Art by EL Tedana

Smart, Strategic, and Informed Decarceration of Non-Violent Inmates Focusing on Both Societal Safety and Social Justice

By David A. Fullard, Ph.D., LMHC, CRC, MAC

Decarceration is Inevitable

The decarceration of non-violent offenders from the Rikers Island Correctional Facility is completely inevitable, and already underway to a certain extent. Rikers Island, located in the East River between Queens and The Bronx, houses individuals who have been charged but not convicted of a crime and are awaiting trial in one of the five boroughs of New York City. Therefore, they must be transported to court for their hearings and meet with their attorneys pre-trial, both of which are very difficult to accomplish from this isolated prison location. Also housed at Rikers are individuals who have been convicted of a crime that carries less than a one-year sentence, or who have served enough of their time while awaiting trial that they have less than one year left by the time of their conviction. Those with longer sentences are sent upstate to State prisons to serve their time. Holding these individuals in an environment that is isolated from the community, provides minimal rehabilitative or treatment services, and is renowned for a culture of violence, must be brought to an end, and soon.

Humanitarian and pragmatic concerns regarding decarceration have been upheld by research demonstrating that incarceration has few positive effects on individual change, community stability, or even public safety. The result is a growing public view of mass incarceration as socially unacceptable, especially with the unequal treatment of different populations. There is dwindling political will for pro-incarceration policies, a new emphasis on criminal justice reform, and consensus that reducing the incarcerated population is needed and ultimately good for the country (Epperson & Pettus-Davis, 2015). While prisons may not be in most people’s consciousness most of the time, once knowledge of the terrible treatment becomes public knowledge, an outcry arises. “Realization is growing that the only way to reduce racism and abuse of the most vulnerable populations, such as juveniles and the mentally ill, is to move jails from ‘out of sight, out of mind’ on Rikers into local neighborhoods in the public view, where inmates and officers alike will be more closely watched by family, oversight agencies, and the media” (Fullard 6/2016).

In 2019, New York officials “set a deadline of 2026 (to close Rikers) and promised to build four smaller prisons in each borough … [making] it easier to get inmates to courts, for families to visit their loved ones [and attorneys to meet with their clients], and also, hopefully, to provide better, cleaner, more humane facilities for inmates” (Messina, 2019). The cost is just too high, both financially and morally, to keep people behind bars who could be safely released while awaiting trial or doing community service under supervision programs such as electronic monitoring, probation, or parole. Other programs could help reduce the number of individuals behind bars, such as decarceration courts focused on treatment and rehabilitation rather than punishment, such as mental health courts, drug courts, family violence courts, and the like (McLeod, 2012).

Pretrial release programs utilizing effective risk assessments can determine whether someone will be successful on unsupervised release, such as the “Risk, Needs, Responsivity” (RNR) model (Duwe, 2017). Research shows that most people do not re-offend while on unsupervised release, and most will appear in court on their due dates. A few cases where this does not occur may be sensationalized in the media, causing public outcry that “dangerous criminals” are being released without any supervision; however, this is rare: “risk assessment tools that employ scientific algorithms to make predictions about future behavior tell us that many individuals charged with violent crimes are not high-risk for future offending” (Lippman, 2019).

While some may argue that electronic monitoring and other community supervision programs should not be used post-conviction, without aggressive action, we will never address the problem of mass incarceration. The US jails more people

than any other country in the world, mostly black and brown men and women. “Reductions in incarceration will depend, at least in part, on reducing sentences for violent offenses … re-examining long sentences for violent crimes, expanding parole release, and considering past victimization as a mitigating factor in sentencing” (Western, 2018). It should be clear that to be successful, individuals who are released under such supervision programs will require assistance in place from mental health, substance abuse treatment, educational and vocational training, housing support, and other social service programs to reduce their return to the criminal justice system and allow them to re-enter society as contributing members.

Without Caution, We Will Repeat Mistakes of the Past

The problem is, we’re going about decarceration in the same way we went about deinstitutionalizing mental health institutions here in New York back in the 1960s and ’70s, just releasing people without alternative programs and supports in place first. That, as we all know — and as is well documented in the professional literature — was a complete and total debacle. Only about half the community mental health treatment centers needed to replace the closed hospital beds were ever built, and none was ever fully funded. (Vece, 2020). This is a problem, because “many [deinstitutionalized] patients are unable to provide for themselves outside of the institutional environment [and] persons who previously would have been committed to a hospital … now have no place to go … [but] the number of community mental health centers that have actually been established is much lower than the projected need” (Taylor, 1987).

“Hope” by Billy Thomas

The stated impetus for deinstitutionalization in the past (and decarceration today) may have been to improve social justice, self-determination, and quality of life for those who would otherwise be institutionalized (or incarcerated). Improved medication allowed some people to be released and manage their condition while living independently, just as today electronic monitoring can allow people to serve their sentences outside of a prison environment (although such supervision may certainly inhibit people from gaining employment if conditions do not allow their work schedule; legislation is needed to protect them). Care in the community would give people with mental illness the same rights as everyone else, provide the opportunity for more family involvement, and focus on treatment rather than separation (Regoli, 2019). “There should be a balance struck between the liberty rights of the mentally ill and the general welfare of the community (and the individual as a member of that community) that has an interest in the treatment of mental illness … in order to preserve the quality of life for society at large, as well as for the individual.” (Taylor, 1987).

Exposés showed that many state mental hospitals had become dilapidated, overcrowded “snake pits” where patients were warehoused in deplorable conditions, receiving minimal treatment. Similarly, recent court filings attest to the deteriorating physical plant and culture of violence on Rikers. “The level of violence at Rikers has been truly horrific … stress from day in, day out violence has led to PTSD for both inmates and staff, charges of excessive use of force and overuse of punitive segregation (solitary confinement)” (Fullard, 1/2016). These excesses led to lawsuits at the federal level, resulting in supervision by a special monitor under a federal consent agreement (Bharara, 2015).

Financial Impetus Accompanies Social Goals

While these humanitarian concerns are more than mere lip service, unfortunately, what often drives these changes is not a commitment to personal freedom or improved treatment for those who are incarcerated or institutionalized, but rather a goal to reduce costs to the state. Policy changes in the 1970s allowed states to reduce their costs for running mental hospitals by shifting the cost of care to Federal programs, which would support care in the community as well as provide income assistance to the mentally ill and mentally disabled through Medicaid and Medicare programs such as SSI and SSD (Schon, 2019). Similarly, the push towards the “end of an era” of mass incarceration was also driven by evidence of financial instability of the continued growth of incarceration.

Sadly, these cost savings were not redirected to provide needed services in the community for those who have been deinstitutionalized/decarcerated, to help them to build and maintain successful lives outside of an institutional setting. Shockingly, this has been true for over 30 years: “More often than not, the deinstitutionalized patient is released into an area lacking the aftercare support structures that would ensure his successful transition into the community … the success of deinstitutionalization was predicated on the presence of … community mental health centers for the released patient … it is disconcerting that the psychiatric community is still calling for the establishment of community mental health centers twenty years after deinstitutionalization began” (Taylor, 1987).

Instead, these individuals are often released to the street and left to fend for themselves, setting them up for failure and returning to incarceration/institutionalization. Homeless shelters are often dangerous, dirty, or inappropriate for those with symptoms of mental illness. The few programs that are still available are harder to get into, time-limited, and underfunded. Virtually the only inpatient hospitalization is available for those committed by the state for being a danger to themselves or others. For those who simply cannot work within the boundaries of society and end up at the mercy of the criminal justice system, the minimal treatment for mental health problems that is provided for them behind bars nearly ensures that they will return once released, without new supports being put in place.

The Dangers of Homelessness After Deinstitutionalization

Social, political, and economic changes have contributed to a dramatic increase in homelessness in general, as well as among those with mental illness. Real estate development has severely reduced the number of single-room occupancy (SRO) hotel rooms, halfway houses, and supportive housing options. Other major socioeconomic dislocations include low-wage service jobs replacing manufacturing jobs, and the elimination or reduction of social welfare benefits. Those with severe mental illness are more affected due to symptoms, disabilities, poverty, dependence, and vulnerability to stigma, neglect, and victimization (Cohen, 1992).

The risk of becoming homeless after hospital discharge is higher for patients with severe mental illness, comorbid drug use disorder, and poor global functioning. These individuals no longer have access to the shelter provided by the hospital, and often lack the capacity to apply for public housing and other programs, or the perseverance — or support — needed to appeal if denied (Olfson et al., 1999). The rate of homelessness increased even further when a Federal mandate removed over 400,000 people from the rolls of SSD and SSI, and imposed even tighter requirements for assistance, making it difficult for people with limited capacity to apply and qualify for these programs (Conklin, 2015). In addition to the loss of income, the loss of housing stock for these individuals “has acted as a catalyst during the crisis of homelessness [with] the steady disappearance of … ‘single-room occupancy’ (SRO) hotels … From 1970 to 1982 … nearly half of the total stock disappeared nationwide. Many cities lost more than two-thirds of their rooming units” (Hopper & Hamberg, 1986).

Continuing stigma and discrimination create barriers to treatment in the community, especially when encounters with homeless mentally ill (“vagrants,” “bums,” “street people”) — who are often blamed for their own circumstances — create negative attitudes in the general population towards the mentally ill. This negativity impacts legislation and policy about being “tough on crime,” resulting in higher incarceration rates for quality-of-life crimes. These are often committed by homeless individuals who are either demonstrating survival behaviors (loitering, stealing food, trespassing, public urination, turnstile jumping) or causing disturbances by displaying untreated psychiatric symptoms in public (Drake, 1999). Bob Bernstein, President of the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, notes, “Most people [with mental illness] are incarcerated because of very minor crimes that are preventable … [However,] once incarcerated, they find it difficult to break the cycle, and] they deteriorate. They can’t follow the rules there and so they stay a long time, and they become difficult to release” (Dannewitz, 2013).

The increasing visibility of mentally disturbed people in the streets, as more people are forced into living on the streets because of dangerous or demeaning conditions in shelters or the reduction in affordable rooming houses, “has contributed to the prevailing picture of the homeless … as addled nomads, victims of their own eccentricity or pathology. [However] the problem is not primarily one of personal inadequacy … the decisive factor that transformed the wretchedly quartered deinstitutionalized into the wandering deranged was — and remains — the depletion of the low-income housing stock” (Hopper & Hamberg, 1986).

All of these issues led to trans-institutionalization, as many former mental patients — or today, those who would have been hospitalized in years past — were shifted into other institutions such as homeless shelters, nursing homes, boarding homes, or jail, which are not equipped to handle the psychiatric issues these individuals bring with them (Dannewitz, 2013). The Sequential Intercept Model (SIM) is a tool that can provide information on individuals with mental health issues and substance use disorders enter into contact with the criminal justice system, and develop new ways to help them move through it and into community treatment. “The SIM helps communities identify resources and gaps in services at each intercept and develop local strategic action plans. The SIM mapping process brings together leaders and different agencies and systems to work together to identify strategies to divert people with mental and substance use disorders away from the justice system into treatment” (SAMHSA, 2022). Employing the SIM could help policymakers determine the financial and social risks of overcrowding or funding only one sector, and help ensure that the decarceration movement doesn’t make the same mistakes as deinstitutionalization by focusing exclusively on single-factor cost savings without taking into account the repercussions on other areas.

“Deinstitutionalization did not succeed in creating a community-based care approach; rather it simply shifted the burden of care from hospitals and institutions onto the community and families of the patients” … as well as contributing to the increase of urban homelessness (Sutherland, 2015). The terms “falling through the cracks” and “revolving door syndrome” often refer the homeless mentally ill who either do not qualify for or cannot comply with support programs, thus ending up in an endless cycle of hospitalization and incarceration or probation for petty crimes, never receiving the treatment or care they need. Worse still, being locked up fails to provide any correctional benefits to the mentally ill, who lack the ability to follow rules, and often become targets of victimization themselves. Certain aspects of incarceration, such as restraints, noise, and isolation, can severely worsen their condition (Primeau et al., 2013).

Indeed, studies have shown that jail incarceration rates rose in direct proportion to the closures of state treatment facilities. Many of those released from sanitariums (or who came of age after they were no longer available) became wards of different institutions: city and state jails and prisons, which have become the largest de facto mental hospital in the state. Despite the poor quality of mental health care behind bars, many inmates note that they receive their best — or only — treatment in jail. It is better and more cost-effective for experienced mental health professionals, social workers, psychologists, and psychiatrists, to provide treatment in a hospital or clinic vs. correction officers primarily trained in crowd management, care, control, and restraint. There are some innovative jail mental health programs, many related to decarceration, that could help the situation, including re-routing new inmates to treatment before they are incarcerated, providing discharge plans with referrals to treatment when they leave, and even prisons continuing to offer mental health services to former inmates (Dart, 2014). “According to the US Department of Justice, 64% of those incarcerated in jails, 56% of state inmates, and 45% of federal prisoners exhibit symptoms of severe psychopathology such as bipolar disorder, major depression, or schizophrenia” (Primeau et al., 2013). If we add the numbers of those who have minor mental disorders, including public intoxication and substance abuse, the numbers soar.

Decarceration faces the same danger: if the programs are not put in place before people are redirected or released from incarceration (especially given the high percentage of those with mental illness, as noted above), there will be a return to increased homelessness and possible street crime. I have been writing about this issue since 2015, and the critical importance of having established plans before releasing people to the street: “Closing Rikers Island is a great idea — but we must have fully operational alternatives in place first, not just some half-baked notions that are destined to fail” (Fullard, 2016).

Alternative Care Must Be Put In Place First

How did the crisis of mentally ill homeless come to pass? It was because the state mental institutions were closed without putting alternative care in place first. Despite pronouncements about providing “care in the community,” these were never instituted to the level required. The mentally ill exited their institutions without sufficient programs to replace the food, shelter, medication, and treatment they received in the state hospitals. As noted above, supportive housing and SROs (Single Room Occupancies) were available to a small portion of this population, but services were never adequate, and these residences diminished or were discontinued entirely due to pressures from the soaring real estate market in New York City. As even these minimal housing supports were closed or converted into condos, many residents became homeless and turned to crime in order to provide food — or to be arrested and get what little food and shelter they could obtain in jail, as horrible as it is. Others were arrested for acting out inappropriately (loitering, stealing, trespassing, exposure) since living on the street they were receiving no treatment — no counseling, no medication, nothing — for their severe mental illness, and in conditions that would make anyone behave in a bizarre fashion at best.

Many of those with severe mental illness also suffer from agnosia and don’t realize that they have a disease; even if they have been given a prescription for medication, without supervision, they may not take it because they don’t realize they need it. Other patients “fail to take psychotropic medications because of disturbing side effects, fear of tardive dyskinesia, denial of illness, or in some cases to avoid the depression and anxiety that result when they see their reality too clearly; grandiosity and a blurring of reality may make their lives more bearable than a drug-induced relative normality” (Lamb, 1993).

We are no closer to ameliorating the suffering of those who do not have access to mental health care and housing support. Trans-institutionalization and criminalization of the mentally ill continue to be a problem in our society. While few who were released from state institutions 40+ years ago may still be alive today, since those hospitals remain shuttered and minimal services are available in the community, many continue to suffer. As Renee Binder, president of the American Psychiatric Association, stated, “It’s not like the patients have gone away. It’s the treatment resources that have gone away” (Schon, 2015).

Forced to live on the street in abysmal conditions, they experience drug addiction, mental illness, social marginalization, poverty, community violence, physical and mental abuse, and a sense of hopelessness that is unfathomable. Often, they simply give up and hide in the shadows. Still others (relatively few) become violent and act out against fellow members of society, causing them to enter the criminal justice system, where they receive minimal, if any, treatment.

Any of us can walk down the street or on public transportation in a large city and see many people in dire conditions, demonstrating strange behavior, and vulnerable to becoming a danger to themselves or others. “The images of these gravely ill citizens on our city landscapes are bleak reminders of the failure of deinstitutionalization. They are seen huddling over steam grates in the cold, animatedly carrying on conversations with invisible companions, wearing filthy, tattered clothing, urinating and defecating on sidewalks, or threatening passersby. Worse still, they frequently are seen being carried away on stretchers as victims of suicide or violent crime, or in handcuffs as perpetrators of violence against others” (Torrey & Zdandaowicz, 1999).

Providing some support and guidance could make a world of difference. “It is probable that many … homeless mentally ill would not be on the streets if they were on the caseload of a professional … trained to deal with the problems of the chronically mentally ill, monitor them … and facilitate their receiving services … complete freedom may well be detrimental to some patients [who] present a serious threat to their own welfare or that of others and are not able to make a rational decision about accepting treatment” (Lamb, 1993).

Madhouses were Bad, but Imprisonment is Worse

Back in the days of Bedlam and other asylums for the insane, hospitals for the treatment and isolation of the mentally ill or mentally infirm have been called hellholes for a reason. Treatment of residents (really inmates, since most were committed and held against their will) was often abusive and abominable. Behind the institution’s walls, outside the view of society, warders physically punished, restrained, and excessively drugged the asylum’s inmates. However, as bad as the care may have been at those “snake pits” that were the now-closed state mental hospitals, it was not as bad as it is now for those with severe mental illness who are incarcerated. Symptoms of mental illness often worsen due to the privations and depredations of jail and prison, especially when inmates are put into punitive isolation, as they often are, since they are unable to follow rules and may act out inappropriately.

Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan described the failure of deinstitutionalization very clearly in 1999: “[W]e have emptied state mental hospitals, but we have not provided commensurate outpatient treatment. Increasingly, individuals with mental illnesses are left to fend for themselves on the streets, where they victimize others or, more frequently, are victimized themselves. Eventually, many wind up in prison, where the likelihood of treatment is nearly as remote” (Moynihan, 1999). Mentally ill inmates are surrounded by opportunistic criminals who may prey on their vulnerabilities. They are “cared for” by corrections officers who have little to no training in mental health issues. They receive only occasional visits from mental health staff who may even have to treat them through a locked cell door, barely able to assess and diagnose their conditions, much less provide appropriate medication, counseling, or therapeutic treatment.

Of course, there are also many inmates who do not fall within the categories of mental illness or substance abuse, who are also candidates for decarceration. They will succeed as returning citizens given appropriate social service assistance such as education, job training, job placement, housing support, health care (including mental health care and substance abuse treatment) as well as life skills such as anger management, parenting classes, and more.

(As a side note, of course, these services should be provided for all members of the community, whether they have had any contact with the criminal justice system or not. One shouldn’t have to be decarcerated from incarceration in order to receive much-needed mental health, substance abuse treatment, education, housing, and other critical social services. This also reduces any stigma to receiving these services, that one must have been formerly incarcerated to obtain them.)

Funds Saved Through Decarceration Must Be Reallocated to Provide Needed Services to Those Returning to Society

If we don’t want decarceration to repeat the same debacle that occurred with deinstitutionalization, we must put the alternatives to incarceration in place first. Clearly, it’s time to start to think outside of the box and address this problem head-on, with the understanding that the solution will take both human resources and financial resources. We must be both smart and strategic in our development of a policy for effective decarceration that takes into account protecting society from violent offenders while simultaneously providing social justice in the form of much-needed services to the non-violent offenders who can be safely released from the criminal justice system and actively contribute to society.

Thinking outside of the box involves reallocating, reframing, recasting, and repurposing existing staff and resources within the New York City Department of Correction. Specifically:

• Uniformed correction officers should be trained — and paid — to function as case managers;
• Potential inmate candidates for decarceration should be assessed by professionals using evidence-based diagnostic tools, and appropriate supports should be put in place for them prior to their release from jail or prison;
• That portion of the Riker’s Island facility no longer used to house inmates should be converted into offices for decarceration personnel;
• Existing jail services (such as education and vocational training, job placement, mental and physical health care, housing and nutrition support, anger management, social service referrals, etc.) should be repurposed to serve decarcerated clients via the correction officer case manager;
• Each borough needs a single jail serving as a one-stop hub for all services that the decarcerated person needs.

In this manner, we can make use of existing staff and resources without greatly increasing the budget allotted to the Department of Correction. It should be noted that this proposal is NOT advocating that all correction officers are candidates to serve as case managers, nor that social workers and other professionals should be removed from the prison setting and all of their work performed by case manager officers. Similar to the calls for mental health and drug abuse incidents in the community to be handled by counselors rather than police officers to prevent unnecessary violence in police response, there are situations behind bars as well where trained psychological, social work, and emergency intervention professionals can effectuate a better outcome than the average correction officer. However, options for selected corrections officers to develop case management skills should definitely be put into place, rather than the more common near-adversarial relationship between those in place to manage control of the inmates (the officer) and those who are there to provide treatment (the case managers).

Officers have the most direct, hands-on, daily contact with inmates, and if these officers can be selected and trained to develop positive relationships, service provision can only be enhanced. There are case studies from other countries where officers sit down and have coffee with inmates, rather than treat them like animals and keep them locked and chained. “[Guards] bring inmates a tall stack of steaming, heart-shaped waffles and pots of jam, which they set down on a checked tablecloth and eat together, whiling away the afternoon” (Gentleman, 2012). “Scandinavian prisons run after the model that ‘if you treat prisoners like animals, they will act like animals.’ They understand that in order to reduce crime rates … you need to rehabilitate prisoners…. Our justice system chews people up and spits them out and something needs to change … low-level offenders make up over 25% of the American prisons, and we could significantly reduce that by turning our current justice path to one that is focused on rehabilitation.” (Schuler, 2020)

Changing this requires developing a new officer culture: “Correction officers are victims of the atmosphere of violence even as some are the perpetrators of it. Officers face years of stress and emotional devastation from dealing with difficult, often mentally ill, drug abusers, violent criminals, clever thieves, and gang members.… The challenge is to address police culture and create a supportive work environment to reduce the stigmatization that prevents officers from acknowledging problems or seeking help to deal with work stress and mental health concerns” (Fullard, 2017).

This new approach can go all the way to the policymaking level, once lawmakers look at the positive financial outcomes of creating a more humane prison system. Norway’s prison system benefits its economy in many ways, with the “primary goal of reintegrating its prisoners as stable contributors to communities … reducing the population of prisoners that are reincarcerated means more individuals are able to contribute to Norway’s economy once their sentence is complete.… [Those] partaking in job training courses [had] a 40% increase in employment rates.… Norway’s prison system equips its prisoners with education-based knowledge and labor skills that have long-term benefits to [the] economy and also improves their personal lives.” (Dorjsuren, 2020).

Utilizing evidence-based assessment tools for selecting inmates for decarceration, together with the provision of appropriate social service supports, will reduce any safety concerns related to those who are released into the community. “Risk assessment tools that employ scientific algorithms to make predictions about future behavior tell us that many individuals charged with violent crimes are not high-risk for future offending … community-based programs [can reduce] re-offending for more serious cases…. Cognitive behavioral therapy can reduce recidivism by as much as half.” (Lippman, 2019) As noted above, risk assessment tools are currently in use to select those who can successfully reintegrate — and with additional supports in place, these tools can show a wide range of individuals who would benefit from receiving service in the community.

Services needed to ensure a smooth transition and reduce recidivism must be in place prior to decarceration. These include comprehensive case management, referrals to treatment programs, aptitude assessment and vocational training for today’s world, academic skills development, health and wellness services, and housing assistance. “It cannot be stated strongly enough: This must be in place before releasing any inmates from Rikers. Over 50 percent of those on Rikers have serious mental illness. Just letting them out onto the streets would cause the same crisis that deinstitutionalization did in the 1960s and ’70s, which led to Rikers becoming the largest de facto mental institution in the country. These people need professional assessment and care. If they are turned loose into the community, the public outcry — rightly — would result in the complete failure of this reform. Protection of the citizens and the community is “Job #1” for the criminal justice system.” (Fullard, 2016).

The amount of money saved through decarceration is significant. The costs of incarceration in the NYC DOC are astronomical and have gone up much faster than the speed of inflation: the full annual cost to incarcerate one person in Fiscal 2019 was $337,534.00 — more than two and a half times the $129,215 cost in Fiscal 2009. A Correction Officer in the NYC DOC earns $99,073.00 per year (not counting overtime paid at time and a half, the Variable Supplement Fund upon retirement, educational opportunities, a home mortgage program, health care, and an annuity fund). Moving these costs for incarceration to decarceration — funding community-based services including social work, supervision, housing and nutrition support, education, vocational training, employment assistance, substance abuse treatment, and mental and physical health care — would represent considerable savings overall (Stringer, 2019; Storey & Wright, 2020).

In order to remain fiscally responsible, decarceration programs must reallocate, reframe, recast, and repurpose existing staff and resources to promulgate this pilot project for decarceration. No new funding, staffing, or supplies will be needed at this time since the current budget is sufficient to cover costs for training, supervision, and adequate social services in the community for decarcerated individuals. Coordination with other agencies is needed to utilize community spaces, social work offices, police stations, and local jails for meeting spaces and offices to meet and provide services that otherwise would have been provided to inmates and prisoners while in correctional custody.

Create Partnerships With Other Social Service Providers

Thinking outside of the box also involves deep and functional partnerships with a number of key City agencies. This multidisciplinary cadre of law enforcement, social services, education and training, job placement, housing, and physical and mental health professionals is the cornerstone of a smart and strategic decarceration policy. Deep and functional partnerships throughout all of the City agencies and the implementation of a complete multidisciplinary team will be absolutely necessary because one of the most important concepts in decarceration is to have a fully implemented plan in place for each and every person that is decarcerated with all services available on the very first day of their decarceration.

These Decarceration Partnerships are needed to ensure coordination across city service agencies and have services in place from day one. Some of the departments include the Deputy Commissioner, Chief Administrator, Director of Training and Training Staff for NYC DOC Programs; the Assistant Commissioners for the Department of Citywide Administrative Services (DCAS), the New York City Housing Authority (NYCH), the Health and Hospitals Corporation (HHC), and the Office of Mental Health (OMH). Additional public-private partnerships should be developed with education providers, social service agencies, and other related organizations. (Fullard, 2020)

The City of New York is responsible for providing a multimodal, multidisciplinary paradigm of services from day one to citizens who come in contact with the criminal legal system but are not incarcerated due to decarceration.

• Social Services: Social work case management and intensive forensic case management, including help with housing, nutrition, and health care access.
• Health & Wellness: Substance abuse prevention, emotional/mental health counseling, stress reduction, and psychiatric and pharmacological treatment.
• Habilitation and Rehabilitation: Vocational/job training and employment assistance; academic skills training and education support; interpersonal skills, parenting skills, and life skills; leadership, mentoring, and youth development.
• All of this contributes to improved community safety and security by enhancing crime prevention and reducing recidivism (Fullard, 2020).

In this manner, upon exiting the criminal justice system, the decarcerated person will begin to function as a returning citizen of our society. As such, they will need services on day one to assist them in becoming fully rehabilitated and fully functioning members of the community. It is also extremely important to note that those decarcerated persons who are non-violent and yet unable to become fully functioning members of society due to mental illness or other medical conditions must be managed and comprehensively cared for. (As noted above, to reduce stigma and ensure fairness, these services should be provided for everyone in the community, not just those who have been decarcerated or diverted from potential incarceration.)

Utilize the Expertise of Those Who Have Been There

People formerly involved with the criminal justice system, who themselves may have been decarcerated, must be invited to be part of the multidisciplinary team to help develop policy in the area of decarceration, as well as to provide peer counseling to newly decarcerated individuals. Their lived experience of being housed at Rikers Island and then re-entering society gives the team a view of the issues through the lens of the client, invaluable to those who do not have personal experience of incarceration and return to the community.

The value of user-led research was documented in studies on the impact of deinstitutionalization, where it was shown that “individuals with severe psychiatric disorders can play an important role in doing research on psychiatric services” (Torrey et al., 2010). By taking advantage of this unique perspective, we can avoid mistakes that were made in the past deinstitutionalization of mental hospitals by addressing those problems identified by team members who have had the experience of incarceration — and decarceration. Their hands-on knowledge of the situation from the inside out allows them to provide exceptional assistance to the program designers. Similar to AA and other 12-step programs, as well as support groups for veterans, first responders, and persons with disabilities, current and former inmates who are or have been engaged in the decarceration process themselves can offer peer support and serve as trusted advisors to those who may have fear or mistrust that they will be thrust out into the streets with no guidance or assistance. “The smart decarceration approach must view current and former prisoners not as merely objects for intervention, but as key experts in crafting effective solutions … experiences with the criminal justice system both inside and outside of incarceration settings should inform targeted social innovations” (Epperson & Pettus-Davis, 2015).

Housing for the decarcerated persons must be normalized.

No more shelters. No more hotels. No more halfway houses, transitional housing, or “three-quarter houses” to which those released from city jails were routinely referred. Housing must consist of real apartments and homes within the community, providing support in the form of intensive case workers. These workers are able to form relationships with decarcerated clients, thereby gaining not just their compliance but also promulgating growth towards independence.

Following deinstitutionalization, “a large number of discharged patients were becoming public charges in the cities closest to the state hospitals” (Conklin, 2015). One of the suggestions for stop-gap housing was to utilize the closed facilities as housing for “former patients as well as people faced with economic necessity, until other housing can be constructed for low-income people on a national basis” (Conklin, 2015). This idea could be extended to repurpose the physical plant of closed prisons and their administrative officers as emergency housing until true housing can be created to help these returning citizens become full society members.

“Housing First” is an important concept for providing shelter regardless of whether or not people are compliant with medication and treatment — but this support should be provided, nonetheless. Needed services include everything from physical and mental health care, substance abuse treatment, help with obtaining government identification, applying for nutrition and education programs, therapeutic and rehabilitative services as needed, anger management, parenting programs, family reunification, life skills classes, and more. Lacking these supports make citizen re-entry more challenging if not impossible for formerly incarcerated or diverted individuals with prior criminal justice system involvement.

Be Aware There Will Be Naysayers

As always, there will be naysayers. This, of course, is unavoidable. While it seems that no one could disagree with the idea of having alternatives in place before proceeding with the decarceration process, naysayers may decry decarceration itself, claiming that it is unworkable. These naysayers often refer to the failed history with deinstitutionalization and the subsequent trauma to society as an example of how it can’t work — though of course, as noted above, this was clearly a result of not having alternate services in place first. Even the proposed (and now underway) closure of Rikers Island has opposition from both NIMBYs (“Not In My Back Yard”) who don’t want the proposed smaller jails in each borough near their homes — and social justice advocates who fear that “If you decentralize detention … it becomes harder to resist. You don’t have one blighted hellhole to resist” (Doig, 2017).

Those on the right may consider decarceration to be a “soft on crime” approach that encourages malfeasance and lets wrongdoers off the hook for their crimes. Proponents often use coded racist language such as “hug a thug” to describe community sentencing programs that provide education, training, counseling, drug abuse treatment, and mental health care rather than locking people up with minimal services — and then releasing them in worse shape than when they went in (Pogarsky et al., 2018).

Those on the left may claim that committing people to supervised programs such as supportive housing, electronic monitoring, required sobriety tests and therapy appointments in locked wards and secure hospitalization, boot camps and shock incarceration, juvenile detention centers, education and work program check ins, expands the carceral state to an even larger population, placing more people under supervision than are currently behind bars — so they don’t want to see these services overextended either (Jordan, 1996). “Decades of studies have warned us about the ‘net-widening’ tendency of treatment programs [serving] as an alternative to probation or suspended sentences rather than as an alternative to jail or prison” (Jacobs, 2007). We must keep an eye on the danger of “alternatives to incarceration” becoming just a form of transcarceration to another form of supervision, monitoring, and control: “the ranks of those kept in the long shadow of the prison via probation and parole have swelled even more than the population under lock [bloating] the total population under criminal justice supervision … [and] both are more likely to lead (back) to imprisonment than not … either because they had committed a new offense or because they had violated one or another administrative condition of their release … the reach of penal authorities has also been dramatically enlarged beyond probation and parole by the exponential growth in the size, scope, and uses of criminal justice databases [including] the disffusion of official ‘rap sheets’ through the internet, the routinization of ‘background checks’ by employers and realtors,” and more (Wacquant, 2010).

Many of those in opposition to decarceration ignore the fact that mass incarceration has been shown to be a form of retribution, punishment, control, and free labor extraction, rather than correction, rehabilitation, or re-entry into society. “Not crime, but the need to shore up an eroding caste cleavage [and] desocialized wage labor to which most blacks are fated … is the main impetus behind the stupendous expansion of America’s penal state … and its de facto policy of ‘carceral affirmative action’ towards African-Americans” (Wacquant, 2002).

These decarceration naysayers rely on populist conservative views based on classical criminology, deterrence theory, and right realism to claim that criminal behavior is “volitional” and not due to underlying psychosocial issues. (Burke, 2014). These claims are based on several concepts about criminal deterrence, which include: celerity (speed of response), certainty, proportionality, severity, and retribution — as well as theories regarding deterrence, expected utility, rational choice, routine activities, and right realism. These decarceration naysayers hype up social fears by focusing on the supposed causes of crime as deviance and the fraying moral social fabric (Marsland, 1988), the growing underclass with low self-control, lack of role models or authority figures, lack of work ethic and dependency on a welfare state (Murray, 1990), the breakdown in the social order, loss of community civility and informal social control (Wilson, 1975), the opportunity for crime and deliberate decision to commit a crime (Cornish & Clarke, 1986), and social deterioration — which they propose to fight with hardline measures such as three-strikes and zero tolerance laws (Wilson & Herrnstein, 1985).

All of these anti-decarceration voices can be critiqued for their exclusive focus on low-level blue-collar and street crime, ignoring the harmful effects on society and the need for control and punishment of white-collar crime, corporate and financial crime, political and state crime by agencies such as police and correction officers. (Trueman, 2015). These theorists also ignore economic variables, despite the fact that poverty levels and lack of public services are much more related to criminality and urban decline than quality-of-life anti-social behavior and civil disorder (Matthews & Young, 1992). The “rational choice” crime model characterizes those outside the mainstream as “deviant,” which can lead to over-policing and vindictive punishment of such groups and individuals by “intrusive and punitive” state forces (Hogg & Brown, 1998).

Populist conservative criminology emphasizes violent crimes such as robbery, burglary, rape, and murder to encourage “fear of crime” — vs. more abstract crimes that actually harm larger populations, such as insurance fraud, selling contaminated food or untested pharmaceuticals, dumping pollution in the air and water, withholding public services, etc. (Kershaw et al, 2000). Policies based on these concepts abandon or attack victims and neighborhoods with the most crime and poverty as “not worth saving” — yet when residents of such areas commit crimes, they are prosecuted and locked up at a higher rate than others (Wilson & Kelling, 1982). These conservative voices advocate aggressive prosecution of victimless crimes and quality of life issues such as begging, vagrancy, prostitution, and drug use, which often targets disadvantaged people such as homeless individuals. (Hopkins Burke, 1988).

Crime reduction is the only way to track police performance, so if police patrol a wide range of social disorders, it is impossible to measure their effectiveness (Kinsey et al, 1986). Lack of police oversight is necessary for this model, making it harder to manage and monitor police professionalism and accountability (Smith, 2004). “Throughout the urban criminal justice system, the formula ‘Young+Black+Male’ is now openly equated with ‘probable cause’ justifying the arrest, questioning, bodily search and detention of millions of African-American males every year” (Wacquant, 2002). This has led to the crisis of black and brown people being targeted by police, which has been going on for decades but has only come into public view thanks to cell phone videos in recent years.

Naysayers with Financial Self-Interest

Still, other conservative-minded thinkers who are ideologically to the right — many employed by correctional institutions — argue that as we decarcerate individuals there will be a reduced need for jails and prisons, which essentially serve as a jobs program in many small towns. “Support for the prison industry [is] widespread and tenacious … when it serves their financial or political interests … those who staff, manage, and operate prisons have contributed to the expansion of the prison population and … they are resisting prison reform efforts” (Eisenberg, 2016). Obviously, when the number of prisoners increases, or their sentences are lengthened, there will be more jobs for correction officers, and more contracts for providers of prison services such as telephone, food, even medical care — and the use of cheap prison labor. Some of these groups, such as correction officer unions, spend millions of dollars a year on lobbying and public relations, even funding victims’ rights groups to protest the early release of prisoners and other decarceration programs, since “nobody feels empathetic for prison guards, but everyone’s got sympathy for crime victims.” (Eisenberg, 2016). Along similar lines, these officer groups also propagate “an ‘us vs. them’ mentality that dehumanizes inmates, thus impeding efforts to improve prison conditions and to promote rehabilitation” (Eisenberg, 2016).

The expansion of mass incarceration over the past 40 years has resulted in a multi-faceted and multi-dimensional problem existing in towns that have historically profited from their local correctional institution. “In ‘one-industry’ towns where prison work is a dominant source of income for residents, the concentrated pressure of local voters and union leadership is politically powerful … community groups [join] forces with the union to successfully oppose … proposed [prison] closure.” (Eisenberg, 2016). A recent article about the closure of six upstate prisons in New York examined concerns about how closing prisons will affect the local economy. The closures would cause the loss of jobs, or require staff relocation and long commutes, described by the president of the Correctional Officers and Police Benevolent Association as “life-altering decisions that upend lives and destroy communities.” (Cusaac-Smith, 2022).

Clearly, many of these towns will have to reinvent themselves without having the correctional institution as their primary source of income, which will involve retraining the former correctional officers and other citizens of these towns in new and varied careers. New York State has closed a number of correctional institutions over the past 10–20 years, and it would be beneficial to study these examples to see how the communities have repurposed the facilities, retrained former staff, etc. It is important to focus on “transforming these facilities in more creative and productive ways … [moving inmates] to other facilities based on their security classification along with their medical and mental health needs.” (Cusaac-Smith, 2022). The hundreds of millions of dollars saved by closing these facilities can be reinvested in jobs programs for former correction officers, as well as social services for those who would otherwise have been incarcerated in these now-shuttered institutions. The Katal Center for Equity, Health, and Justice notes that these changes indicate “we are choosing not to spend large resources putting people in cages, and instead investing in other things that actually keep communities safe [including] affordable housing and accessible health care… moving toward a system rooted in helping people have successful reentry so they don’t have to go back to prison” (Cusaac-Smith, 2022).

There are some practical strategies that could be employed by the prison industry to align with the goals of criminal justice reform. These include separating prison profits from the number of inmates; offer “pay for performance” bonds for positive outcomes (such as reduced recidivism); encourage prison industry actors to provide ancillary non-incarceration services such as electronic monitoring or probation/parole/re-entry programs; and finally, to transform the culture to see the connections that exist between officers, inmates, and management, so that people behind bars are viewed as just that: people. (Eisenberg, 2016). Encartele, a company that provides communications services such as telephone and internet to both inmates and corrections staff, has written about Scandinavian jails that have a much more human and rehabilitative approach to incarceration resulting in more positive outcomes regarding recidivism and public health and safety. (Encartele, 2018).

Threaded throughout most aspects of this article, of course, is the issue of not-so-subtle racism: government dollars that had formerly gone to social service programs in the inner city to benefit mostly black and brown clients are cut back in “cost saving” or “tax reduction” schemes. When these programs were reduced or removed, crime rates went up as a result, leading to increased incarceration of minority youth. Those same government dollars then went to prison construction and salaries for correctional officers, in mostly white upstate towns, to incarcerate these same black and brown youth who had formerly received the benefits of the social service programs in their home neighborhoods. So, in fact, prison construction, and both private and public prison building and staffing, are social welfare programs benefitting mostly white working-class recipients, that replaced the public benefit programs that served majority nonwhite urban dwellers (Hackett & Turk, 2016).

Employing Financial Incentives for States to Encourage Decarceration (Rather Than Expand Mass Incarceration)

While the vast majority of those behind bars are locked up in state prisons, the power of the federal purse can impact policy at the local level. In the past, this power was used to increase the numbers of those incarcerated by “awarding $9 billion to encourage states to drastically limit parole eligibility … [and continuing] to subsidize state and local criminal justice costs to the tune of $3.8 billion annually.” (Wagner, 2015). Federal funds have supported the building and expansion of correctional facilities (Eisen & Stroud, 2022), and imposing mandatory minimum sentences for a variety of nonviolent offenses. (Patterson, 2020). This incentivization of mass incarceration is what led the United States to become “the world leader in incarceration, with a prison population that has increased 500 percent over the last 30 years.” (Patterson, 2020).

Moving into the era of decarceration, the federal government can instead incentivize states to reduce the population behind bars. There are a number of innovative approaches to encouraging this outcome, providing “funds to states that cut both crime and imprisonment … [and awarding] additional funds to local probation departments that reduced the number of people revoked to prison.” (Wagner, 2015). There is even a bill called the “Reverse Mass Incarceration Act (RMIA)” that is designed to “unwind these incentives by ensuring that federal grants are sent only to states that reduce incarceration … [through steps such as] changing sentencing laws, establishing new programs diverting people away from the system, or improving wraparound services for individuals reentering their communities after incarceration” (Eisen & Stroud, 2022).

Another proposal, “The People’s Justice Guarantee,” calls for the federal government to “provide tax incentives to local governments and states that repeal Truth in Sentencing and Three Strikes provisions, and that reduce their prison population [through] significant reforms to policing, prosecution, and sentencing [and] the increased use of diversion opportunities, restorative justice programs, treatment, and community services” (Lerner, 2019). This program also calls for a cap on all prison sentences, the end of both the death penalty and life without parole, as well as the restoration of voting rights to people who are incarcerated — and the “importance of engaging with the people most harmed by the system.” (Lerner, 2019) The approach used to promote the “People’s Justice Guarantee” has been called “strategic … a paradigm shift … a visionary resolution backed by the people who need it the most … developed in partnership with those impacted — formerly and currently incarcerated men and women, families who have incarcerated loved ones.” (Patterson, 2020).

Addressing the trauma caused by decades of continually growing mass incarceration must be part of these reforms. With large portions of the population having loved ones who are or have been incarcerated, the damage is significant. Many of those who have been locked up were there due to poverty (unable to make bail or pay fines), illness (unable to obtain treatment for drug or alcohol dependency and forced to commit crimes to support an addiction, often rooted in untreated mental illness that caused them to self-medicate in the first place), or the over-policing of minority populations. (Patterson, 2020).

Aside from the trauma of incarceration itself, with frequent cases of isolation and abuse leading to self-harm or suicide, those who have served their time face even more barriers when returning home: they find that they are now ineligible for Pell educational grants, SNAP food benefits, Section 8 housing — all the supports needed to help them re-enter society, making them even more vulnerable to recidivism. “It’s disingenuous to talk of reentry when 30 percent of the people … are being released to shelters because of policies that make it impossible to reunite with your family … because of the dearth of housing that is affordable, because of housing and employment discrimination. There’s not the training. Educational programs have been divested” (Patterson, 2020).

Even philanthropy can support these new approaches: the MacArthur Foundation has awarded multiple grants to develop plans “that will lead to fairer, more effective local justice systems … at the end of the day, what we’re talking about is systemic change [asking] the selected jail systems to work with experts, judges, prosecutors, court administrators, police and corrections officials” (Berger, 2016). There is some concern that those who built these systems cannot be the ones to remake them, and that these processes cannot continue to ignore the voices of the “12 million people who annually pass through” the criminal justice system, as well as their loved ones and advocates. Perhaps these philanthropic funds would be better spent on “supporting universal health care, public housing, full employment and other provisions known to preserve genuine safety” (Berger, 2016).

Nonetheless, in the meantime, it would greatly help to reduce the number of people in prison by directing both public and private funds to support programs that reduce bail and pretrial detention, and reverse the criminalization of poverty, sex work, drug possession, and mental illness (Berger, 2016). Of course, this should be combined with redirecting public spending to provide treatment and support rather than punishment and incarceration.

There are a handful of reforms that can incentivize decarceration and begin to wind back the terrible toll that has been caused by decades of continually increasing mass incarceration and racial injustice. “At every stage, from policing and prosecution to conviction, sentencing, and reintegration, the criminal legal system treats Black people and other people of color far worse than their white counterparts … as long as the criminal system is viewed as the solution to our social ills, America is doomed to remain the world’s leader in incarceration and mired in our history of racism” (Southerland, 2020). Rather than funding the continued expansion and arming of the police at the state level, the federal government can supply funding to states which begin to “reduce the footprint of law enforcement, open avenues for police accountability, and regulation new criminal system technologies” (Southerland, 2020). Funds can also be directed to “reign in prosecution … support indigent defense … focus on decarceration, and end overly punitive practices” (Southerland, 2020).

A menu of reforms available to federal policymakers includes: eliminating mandatory minimum sentences; declaring an end to the “war on drugs”; ending the federal death penalty and excessive sentences, and funding the implementation of the First Step Act which has helped to reduce prison terms for many (Southerland, 2020). The federal government can also help remove barriers to reentry by expunging records of federal convictions, and confronting racial injustice at the systemic level in order to “advance racial justice in the criminal legal system … matched with significant investments in health, education, employment, and communities to eliminate the challenges that drive people into the criminal legal system in the first place” (Southerland, 2020).

Public Safety Cannot Be Ignored; Realistic Plans and Use of Evidence-Based Tools Are Needed To Ensure Success

Despite our desire to help all offenders who are able to successfully reintegrate into society, many stories appear in the news that are not just fearmongering to extend the reach of the carceral state, but actual concerns that must be attended to. While radical right decarceration naysayers may be demanding that we “lock them all up,” radical antiestablishment naysayers, from anarchists to libertarians, may argue that we should simply close Rikers Island and other prisons altogether and release all inmates willy-nilly, even those who have acted out violently against members of society. “Let’s be clear: In many instances, those charged with violent crimes have committed heinous acts and need to be incarcerated because they are a continued threat. But not all individuals charged with violence fit this description. The category of ‘violent crime’ is so broad that it includes charges such as ‘simple assault,’ which might not involve any physical harm to the victim” (Lippman, 2019).

Some claim that people act out violently because society somehow “did them wrong.” It certainly is true that due to a variety of problems within our society, some people have been mistreated; that’s a given, but it is not an excuse to behave violently against fellow citizens. Many people experience loss, abuse, and oppression without acting out in this way. Law enforcement’s primary mission is the protection of society. Part of this mission is to remove violent citizens from society while providing them with habilitation, rehabilitation, or whatever assistance they need to become functional and law-abiding members of society (and/or, as noted above, to punish those who have committed such acts). Those with severe mental illness, obviously, need particular help in order to not continue to be a danger to themselves or others. A smart decarceration program, of course, will employ evidence-based assessment tools to determine who can be safely released to community-based programs and successfully return to society.

It is obviously foolish to think you can simply release people with criminal history without providing needed services. There have been many examples of just how dangerous this can be. It is not simply the specter of a “Willie Horton” destroying presidential ambitions, by the early release of an inmate who later commits a serious offense. Coverage in the right-wing press is always more alarmist, designed to drive up public fear and utilizing exaggerated language and employing many racist “dog whistles” such as “woke bail reform,” referencing pop culture cases such as the Jessie Smollett matter with negative images of blacks, and claiming that “George Soros has funneled millions into [campaigns by] progressive district attorneys … pumping money into a far-left effort to overhaul the criminal justice system which critics say is creating a lawless America” (Smith, 2022).

However, even this extremist coverage addresses basic facts about problems that have arisen when individuals are released without sufficient or appropriate support, resulting in negative outcomes. Many stories have come out of Chicago recently, covering issues such as protests by families of crime victims against releasing defendants on bond if they are charged with serious crimes. This is often a difficult decision for judges, who “must balance the allegations against a person’s right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty” (Chappell, 2021). Notice the difference in tone between this even-handed news coverage, and the right-wing fear mongering that shares statistics such as “90 people accused of murder are free along with 40 people charged with attempted murder and 852 people charged with gun possession” (Smith, 2022) — these are people charged with a crime, not convicted of one, and putting them behind bars prior to a trial would be “clearly unconstitutional, given that everyone is entitled to an individualized hearing … [and] would result in the incarceration of an untold number of people who did nothing but get accused of a criminal offense” (Bauer, 2021).

Even progressive mayor Lori Lightfoot has said that there should be a moratorium on electronic monitoring for people charged with murder, attempted murder, aggravated gun possession, sex crimes, illegal gun possession, carjacking, kidnapping, or attempted kidnapping — due to individuals under electronic supervision being arrested for shooting or murder. News coverage notes that Major Lightfoot has also called for more federal agents to come to Chicago for gun investigations, and that there is “often no meaningful supervision” for people on electronic monitoring programs. (Bauer, 2021).

This more balanced reporting notes the problem, but provides the information that “Scholars, violence prevention activists and other experts have long said disinvestment, trauma, systemic racism and other factors fuel violence in the city, and communities and residents need mental health help, support systems, and investment to prevent more losses” (Bauer, 2021). It also reports on Lightfoot’s focus on reducing easy access to guns, seizing and investigating guns, utilizing traffic cameras to combat crime, and more innovative approaches. This kind of reporting doesn’t just focus on the hysterics of “letting dangerous (black) criminals run rampant in the street,” but examines the dangers of gun violence, and quotes the mayor as follows: “Many of the communities that are most plagued by violent crime also have high incidences of poverty, high unemployment, homelessness, drug addiction and other ills that tear away at the fabric of community…. Law enforcement is key, but it cannot be the only tool we use” (Bauer, 2021).

Despite Concerns, To Reduce Carceral Population, “Violent” Offenders Also Need Alternative Programs

Some are so worried about closing Rikers that they have come up with extensive plans to continue to utilize this degraded physical plant with pollution contamination, lack of flood safety, and difficult distance from the courthouses in each borough. They propose building a “campus-style” jail on the site, despite the danger to both inmates who come and go, as well as officers and staff who must work for years in these conditions. As justification, they state that decarceration programs simply cannot reduce the number of inmates enough to get rid of the housing provided on Rikers: “Unless crime falls significantly from today’s near-record low levels, the city will have a difficult time achieving its far more aggressive goal without endangering public safety.” (Gelinas, 2020).

At this point, the vast majority of those who are serving longer sentences behind bars are convicted of what are characterized as “violent” crimes. In order to achieve even modest decarceration goals, we must begin to move past the knee-jerk reaction that we cannot safely release “violent criminals” and begin to actually examine who is locked up with these judgments — and what purpose incarceration actually serves. If we are honest, there are three goals in holding someone in jail or prison: 1) incapacitation, or to remove them from society so they cannot commit more crimes, at least while they are being held; 2) deterrence, to deter others from committing similar offenses out of fear of suffering a similar fate; and the one we don’t really discuss: 3) retribution, to punish them for this crime, hopefully in relation to the severity of the harm done (O’Hear, 2020).

There are new assessment tools and formulas to determine exactly how these three purposes are accomplished. Many studies show, for instance, that most people “age out” of crime, so releasing older prisoners is not as dangerous as releasing younger ones. However, by the same token, young people who may only have committed one offense (especially if by accident or while incapacitated) may be less at risk — with appropriate treatment — to re-offend than older “career criminals” for whom recidivism is a way of life. All of these are moderated by the severity of the crime committed, and if the “debt to society” is indeed satisfied by the length of time behind bars.

Providing educational programs and opportunities for community service while still behind bars could give some offenders a route to clemency — either sentence reduction or pardon, related to “good time” in prison. It is important to give inmates an opportunity to improve themselves and give back to society, rather than just nurse their resentments against the system, anger about getting caught, and learning how to be a better criminal. While “the purpose of clemency is not to open the prison gates and let people out,” it would begin to “chip away at mass incarceration” (Mahdawi, 2018). Nonetheless, it is hard to fight against the “tough on crime” rhetoric, and political fears of a crime being committed by someone who is released under decarceration, clemency, or even after completing their sentence.

Many of those convicted of “violent” crimes are victims of violence themselves; when you listen to their stories, “the distinction between victim and offender almost falls apart … there are lifetimes of trauma that fill the prison system, and reform efforts have failed to confront issues of violence” (Western, 2018). While sentencing reform for those convicted of drug crimes passes more easily, it is challenging to convince elected officials to reduce sentences for violent offenses when the offenders are characterized as “thugs who are beyond redemption, people with no conscience. Using anger and fear to punish them with life sentences or death has become an intractable part of public policy” (Western, 2018). However, the violence arises from the conditions in which offenders find themselves: domestic abuse, childhood sexual trauma, assaults, and accidents. Many who have served their sentences and are able to move away from these neighborhoods find some peace in their lives after incarceration, so “if the chaotic circumstances of poverty can contribute to and perpetuate violence, then … relieving untreated addictions, fixing issues surrounding mental illness, and alleviating other social insecurities … of American poverty must be part of the … equation” (Western, 2018).

More Incarceration Does Not Make Us Safer

Research shows that incarceration has a diminishing impact on crime, and little to no effect on violent crime, with lower crime rates resulting from incarceration, only demonstrated in property crime. Worse still, rising incarceration rates can actually increase crime in areas with already high incarceration, because of the ancillary effects of incarcerating large portions of the population: these neighborhoods lose wage earners, role models, parents who would otherwise raise children, reduce future earnings and education potential, and “engender a deep resentment toward the legal system” (Stemen, 2017). Programs that have proven successful in crime reduction include community strategies such as problem-oriented policing, community corrections, and alternatives to incarceration programs that offer supportive services such as mental health, substance abuse, employment, housing, education, and access to public benefits (Stemen, 2017).

If we base policy on actual evidence-based studies, rather than hyped-up emotion, extensive research shows that “what deters crime is the certainty of punishment, not its severity … the actual data is unambiguous,” despite what law enforcement and other tough-on-crime groups may say (Pfaff, 2020). Equally, clemency does not hamper the goal of incapacitating criminals, since empirical research “consistently demonstrates that people both age into and out of violent behavior … [once we] delve into the morality of severely penalizing violence … [we discover that] our sense of what a crime ‘deserves’ is driven less by what that crime is than by who the perpetrator is. Race and poverty inevitably play huge roles” (Pfaff, 2020).

Harsh views of people accused or convicted of violent crimes have been thrown into stark relief by the recent covid-19 crisis, where close living situations behind bars could make almost any sentence a death sentence. Inmates (and officers, for that matter) cannot maintain social distance, and providing masks, sanitizer, and hand washing facilities is nearly impossible at the level needed to maintain safety — not to mention the fact that given the high level of mental illness among the inmate population, as noted above, it is very hard to enforce appropriate disease-prevention behavior even in better circumstances. Despite this, fearmongering encourages the public not to view these people as people, but as animals who must be caged up to maintain public safety. Many offenders who can be considered for release are elderly or have serious medical conditions, or may be locked up for old parole violations such as failing a urine test. “Data shows that most people age out of ‘violent crime’ and older people are least likely to re-offend, making draconian sentences unnecessary and counterproductive, even in non-pandemic times … the government [must] show with compelling evidence that someone is a credible threat of flight or violence, so much so that this threat outweighs the risk of severe illness or death that comes with continued incarceration” (Rodriguez, 2020).

No Matter What, Services Must Be Put In Place First

And all of this, of course, is moot until the social services are in place to provide the needed “appropriate treatment” and re-entry assistance. Because without that, and with a criminal conviction on their record, people released from jail, whether after completing their full sentence or through a decarceration program, will have a difficult time as returning citizens. With criminal justice system involvement in their background, finding a job, establishing healthy relationships, completing their education, and continuing any mental health or substance abuse services they may have been receiving (or would have received) behind bars, is hard. The re-entry support must be put in place first, or we are guaranteeing a “revolving door” to recidivism, since there are no viable alternatives for people with a criminal justice history (Hagerty, 2020).

Winning over naysayers on both the right and left will be difficult and arduous. Having the support of the naysayers is important, but the lack of their support should not stop the development and strategic promulgation of a smart decarceration initiative for nonviolent citizens. Both progressives and conservatives can acknowledge that as budgets for social services were cut — reducing education, job training, youth employment, recreation, mental and physical health care, and other programs — more problems arose in the community. Then the police, without appropriate training or funding, were suddenly expected to solve these problems, such as responding to people acting out due to bad drug experiences or other mental health problems (EDP or Emotionally Disturbed Persons calls). And as a hammer only knows how to hit a nail, the police only know how to deal with people “causing problems” by arresting them — leading to an increase in incarceration. To decarcerate successfully, in addition to reducing the number of people currently behind bars, we must also stem the incoming tide of those being locked up and direct them to social service programs or alternative courts (e.g., drug courts, mental health courts, etc.) rather than throwing them into the general population at Rikers or whatever facilities are constructed to replace it.

Conclusion

As already noted, the decarceration of non-violent inmates and the closure of Rikers Island is inevitable. As a society, we can no longer afford to lock up nonviolent people for extended periods of time. Economically it is not feasible, and the practice flies in the face of the social justice that we value as Americans. If a decarceration program is smart, strategic, well-informed, and well constructed, society will benefit from its implementation. While preserving social justice for those who come in contact with the law, we will also be protecting society by providing the needed services for those who have been decarcerated. This will result in preventing acts of violence by those who are suffering from mental illness, substance abuse, or just the sheer pain of hopelessness.

Failure to implement a smart, strategic, well-informed, and well-constructed decarceration policy will result in repeating all of the mistakes and the outcomes of the deinstitutionalization of mental health institutions. This of course would be a catastrophic tragedy in that it would exponentially increase the number of homeless, addicted, mentally ill, violent, and hopeless people on the streets of New York. This failure would result in real danger to citizens who have never come into contact with the criminal justice system, as well as a cataclysmic social injustice to those decarcerated returning citizens who are on the verge of re-entering and successfully contributing to society.

We have an historic opportunity to ensure that this emerging era of decarceration is successful in actually transforming the criminal justice system. Awareness of failed historical policies and practices can ensure that new programs will keep decarceration today from being a replay of the crises that followed deinstitutionalization. Lawmakers can employ innovative financial incentive measures from the top down to encourage decarceration rather than reward the continued growth of mass incarceration. Let’s learn from the past, make smart choices, and get it right this time.

Sources:

Akers, R. L. (2013). Chapter 2: Deterrence and Rational Choice Theories, in Criminological Theories: Introduction and Evaluation. New York: Routledge, 2013.

Bauer, K. (2021). Electronic monitoring for people charged with violent crimes should end immediately, Lightfoot says. Block Club Chicago, Dec. 20, 2021.

Berger, D. (2016). Getting the money out of prison reform. Prison Legal News, Jan. 1, 2016.

Bharara, P. (2015). Letter to U.S. Department of Justice re: Nunez v. City of New York, from the U.S. Preet Bharara, June 22, 2015.

Burke, R. H. (2014). Chapter 2: Deterrence and Rational Choice Theories. In An Introduction to Criminological Theory. Routledge: London & New York.

Chappell, M. (2021). Families of violent crime victims gather at criminal courthouse to protest release of defendants on bond. Chicago Sun-Times, July 31, 2021.

Cohen, C. I. & Thompson, K. S. (1992). Homeless Mentally Ill or Mentally Ill Homeless? Am J Psychiatry 149:6, 816–823.

Conklin, J. J. (2015). Homelessness and De-Institutionalization. The Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare, 12:1, Article 4, 41–61.

Cornish, D. & Clarke, R. V. (1986). The Reasoning Criminal: Rational Choice Perspectives on Offending. Hague: Springer Verlag.

Cusaac-Smith, T. (2022). NY is closing 6 prisons Thursday. What will it mean for local economies? Poughkeepsie Journal, March 9, 2022.

Dannewitz, L. (2013). Deinstitutionalization: How the state budget has overshadowed public policy in caring for Illinois’ mentally ill. Annals of Health Law, Vol. 22, Spring 2013, pp. 133- 144.

Dart, T. J. (2014). American Jails Have Become the New Mental Asylums — And You’re Paying the Bill: How to fund real treatment, instead of turning would-be patients into expensive inmates. The Guardian, May 28.

Doig, W. (2017). Why NIMBYs and Social Justice Advocates Worry about Closing Rikers Island. NextCity/Urbanist News, June 23, 2017.

Dorjsuren, B. (2020). Norway’s prison system benefits its economy. The Borgen Project, Nov. 6, 2020.

Drake, R. E. (1999). Homelessness and Mental Illness: A Story of Failure. Psychiatric Services, 50:5, 589.

Duwe, G. (2017). Rethinking Prison: A strategy for evidence based reform. American Enterprise Institute.

Eisen, L-B. & Stroud, H. (2022). Decarcerating America: How the federal government can incentivize states to reverse mass incarceration. National Urban League: State of Black America, 2022.

Eisenberg, A. K. (2016). Incarceration incentives in the decarceration era. Vanderbilt Law Review, Vol. 19:1, 71–139.

Encartele, Inc. (2018). Scandinavian Jails: Why is their recidivism rate so much better?

https://www.encartele.net/2018/04/what-can-us-correctional facilities-learn-from-scandinavian-jails/

Epperson, M. W. & Pettus-Davis, C. (2015). Smart Decarceration: Guiding Concepts for an Era of Criminal Justice Transformation. Center for Social Development, CSD Working Papers №15–53.

Fullard, D. A. (2016). City needs a real plan to close Rikers, lest one failure replace another. CityLimits, Jan. 13, 2016. (Based on personal article from 2015: “Closing Rikers is a great idea — but it needs functional alternatives in place first.”)

Fullard, D. A. (2016). Open Letter to the Mayor: NIMBY needn’t block plans to replace Rikers with jails that work. CityLimits, June 28, 2016.

Fullard, D. A. (2017). CityViews: The three questions NYC must answer if it is serious about closing Rikers. CityLimits, Nov. 16, 2017.

Fullard, D. A. (2020). Important Takeaways re: Decarceration. PowerPoint, collection of the author, Oct. 3, 2020.

Gelinas, N. (2020). Reimagining Rikers Island: A better alternative to NYC’s four-borough jail plan. Manhattan Institute, May, 2020.

Gentleman, A. (2012). Inside Halden, the most humane prison in the world. The Guardian, May 18, 2012.

Hackett, C. & Turk, B. (2016). Shifting carceral landscapes: decarceration and the reconfiguration of white supremacy. Abolition Journal. https://abolitionjournal.org/shifting-carceral landscapes/

Hagerty, B. B. (2020). Releasing people from prison is easier said than done. The Atlantic, July 8, 2020.

Hogg, R., & Brown, D. (1998). Rethinking Law and Order. Pluto Press: Sydney.

Hopkins Burke, R. D. (1998c). Begging, Vagrancy and Disorder, in Zero Tolerance Policing, R.D. Hopkins Burke (ed.). Leicester: Perpetuity Press.

Hopper, K. & Hamberg, J. (1986). The making of America’s homeless: from Skid Row to New Poor, 1945–1984. In Critical Perspectives on Housing, Bratt R. G., Hartman, C., & Meyerson, A. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, pp. 12–40.

Jacobs, J. B. (2007). Finding alternatives to the carceral state. Social Research, Summer 2007, Vol. 74, №2, Punishment: The US Record, pp. 695–699.

Jordan, B. (1996). A Theory of Social Exclusion and Poverty, Cambridge: Polity Press, and Van Den Haag, E. (1975). Punishing Criminals: Concerning a Very Old and Painful Question. New York: Basic Books.

Kershaw, A., Singleton, N., and Meltzer, H. (2000) Survey of the health and well-being of homeless people in Glasgow. London: ONS/HMSO.

Kinsey, R., Lea, J. & Young, J. (1986). Losing the Fight Against Crime. London: Blackwell.

Lamb, H. R. (1993). Lessons learned from deinstitutionalization in the US. The British Journal of Psychiatry, June 1993, pp. 587- 592.

Lerner, K. (2019). Ayanna Pressley unveils plan to incentivize reductions in prison population. Truthout/News: Prisons & Policing, Nov. 15, 2019.

Lippman, J. (2019). Give judges more leeway to use incarceration alternatives for violent criminals. USA Today, Jan. 24, 2019.

Mahdawi, A. (2018). The case for releasing violent offenders early. The Guardian, Aug. 21, 2018.

Marsland, D. (1988). Seeds of Bankruptcy: Sociolgical Bias against Business and Freedom, London: Claridge.

McLeod, A. M. (2012). Decarceration courts: possibilities and perils of a shifting criminal law. The Georgetown Law Journal, Vol. 100:1587–1674.

Messina, T. (2019). What the closing of Rikers means to the criminal justice movement. Abovethelaw.com, Oct. 21, 2019.

Murray, C. A. (1990). The Emerging British Underclass. Great Britain: IEA Health and Welfare Unit.

O’Hear, M. (2020). Early Release for Prisoners Convicted of Violent Crimes: Can Anyone Escape the Incapacitation-Retribution Catch-22?, 52 Connecticut Law Review, 653–717.

Olfson, M., Mechanic, D., Hansell, S7., Boyer, C. A., & Walkup, J. (1999). Prediction of Homelessness Within Three Months of Discharge Among Inpatients with Schizophrenia. Psychiatric Services, 50:5, 667–673.

Patterson, K. (2020). Pressley, Lee advance criminal justice reforms. Bay State Banner, Jan. 16, 2020.

Pfaff, J. (2020). The forever bars. The Washington Post, April 10, 2020.

Pogarsky, G., Roche, S. P., & Pickett, J. T. (2018). Offender decision-making in criminology: Contributions from behavioral economics. Annual Review of Criminology. 1:379–400.

Primeau, A., Bowers, T. G., Harrison, M. A., XuXu (2013). Deinstitutionaliztion of the mentally ill: Evidence for transinstitutionalization from psychiatric hospitals to penal institutions. Comprehensive Psychology, 2:2, 2165–2228. DOI 10.2466/16.02.13.CP.2.2

Regoli, N. (2019). 16 Pros and Cons of the Deinstitutionalization of Mental Health. Connectus, July, 24.

Rodriguez, A. (2020). We won’t address our mass incarceration crisis until we rethink our approach to “violent crime.” ACLU, Criminal Law Reform Project, June 15, 2020.

Schon, J. (2019). Why are California’s Prisons and Streets Filled with More Mentally Ill than its Hospitals? California’s Deinstitutionalization Movement. Santa Clara Law Review, 59:1, Article 8, 269–297.

Schuler, A. (2020). What we can learn from Scandinavian judicial systems. The Tempest, Nov. 18, 2020.

Smith, G. (2004). Rethinking Police Complaints. The British Journal of Criminology. 44:11, 15–33.

Smith, J. (2022). Nearly 100 people charged with murder are free to walk streets of Chicago thanks to woke bail reform: Judge REFUSES to jail suspects accused of violent crimes despite pleas from cops and the Mayor. Daily Mail, Jan. 11, 2022.

Southerland, V. M. (2020). Good governance paper no. 19: The criminal legal system — toward a paradigm shift. Just Security, Nov. 1, 2020.

Stemen, D. (2017). The Prison Paradox: More Incarceration Will Not make Us Safer. Vera Evidence Brief, July 2017. New York: Vera Institute of Justice.

Storey, J., Wright, E. (2020). Report of the Finance Division on the Fiscal 2021 Preliminary Plan and the Fiscal 2020 Preliminary Mayor’s Management Report for the Department of Correction. The Council of the City of New York, Finance Division Briefing Paper, Mar. 16, 2020.

Stringer, S. (2019). NYC Department of Correction Fys 2009–19 Operating Expenditures, Jail Population, Cost Per Incarcerated Person, Staffing Ratios, Performance Measure Outcomes, and Overtime. New York City Comptroller’s Office, Budget Bureau, Dec. 2019.

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). The Sequential Intercept Model (SIM). https://www.samhsa.gov/criminal-juvenile-justice/sim-overview

Sutherland, E. (2015). Shifting Burdens: The Failures of the Deinstitutionalization Movement from the 1940s to the 1960s in American Society. Constellations, 6(2), pp. 35–42.

Taylor, G. (1987). Bitter Freedom: Deinstitutionalization and the Homeless. Journal of Contemporary Health Law & Policy, 3:1, Article 17, 205–231

Torrey, E. F. (2010). Documenting the Failure of Deinstitutionalization. Psychiatry 73(2), Summer 2010, 122–124.

Torrey, E. F. & Zdandaowicz, M. T. (1999). Deinstitutionalization Hasn’t Worked. The Washington Post, July 9, 1999.

Trueman, C. N. (2015). Right Realism and Crime. The History Learning Site, May 25, 2015.

Vece, G. (2020). The Failed Mental Health System: How Did We Get Here? Deinstitutionalization’s good intentions, bad results — and many reasons for hope. Medpage Today, Feb. 10, 2020.

Wacquant, L. (2010). Class, race & hyperincarceration in revanchist America. Daedelus, Summer 2010, pp. 74–90.

Wacquant, L. (2002). From slavery to mass incarceration. New Left Review 13, Jan-Feb 2002.

Wagner, P. (2015). Using the federal budget to fuel decarceration. Prison Policy Initiative, Aug. 10, 20

Western, B. (2018). Violent offenders, often victims themselves, need more compassion and less punishment. USA Today, Aug. 9, 2018.

Wilson, J. Q. (1975). Thinking About Crime, New York: Basic Books.

Wilson, J. Q. & Herrnstein, R. J. (1985). Crime & Human Nature: The Definitive Study of the Causes of Crime. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Wilson, J. Q., & Kelling, G. L. (1982). Broken Windows: The police and neighbor-hood safety. The Atlantic (March 1982).

About the Author

David A. Fullard, Ph.D., LMHC, CRC, MAC is a Visiting Associate Professor and Program Coordinator for the Black Male Initiative at SUNY/Empire State College. Dr. Fullard is a member of the SUNY/Empire State College Foundation Board of Directors and a Senior Advisor at the Rockefeller Institute of Government/Center for Law & Policy Solutions. He is the CEO of Applied Forensic, Social and Behavioral Science Consultants, LLC. He is a former Captain of the New York City Department of Corrections.