This paper examines prison overcrowding as a critical national problem in the United States and Canada — the first and fourth highest imprisonment rates in the world, respectively. Using a combined qualitative and quantitative research approach, it investigates the causes and factors driving overcrowding, including rising inmate populations, shrinking resources, federal over-criminalization, and inadequate infrastructure. The paper reviews reform efforts in California, Nebraska, Connecticut, and Carbon County, Pennsylvania, highlighting how each jurisdiction has pursued cost-effective strategies. California's five-year sentencing reform plan and Nebraska's LB 907 legislation emerge as particularly promising models for reducing prison populations while controlling costs, maintaining public safety, and lowering recidivism rates.
Overcrowding in the United States and Canada has been an extremely draining issue (John Howard, 1996). A continuously swelling prison population, combined with corresponding decreases in correctional spending and overall resources, are the primary causes. The prison population has breached the capacity limits of facilities across both countries. Various studies have shown that overcrowding in prisons results in stiff competition over limited resources, disorder and aggression, increased rates of illness, elevated recidivism, and higher suicide rates. This continuously deteriorating situation calls for prompt but inexpensive intervention and the application of effective methods to reduce overcrowding (Howard).
While the rate of violent crime fell in the decade and a half before 2012, crime statistics from 2011 indicate that 14,500 people were murdered that year alone, largely by gunfire (Mangino, 2012). Others lose their lives, property, or physical functioning to burglary, robbery, or aggravated assault. Those apprehended and convicted are imprisoned. By the latest count, more than 6.6 million people are in prisons, jails, or under community supervision. Incarceration has greatly drained taxpayers' money. As of 2011, 15 states had passed respective sentencing reform laws in order to reduce costs.
The Government Accountability Office reported that overcrowding has adverse effects on inmates themselves, facility staff, and infrastructure. It also found that Federal Bureau of Prisons operations have exceeded 39% of maximum capacity on a nationwide basis, and that the prison population increased by 9.5% while infrastructure and additional beds increased by only 7%. This has resulted in two or three inmates sharing a single bed. Director Harley G. Lappin of the Federal Bureau of Prisons relayed troubling details to the U.S. Sentencing Commission in 2011. He stated that as of January 2011, 94% of high-security inmates were double-bunked, 16% of medium-security inmates were double-bunked, and 82% of low-security inmates were triple-bunked — arrangements that were never part of the original intent or design of inmate housing. Without the right programming promptly administered, current overcrowding can produce mental illness, drug and alcohol abuse, and aggression. Frustration can also mount and lead to "acting out" (Mangino, 2012), or inmates may be released without their criminogenic needs addressed and treated. The current administration recognizes that the situation strongly calls for a new direction (Mangino).
The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the decision of the California appellate court to reduce the state's prison population by 137% — equivalent to 109,400 inmates — within two years of 2011 (CCN, 2011). The state's sentencing reforms under a five-year plan would reduce the number of convicts who will be imprisoned going forward, rather than mass-releasing those already incarcerated. The reforms identify "no-prison" felonies, alternatives to custody, a more generous credit system, and provisions for those with shorter sentences to serve time in county jails (CCN).
A major prison reform law introduced by Senator Brad Ashford of Omaha was Nebraska's response to this problem (Kintner, 2014). The state's prison system had reportedly exceeded its original design capacity by 155%. The bill, LB 907, would establish new ways of reducing prison overcrowding while keeping citizens safe, controlling costs, and reducing recidivism. Its four summarized provisions are: computer-tracking of paroled prisoners; release of prisoners who have served 80% of their sentence; identification of areas with a shortage of legal practitioners; and the creation of a justice reinvestment working group to cooperate with the state government on reducing prison population (Kintner).
Carbon County Commissioner Wayne Nothstein discussed the benefits of certain measures to reduce the inmate population in their locality with the county prison board (Miller, 2014). He and his group observed practices employed by a day reporting center in Luzerne County. These practices include allowing non-violent offenders — such as DUI violators — to serve part of their sentence outside prison under certain conditions, and sentencing a violator partly through incarceration and partly through reporting to the center. Reporting to the center may be complemented with treatment and attendance at advanced programs (Miller).
The State of Connecticut identified the causes and factors of prison overcrowding (CT, 2000). Factors that frequently lead to crime and imprisonment include lack of education or employment, family and social problems, poverty, drug and alcohol use, association with individuals involved in criminal activity, and mental illness. Connecticut also named five factors that impact prison overcrowding. The first is a group of sub-factors explaining why the prison population increased despite the decrease in crime rates and arrests. The second is the continued incarceration of convicts for the full duration of their court sentence. The third is the "tough on crime" policy. The fourth is the insufficient number of beds for all inmates, especially adequate high-security beds for high-risk prisoners. The fifth consists of inaccurate population projections and inadequate assessment of the needs of all offenders, especially inmates (CT).
Research Problem: How can prison overcrowding be reduced in the most economical way?
This study uses a combination of qualitative and quantitative research methods, with greater emphasis on the qualitative approach. It records, describes, interprets, analyzes, and compares updated and relevant data from authoritative sources.
The study reviews and analyzes monthly statistical reports from major facilities in the prison systems of California, Connecticut, Nebraska, and Carbon County. It also conducts surveys and interviews with inmates, staff, law enforcement agencies, and other stakeholders in these states, and distributes questionnaires to them. Analysis centers on the causes and effects of overcrowding, an identification of existing conditions, and the sentencing options used by these states and localities.
The group was chosen because prisoners have been increasing in number at facilities while the resources available to those facilities are decreasing, resulting in overcrowding. This crisis must be examined in relation to the simultaneous decrease in crime rates and arrests. The stakeholders in this study include law enforcers — police and sheriffs — as well as judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, probation and parole officers, victims and their advocates, offenders, social service representatives, probation officials, and mental health directors.
"Jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction findings on overcrowding and reforms"
"Interpretation of findings and policy implications"
California's five-year plan and Nebraska's LB 907 offer effective approaches to reducing prison overcrowding at affordable cost while keeping citizens safe and even realizing significant savings. These approaches provide a direct answer to the research question. Certain studies and authors have identified the causes and factors of prison overcrowding, and California, Nebraska, Connecticut, and Carbon County have each presented their respective solutions to this persistent problem. The evidence points toward sentencing reform, community supervision expansion, and evidence-based reentry programming as the most promising and fiscally responsible tools available to policymakers.
You’re 38% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.