Hansman, and Ethan Frenchman, “The Heavy Costs of High Bail:

30	Such approaches fall under the general category of “hot spots” or

Evidence from Judge Randomization,” Journal of Legal Studies

place-based policing. However, place-based policing can involve

45, no. 2 (2016), 471-505 (finding that pretrial detention increases

either traditional policing strategies, such as increased patrols and

the likelihood of recidivism); and Christopher T. Lowenkamp, Marie

aggressive enforcement, or problem-oriented policing approaches,

VanNostrand, and Alexander Holsinger, The Hidden Costs of Pretrial

which involve efforts by police to address the underlying causes

Detention (New York: Laura and John Arnold Foundation, 2013)

of crime in targeted areas by relying on non-traditional problem-

(finding that pretrial detention increases the likelihood of future

solving policing strategies. Research indicates that place-based

criminal activity for low- and moderate-risk individuals), https://

problem-oriented approaches are much more effective than

perma.cc/PP44-T5CN.

place-based traditional policing approaches. For a meta-analysis
of 10 hot spot policing programs, see, Anthony A. Braga, Andrew

24	For a discussion of the criminogenic effects of incarceration, see,

V. Papachristos, and David M. Hureau, “The Effects of Hot Spots

e.g., Bruce Western, Punishment and Inequality in America (New

Policing on Crime: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-

York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2006), 161; and Lynne M. Vieraitis,

Analysis,” Justice Quarterly 31, no. 4 (2014), 633-63. Braga et

Tomislav V. Kovandzic, and Thomas B. Marvell, “The Criminogenic

al., found that problem-oriented policing approaches (police-led

Effects of Imprisonment” (2007). For a discussion of collateral

efforts to change the underlying conditions at hot spots that lead

factors affecting recidivism, see, e.g., Christy Visher, Jennifer Yahner,
9

to recurring crime problems and involve non-traditional strategies

Clarke (ed.), Situational Crime Prevention: Successful Case Studies

for addressing crime problems) were twice as effective at reducing

(Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press, 1997), 209-26 (finding that

crime than traditional policing approaches (such as vehicle patrols,

increased street lighting significantly reduced crime in targeted

foot patrols, or crackdowns). See also Bruce Taylor, Christopher

areas).

S. Koper, and Daniel J. Woods, “A randomized controlled trial of

34	For a list of diversion programs that have been evaluated and

different policing strategies at hot spots of violent crime,” Journal

reviewed to be effective, see National Institute of Justice, Office of

of Experimental Criminology 7, no. 2 (2011), 149-81 (finding that

Justice Programs, CrimeSolutions.gov.

problem-oriented policing strategies were associated with a 33
percent decrease in violent crime).

35	For an analysis of one law enforcement-led diversion program, see,
e.g., Susan E. Collins, Heather S. Lonczak, and Seema L. Clifasefi,

31	 See, e.g., Nicholas Corsaro et al., “The Impact of Drug Market Pulling

LEAD Program Evaluation: Recidivism Report (Seattle, WA: University

Levers Policing on Neighborhood Violence: An Evaluation of the High

of Washington, 2015), (finding that Seattle’s law enforcement-led

Point Drug Market Intervention,” Criminology & Public Policy 11,

diversion program (LEAD) reduced both short-term and long-term

no. 2 (2012), 167-99 (finding that a community policing approach

recidivism among participants) https://perma.cc/RH4U-VLD4. The

to address open air drug markets in High Point, North Carolina

LEAD program in Seattle was established in 2011 to divert individuals

reduced violent incidents in target areas; although violent crime

suspected of low-level drug and prostitution offenses at arrest

decreased in the target areas, it increased city-wide, suggesting

into case management and supportive services instead of jail

limitations with the approach).

and prosecution. For a description of other law enforcement-led

32	See, e.g., Nicholas Corsaro and Robin S. Engel, “Most Challenging

diversion programs, see Center for Health and Justice at TASC, No

of Contexts,” Criminology & Public Policy 14, no. 3 (2015), 471-505

Entry: A National Survey of Criminal Justice Diversion Programs

(finding that a focused deterrence program in New Orleans that

and Initiatives (Chicago: Center for Health and Justice at TASC,

identified high-risk individuals and targeted them for enforcement

2013), https://perma.cc/XV5U-VAG2. For more on prosecutor-led

and services reduced violent crime rates).

diversion programs, see, e.g., Kit R. Van Stelle, Janae Goodrich,
and Stephanie Kroll, Treatment Alternatives and Diversion (TAD)

33	For studies showing the impact of working with residents to increase

Program: Participant Outcome Evaluation and Cost-Benefit Report

collective crime prevention techniques, see, e.g., Paul Ekblom, Ho

(2007-2013) (Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Population Health

Law, and Mike Sutton, Safer Cities and Domestic Burglary (London:

Institute, 2014), 11, (finding that participation in prosecutorial

Home Office, 1996), http://www.popcenter.org/library/scp/

diversion reduced recidivism rates among program participants)

pdf/66-Ekblom_el_al.pdf; Nick Tilley and Janice Webb, Burglary

https://perma.cc/7FNS-8738; Paul Dynia and Hung-En Sung, “The

Reduction: Findings From Safer Cities Schemes (London: Home

Safety and Effectiveness of Diverting Felony Drug Offenders to

Office, 1994) (finding that providing information on do-it-yourself

Residential Treatment as Measured by Recidivism,” Criminal Justice

security installations, developing Neighborhood Watch programs, or

Policy Review 11, no. 4 (2000), 299-311 (finding lower recidivism

encouraging property marking reduced property crimes)

rates among Drug Treatment Alternative-to-Prison (DTAP) program

https://perma.cc/DFF6-BFSN; and John E. Eck and Julie Wartell,

participants); and Steven Belenko et al., “Recidivism Among High-

“Improving the Management of Rental Properties With Drug

Risk Drug Felons: A Longitudinal Analysis Following Residential

Problems: A Randomized Experiment,” Crime Prevention Studies

Treatment,” Journal of Offender Rehabilitation 40, no. 1/2 (2004),

9 (1998), 161-85 (finding that improving property management at

105-32 (finding that participants in DTAP had lower recidivism

rental properties reduced drug activity), https://www.academia.

rates and delayed time to recidivism). Although few evaluations

edu/29951500/Improving_the_Management_of_Rental_Properties_

of either prosecutorial diversion or deferral programs exist, such

with_Drug_Problems_A_Randomized_Experiment. For studies on the

programs are promising alternatives to traditional prosecution. For a

impact of implementing situational crime prevention techniques, see,

description of other prosecution-led diversion programs, see Center

e.g., James R. Lasley, Using Traffic Barriers to ‘Design Out’ Crime: A

for Health and Justice at TASC, No Entry (2013).

Program Evaluation of LAPD’s Operation Cul-de-Sac (Washington,
DC: National Institute of Justice, 1996) (finding that the installation

36	See, e.g., Steve Aos et al., The Comparative Costs and Benefits

of permanent traffic barriers in high-crime neighborhoods

of Programs to Reduce Crime (Olympia, WA: Washington State

significantly reduced gang drive-by shootings, assaults, and

Institute for Public Policy, 2001) (reviewing 26 studies and finding

homicides), http://www.popcenter.org/library/scp/pdf/104-Lasley.

lower recidivism rates among drug court participants compared

pdf; and Kate Painter and David P. Farrington, “The Crime-Reducing

to individuals not in drug court), https://perma.cc/ZXY3-YWTT;

Effect of Improved Street Lighting: The Dudley Project” in Ronald V.

Elizabeth Drake, Chemical Dependency: A Review of the Evidence
10

and Benefit-Cost Findings (Olympia, WA: Washington State

studies and finding that youth diverted out of the system had

Institute for Public Policy, 2012) (reviewing 55 studies and finding

lower recidivism rates than youth prosecuted through traditional

lower recidivism rates among drug court participants compared to

prosecution); in contrast, see, e.g., Craig S. Schwalbe et al., “A

individuals not in drug court), https://perma.cc/LT5N-97GM; Eric

Meta-Analysis of Experimental Studies of Diversion Programs for

L. Sevigny, Brian K. Fuleihan, and Frank V. Ferdik, “Do Drug Courts

Juvenile Offenders,” Clinical Psychology Review 32, no. 1 (2012),

Reduce the Use of Incarceration?: A Meta-Analysis,” Journal of

26-33 (reviewing 28 studies and finding no significant difference

Criminal Justice 41, no. 6 (2013), 416-25 (reviewing 11 studies and

in recidivism rates of youth participating in diversion compared to

finding lower odds of reincarceration among drug court participants

youth not participating in diversion).

compared to individuals not in drug court); Ojmarrh Mitchell et

39	For a list of community corrections programs that have been

al., Drug Courts’ Effects on Criminal Offending for Juveniles and

evaluated and reviewed to be effective, see National Institute of

Adults (Oslo, Norway: The Campbell Collaboration, 2012) (reviewing

Justice, Office of Justice Programs, CrimeSolutions.gov.

92 studies of adult drug courts and finding lower recidivism rates
among drug court participants compared to individuals not in drug

40	See, e.g., Sarah Kuck Jalbert et al., A Multisite Evaluation of Reduced

court), https://perma.cc/7X8R-J75K; Shelli B. Rossman et al., The

Probation Caseload Size in an Evidence-Based Practice Setting

Multi-Site Adult Drug Court Evaluation: The Impact of Drug Courts,

(Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates, Inc., 2011) (evaluating programs

Volume 4 (Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of Justice, 2011) (finding that

in Iowa and Oklahoma and finding that reduced caseloads, when

drug courts reduced self-reported engagement in criminal activity

combined with other evidence-based supervision practices, can lead

but did not significantly reduce re-arrest), https://www.ncjrs.gov/

to improved recidivism outcomes), https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/

pdffiles1/nij/grants/237112.pdf. Some, however, have raised a note of

nij/grants/234596.pdf. For a list of such evidence-based practices,

caution about over-reliance on drug courts, citing methodological

see ibid. at 21.

problems in drug court evaluations, eligibility requirements that

41	 Stephanie Lee et al., Return on Investment (2012) (reviewing 32

may bias outcomes, and lack of scalability to accommodate large

studies and finding that moderate- and high-risk adults under

numbers of participants. See, e.g., Drug Policy Alliance, Drug Courts

supervision who received cognitive behavioral therapy were

Are Not the Answer: Toward a Health-Centered Approach to Drug

significantly less likely to commit crime, compared with those who

Use (Washington, DC: Drug Policy Alliance, 2011), https://perma.cc/

did not receive cognitive behavioral therapy); and Washington State

P5UH-TC56.

Institute for Public Policy, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (high and

37	 See, e.g., Christine M. Sarteschi, Michael G. Vaughn, and Kevin Kim,

moderate risk adult offenders) (Olympia, WA: Washington State

“Assessing the Effectiveness of Mental Health Courts: A Quantitative

Institute for Public Policy, 2012), https://perma.cc/7DB3-KPK8.

Review,” Journal of Criminal Justice 39, no. 1 (2011), 12-20 (reviewing

42	 For more on pre-release programming and aftercare services,

18 studies and finding that participation in mental health courts

see, e.g., Janeen Buck Willison, Sam G. Bieler, and KiDeuk Kim,

may have a moderate effect on reducing recidivism); Stephanie

Evaluation of the Allegheny County Jail Collaborative Reentry

Lee et al., Return on Investment: Evidence-Based Options to Improve

Programs: Findings and Recommendations (Washington, DC:

Statewide Outcomes (Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for

The Urban Institute, 2014) (finding that in-jail programming and

Public Policy, 2012) (reviewing six studies and finding that mental

services to prepare jail inmates for release combined with up to

health courts may have a small effect on reducing recidivism);

12 months of supportive services in the community significantly

and Washington State Institute of Public Policy, Mental Health

reduced recidivism among program participants), https://perma.

Courts (Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute of Public Policy,

cc/78L9-63BU. For in-prison therapeutic communities, Michael L.

2012), https://perma.cc/3P58-TQYK; in contrast, see, e.g., Jennifer

Prendergast et al., “Amity Prison-Based Therapeutic Community:

K. Molloy, Christian M. Sarver, and Robert P. Butters, Utah Cost of

5-Year Outcomes,” The Prison Journal 84, no. 1 (2004), 36-60

Crime: Mental Health Court (Adult) – Technical Report (Salt Lake

(finding that participation in an in-prison therapeutic community

City, UT: University of Utah, Utah Criminal Justice Center 2012), 4-5

program reduced the likelihood of reincarceration after release).

(reviewing six studies and finding participation in mental health

For transitional planning, see Anthony A. Braga, Anne M. Piehl,

courts had no significant effect on recidivism), https://perma.cc/

and David Hureau, “Controlling Violent Offenders Released to the

X8G9-EYQA.

Community: An Evaluation of the Boston Reentry Initiative,” Journal

38	See, e.g., Holly A. Wilson and Robert D. Hoge, “The Effect of Youth

of Research in Crime and Delinquency 46, no. 4 (2009), 411-36

Diversion Programs on Recidivism: A Meta-Analytic Review,” Criminal

(finding that participation in an inter-agency program targeting

Justice and Behavior 40, no. 5 (2013), 497-518 (reviewing 45

high-risk violent individuals with in-jail programming, transitional

11

planning, and post-release services reduced re-arrest rates for
participants).
43	For crime rates through 2013, see Federal Bureau of Investigation,
“Uniform Crime Reporting Statistics, State and national estimates
by year.” For crime rates in 2014 and 2015, see Federal Bureau of
Investigation, “2015 Crime in the United States,” Table 1. For state
incarceration rates in 2000, see Allen J. Beck and Paige M. Harrison,
Prisoners in 2000 (Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics,
2001), Table 3, https://perma.cc/Y4BA-GEK2; for state incarceration
rates in 2015, see E. Ann Carson and Elizabeth Anderson, Prisoners
in 2015 (Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2016), Table 6,
https://perma.cc/K4ZV-9YTB.

About citations
As researchers and readers alike rely more and more on public
knowledge made available through the Internet, “link rot” has
become a widely-acknowledged problem with creating useful and sustainable citations. To address this issue, the Vera
Institute of Justice is experimenting with the use of Perma.cc
(https://perma.cc/), a service that helps scholars, journals, and
courts create permanent links to the online sources cited in their
work.

Credits
© Vera Institute of Justice 2017. All rights reserved. An electronic
version of this report is posted on Vera’s website at
www.vera.org/for-the-record-prison-paradox.
The Vera Institute of Justice is a justice reform change agent.
Vera produces ideas, analysis, and research that inspire
change in the systems people rely upon for safety and justice,
and works in close partnership with government and civic leaders to implement it. Vera is currently pursuing core priorities of
ending the misuse of jails, transforming conditions of confinement, and ensuring that justice systems more effectively serve
America’s increasingly diverse communities.
For more information, visit www.vera.org.
For more information about this brief or Vera’s Evidence Brief
series, contact Jim Parsons, vice president and research director, at jparsons@vera.org.

Suggested citation
Don Stemen. The Prison Paradox: More Incarceration Will Not
Make Us Safer. New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2017.

233 Broadway, 12th Floor, New York, NY 10279	

212 334 1300	

vera.org