Locals Divided Between Diversion and Border Security

A nonprofit consulting firm, Prosecutor Impact, advances the cause of reducing incarceration and related reforms by helping reform-minded elected district attorneys confront one of the greatest obstacles to change: their own staff's opposition. In Columbus, a two-week curriculum educated front-line prosecutors about local services that can serve as problem-solving alternatives to punishment. It also taught them about poverty's challenges and engaged them in dialogue with prisoners, to make them more open to alternative approaches, which a local defense lawyer says was successful.

In Philadelphia, people facing felony drug charges can opt for a yearlong program in a treatment court where their progress is monitored to ensure they avoid substance use, get treatment and stay in contact with their case managers. Judges presiding over the court work with those who miss those goals to help them reflect on how they can graduate, even if there are stumbles along the way. Those who successfully complete the program can work to get the felonies expunged from their records.

Philadelphia has one of the highest incarceration rates in the country, but with a $3.5 million McArthur Foundation grant the city has used several initiatives to change that. The efforts appear to be working, with the number of inmates falling by 12 percent over one year. Programs include getting addicts treatment instead of more jail time, working to release those who cannot afford bail ahead of a trial and making attorneys more available for those who want to seek early parole.

In a conservative upstate town in New York, an early advocate of what is now known as restorative justice pioneered the idea of finding alternatives to incarceration that address root causes of crimes and offer victims larger roles in the process. He did this by engaging different people across law enforcement, the community and social services. That built broad support, but the programs have struggled to maintain these innovations or make them permanent after the departure of the visionary founder.

For first-time youth criminal offenders, the traditional American jury falls short in encouraging behavioral change and may even set the juvenile on a course for repeated crimes. Washington, DC’s Youth Court is a jury that tries juveniles for minor non-violent offenses and offers peer pressure to prompt positive behavioral change. The DC Youth Court is one of many in the United States that reduces crime and future court costs.

Manhattan Mental Health Court was created in 2011 to divert felony criminal cases to treatment, and away from prison, for people in need of mental health treatment. But few people with serious mental illness ever benefit from it. Too few defense lawyers know to request the intervention or do it correctly. Prosecutors act as gatekeepers in deciding who gets the help, and many do not see its value. And, once cases are admitted to the court, they can sometimes take years to be resolved. Covid restrictions on the courts have only aggravated these problems.

Drug courts can help some people with serious drug problems who face serious criminal charges, if such court programs are run carefully, based on evidence-based approaches. But, too often, such courts – which push criminal defendants into treatment as an alternative to incarceration – can do more harm than good. The proof of drug courts' effectiveness is mixed, and fairly thin. Thousands of such courts exist, based on widespread political support for an approach seen as less punitive. But many critics say the courts' track record overall is weak and their approach can be just another form of punishment.

Veterans treatment courts were developed in 2008 as a way for veterans to receive mental health counseling and substance abuse treatment rather than face incarceration. Created to address the mental health concerns that can lead to drug abuse and other issues, the courts have not seen the successes that were originally anticipated. Due to little demand, inconvenient locations, and mixed results, experts are calling into question the existence of such specialized courts.

Due to the cost of building new prisons and the cost per inmate, Texas has implemented a new model that encourages judges to send parolees to treatment programs rather than back to prison when they misstep. Texas is sending fewer people to prison, recidivism rates are down and the state is saving money.

Mental health courts divert people with mental illness from prison into community-based programs with treatment, counseling, and court supervision. These programs graduate around 50% of participants, reduce recidivism, and have saved counties an estimated $485 million in avoided incarceration costs over 15 years.