Money Well
Spent:
How positive social investments
will reduce incarceration rates,
improve public safety, and promote
the well-being of communities.
A Justice Policy Institute Report
September 2010
By Sarah Lyons and Nastassia Walsh

Table of Contents
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 2
Welcome to the District .............................................................................................................................. 3
Although crime is down, arrests are up, particularly in low-income communities .......................................11
Crime is down in many communities ................................................................................................................ 11
Even when crime is falling, arrests continue to increase .................................................................................. 13
People continue to be incarcerated at high rates ............................................................................................. 16
People of color disproportionately bear the burden of poverty and incarceration ......................................... 17
The drug war increases incarceration and racial disparities in the justice system ........................................... 18
Youth of color are disproportionately impacted by the justice system ............................................................ 19
Recommendations ............................................................................................................................................ 21
Increasing investments in housing will reduce incarceration rates, improve public safety, and promote
community well-being ..............................................................................................................................22
Reducing homelessness can reduce incarceration rates .................................................................................. 26
Criminalizing homelessness reinforces poverty and homelessness ................................................................. 27
Recommendations ............................................................................................................................................ 28
Increasing investments in education will reduce incarceration rates, improve public safety, and promote
community well-being ..............................................................................................................................30
Quality education is necessary for improving the life outcomes of youth ....................................................... 32
Special education suffers when schools are not adequately funded ............................................................... 35
Investing in out-of-school activities can create positive opportunities for youth ............................................ 35
Recommendations ............................................................................................................................................ 39
Increasing access to mental health and substance abuse treatment will reduce incarceration rates, improve
public safety, and promote community well-being .....................................................................................41
Untreated mental illness can result in criminal justice involvement ................................................................ 44
Untreated substance abuse can lead to criminal justice involvement ............................................................. 47
Recommendations ............................................................................................................................................ 48
Increasing investments in job training and employment will reduce incarceration rates, improve public
safety, and promote community well-being ...............................................................................................50
Creating jobs can improve public safety and reduce incarceration.................................................................. 51
Recommendations ............................................................................................................................................ 53
Conclusion and Recommendations .............................................................................................................54
Appendix 1 ................................................................................................................................................59
Appendix 2: Metropolitan Police Arrests by Offense Type and Adult/Juvenile Status ...................................60
Appendix 3: Metropolitan Police Arrests by Ward, 2001 and 2009 ..............................................................61
About the Justice Policy Institute ...............................................................................................................62

1

Introduction
Poverty does not create crime, nor is limited wealth and income necessarily a predictor of involvement
in the justice system; however, people with the fewest financial resources are more likely to end up in
prison or jail. And the effects of an economic crisis like the one we are now experiencing are magnified
for people with less income and wealth.
For this reason, the Justice Policy Institute chose to explore the connection between poverty and
incarceration. Crime is down across the country, yet arrests and prison populations continue to increase,
and disproportionately impact low-income communities and communities of color. This report focuses
on the impact and overarching theme of poverty and its effects on a person’s life chances, as well as
specific factors such as housing, education, youth development, treatment, and employment. We
conclude that through focusing on the well-being of communities and individuals, we will have the
greatest impact on both public safety and poverty.
In order to illustrate the ways in which poverty, criminal justice involvement, and incarceration
intersect, JPI has chosen to feature the District of Columbia, our nation’s capital, as an example of a city
facing challenges related to poverty and the criminal justice system.
While most people know Washington for its political and historical significance, most do not know that it
has the highest incarceration rate of any state in the country. The District is home to diverse
communities that face significant challenges and opportunities, many of which are echoed in cities and
communities across the country. By shining a light on the complex social, economic, and political
interconnections in the District, this report provides information and recommendations gleaned from
D.C.’s experience to illuminate the constellated issues of poverty and the justice system that exist
everywhere.

NOTES BEFORE READING THE REPORT
D.C. and state data comparisons
It is difficult to compare various demographic and other factors from D.C. to states and other
jurisdictions since it effectively is a city, county and state combined and has a unique relationship with
the federal government. Throughout the report, we try to fairly compare D.C. data with either state
averages or other jurisdictions’ information. Many organizational and government reports compare data
in this way, and JPI tried to acknowledge any comparisons that may not be entirely “apples to apples.”
Black vs. African American
In this report, we use both the terms “Black” and “African American” whenever research or statistics
cited in the report use those terms. Acknowledging that the two terms are not necessarily
interchangeable, we also felt it important not to change the descriptors used by other data sources,
agencies, or organizations.

2

Welcome to the District
The District of Columbia is the ninth-largest metropolitan area in the United States, with about 600,000
residents. D.C. is broken up into four quadrants and eight wards.


Ward 1, just north of downtown D.C. is considered one of the most racially and ethnically
diverse neighborhoods in the District, and is also the smallest and most densely populated. 1
More than 40 percent of students from Ward 1 speak languages other than English as their
primary language, with the highest proportion of Spanish speaking residents in the city. Howard
University is also located in Ward 1.



Ward 2, in Northwest and Southwest D.C., has higher average income levels and lower
unemployment than the District as a whole, and one of the lowest percentages of people of
color. It is home to Georgetown and George Washington Universities.



Ward 3 in Northwest D.C. has the highest
median household income and lowest
percentage of people of color in the entire
District. American University and the
Howard University School of Law are
located in Ward 3.



Ward 4, between Northwest and
Northeast D.C., includes a portion of Rock
Creek Park. About 85 percent of the
people living in Ward 4 are people of color
and the unemployment rate is less than
the city’s average.



Ward 5 in Northeast D.C. is home to a high
percentage of people of color, one of the
highest unemployment rates in the city
and one of the highest crime rates in the
city. The same ward is home to Catholic
and Trinity Universities, as well as
Gallaudet University and The National
Arboretum.



Ben’s Chili Bowl, U Street, Washington, D.C.

Ward 6 is a diverse neighborhood that includes Capitol Hill, the Armory as well as the
Washington Nationals baseball stadium and Chinatown. More than two-thirds of Ward 6
residents are people of color and the employment rate is slightly less than the city’s average.
The Ward has a mix of high income earners and higher rates of poverty than other wards.

3



Ward 7 is in the Northeast and Southeast quadrant, is made up almost entirely by people of
color and has one of the highest unemployment rates of the city. It also has the largest number
of children living within its boundaries.2 Robert F. Kennedy Stadium, home of D.C.’s soccer team,
D.C. United, is located in Ward 7.



Ward 8 in the Southeast quadrant of D.C. is home to Bolling Airforce Base and is bordered by
the Anacostia River. Its residents are primarily people of color, particularly African Americans.
This area has the lowest median income of the city as well as the highest unemployment rate.

Nationals Park, Southeast Washington, D.C.
It is impossible to disentangle poverty from race and ethnicity: the marginalization of communities of
color is closely tied to income and wealth, which in turn contributes to the disproportionate impact of
the criminal justice system on these communities. The high cost of living makes Washington a
challenging place for many to live, particularly those earning in the bottom quadrant of income. D.C. has
a median income higher than the national average ($58,000 versus $52,175 per year, respectively), 3 but
inside its 68 square miles, some communities, mainly the wards home primarily to people of color, have
some of the highest poverty and unemployment rates in the country. The District has the greatest
income inequality of any major city in the country, with the average income of the top fifth of the
District’s households 31 times higher than the average income of the bottom fifth of households.4 While
some D.C. neighborhoods face a variety of socio-economic challenges, billions of dollars are spent and
earned in this city by the national government, lobbying sector, universities and commuters from
neighboring Maryland and Virginia.

4

Per capita income is highest in Northwest D.C.

4

3
1

5

2
6
7

o

0—$19,999
0 .999
$20,000 - 39,999

8

$40.000- 59,999
- S'9,m
$40,000

,000- 99,999
.999
$60,000
,100.00().l.
$100,000+

Note: Ward numbers and boundaries superimposed on map.
Source: D.C. Office of the Deputy Mayor of Planning and Economic Development

The recent recession and subsequent loss of over 7 million jobs nationally has been tremendously
difficult for communities across the country. Low-income communities and communities of color have
been hit particularly hard. As of March 2010, the unemployment rate in D.C. was 11.6 percent,
compared to the national average of 9.7 percent; 5 stark differences exist in unemployment among the
eight wards. The highest rates of unemployment are in communities of color: over 28 percent in Ward 8,
20 percent in Ward 7, and 15 percent in Ward 5. In contrast, Wards 2 and 3, which are majority white,
have unemployment rates of about 6 and 3 percent, respectively.6

5

Wards 5, 7, and 8 have the highest levels of unemployment in D.C.
28.3%

Unemployment Rate (2009)

30%
25%
19.5%

20%
15.5%
15%
10%

9.3%

10.1%

9.6%

11.5%

5.8%
5%

3.2%

0%
U.S.

Ward 1 Ward 2 Ward 3 Ward 4 Ward 5 Ward 6 Ward 7 Ward 8

Source: District of Columbia Department of Employment Services, “Ward Unemployment Rates,” Accessed May 2010.

In 2008, 13.2 percent of U.S. residents were living below the federal poverty line, the highest rate since
2000.7 In D.C. the poverty rate has risen by 19 percent since 2007; currently about one in five D.C.
residents are at or below the poverty line.8 This is slightly higher than the poverty rate of 17.7 percent
nationally for principal cities. 9 One in 10 D.C. residents lives at 50 percent of the poverty level,
categorized as “extreme poverty.”10 While caseloads for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
(TANF) have increased, less than half of those living in poverty in D.C. are receiving TANF benefits; this
may be due to ineligibility (i.e. childlessness or lack of citizenship), pride, or difficulty in accessing
services. 11 Drastic variances by race and ethnicity persist in this country: about 25 percent of African
Americans and 23 percent of Latinos live below the poverty line, compared to about 9 percent of nonHispanic whites.12 Black residents of D.C. are three times more likely than white residents to be living
under the poverty line. 13

6

The income disparity between white households and households
of color is much greater in D.C. than in the general U.S. population.
$120,000

U.S.

Household income (2008)

$100,000

$107,600

D.C.

$80,000
$60,000
$40,000

$57,900

$55,530

$50,303
$34,218

$39,200

$37,913

$43,500

$20,000
$0
Median Household Black non-Hispanic White non-Hispanic
Income-All

Hispanic

Source: Katie Kerstetter and others, New Census Data Reveal Growing Income Gaps in the District (Washington, D.C.: D.C.
Fiscal Policy Institute, September 2009). http://dcfpi.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/9-22-09ACSIncome.pdf; U.S.
Census Bureau, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2008 (Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Census Bureau, September 2009).www.census.gov/prod/2009pubs/p60-236.pdf

Living in poverty in D.C. is especially challenging because of the city’s high cost of living; the Economic
Policy Institute reports that D.C. has the second highest cost of living in the nation, after Boston.14 A
“basic family budget” for a family of three in D.C. is about $61,000 per year; a low-wage single earner
family making $10.80 per hour would earn $22,000 a year, only 37 percent of the basic family budget.
In 2009 almost 30 percent of children in D.C. lived in poverty, significantly higher than the national rate
of 18 percent; 15 it has a similar percentage (51 percent) of children living in low income families as other
urban areas in the country.16 Just less than 41 percent of African American children in D.C. live in
poverty, compared with just over 6 percent of white children. 17 These numbers are not particularly
dissimilar from national child poverty statistics broken down by ethnicity: in 2008, 35 percent of African
American children in the U.S. lived in poverty, as compared to 11 percent of white children.18

7

Black and Hispanic children in the U.S. are
disproportionately poor.
Child poverty rate, 2008

40%

35%

35%

31%

31%

30%
25%
20%
15%

17%

15%

11%

10%
5%
0%
White

Black

Asian

American
Indian

Other

Hispanic

Source: Vanessa R. Wight and others, Who Are America’s Poor Children? The Official Story (New
York: National Center for Children in Poverty, 2010). www.nccp.org/publications/pub_912.html

People who work with at-risk youth in D.C. note that characteristics of areas that these youth come from
include poverty, reliance on TANF and public or assisted housing, single parent households, multiple
families in one home, young mothers, high truancy and drop-out rates, and low levels of education.
Most families work in low wage, blue-collar jobs and make less than $30,000 per year. 19 Even access to
enough healthy food is a reported problem.20 Some youth workers report that some youth become
involved in illegal activities as a direct result of poverty, because his or her family cannot afford to
provide the basic necessities like food, clothing, or shelter. 21

8

Spending reflects prioritization of law enforcement and incarceration over
providing vital public programs and support.

Percent change in expenditure (FY05-09)

Research shows that investing in services and programs that keep people out of the justice system is
more effective at improving public safety and promoting community well-being than investing in law
enforcement.22 Yet, across the country, state spending indicates that public officials are investing in
locking people up rather than providing needed social services. From FY2005 to FY2009, state spending
on corrections increased 25 percent nationally, more than any other expenditure. During these tough
fiscal times, many states are starting to look toward alternatives to incarceration for improving public
safety and reducing prison populations, but states still spend more than $53 billion per year on
corrections. 23

From 2005 to 2009 state spending on corrections grew faster than any
other expenditure.
30%
25%

25.3%

24.1%
18.5%

18.2%

20%
15%

7.6%

10%
5%
0%
Elementary &
Secondary
Education

Higher Education Public Assistance
(TANF, etc.)

Medicaid

Corrections

Source: National Association of State Budget Officers, State Expenditure Reports 2005-2009 (Washington, D.C.: NASBO).

Similar priorities are visible in D.C. spending choices. Despite the effectiveness of front-end and
preventative services in improving public safety and keeping people from becoming involved in the
justice system, changes to D.C.’s budget from 2008 to 2010 reveal a powerful statement by city officials
about their priorities. The recession began in 2008 and, during budget strained times, city officials made
the choice to cut funding for programs and services such as affordable housing, parks, and mental health
care and to increase spending on the policing and court processing of its residents. Spending on the
Metropolitan Police Department and the Office of Attorney General increased more than 2 percent and
11 percent respectively from 2008 to 2010;24 other agencies saw their budgets drop.
Part of the reason for decreasing spending on D.C. Public Schools is the Mayoral takeover of the school
system in 2007, which resulted in transfer of functions to the Office of the State Superintendent of
Education (OSSE) and the Office of Public Education Facilities Modernization (OPEFM) starting in 2009,
including special education transportation and non-public tuition. 25 These two functions are now
expensed under other budget chapters, making it look like there was a larger decrease in funding than is
9

accurately the case. Still, from FY2009 to FY2010, after these changes took effect, the DCPS revised
budget included a 13 percent decrease.26

Percent change in budget (2008-2010)

15%

Funding for policing D.C. residents increased while funding for positive
social programs and services decreased in the last two years.
11.67%

10%
2.56%

5%
0%
-5%
-10%
-15%
-20%
-25%

Office of the
Attorney
General

Metropolitan Department of Department of Department of
Police
Parks and
Mental Health Housing and
Department
Recreation
Community
Development
-19.48%

-17.02%

D.C. Public
Schools

-17.86%

-30%
-30.42%

-35%

Source: Track D.C., http://track.dc.gov/Agency/, Accessed September 9, 2010

The FY2011 budget includes an 11 percent increase in education spending (with enrollment expected to
increase slightly) and a 1 percent decrease in public safety spending, but other agencies aimed at
improving communities are still being cut; according to the D.C. Fiscal Policy Institute, support for D.C.’s
affordable housing programs in the proposed FY2011 budget would be one-third lower than in FY2008,
and funding for D.C. childcare programs are nearly one-fifth lower. 27 Although investing in education
and social services is more effective than law enforcement at improving public safety, reducing
incarceration and saving money in the long run,28 the D.C. city government continues to make budgetary
decisions to reduce resources for communities that are most in need of services and support.
While it is difficult to compare D.C.’s spending on law enforcement to other jurisdictions – since it
effectively is a city, county and state combined and has a unique relationship with the federal
government – we do know that with the help of the 2009 Federal American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act’s stimulus funding, many jurisdictions were able to maintain or in some cases expand their policing
while other services suffered. With the Federal government providing $3 billion in law enforcement
funding through Byrne Justice Assistance Grants, localities were able to “backfill” their police budgets.
Meanwhile, at the state level, in FY2010 states cut K-12 education budgets by $5.46 billion; higher
education by $2.39 billion; and Medicaid by $1.55 billion; in contrast, correctional budget cuts combined
were only $1.12 billion. 29

10

Although crime is down, arrests are up, particularly in low-income
communities.

Crime is down in many communities.
While the violent crime rate in the District of
Columbia has historically been, and continues
to be, higher than the national average (at
around 1,500 offenses per 100,000 people
versus 454 per 100,000 in the U.S.),34 this rate
has been dropping in recent years. In 2009,
D.C. had one of the lowest homicide rates in
the city’s history. 35

Crime is down in the District, but arrests
continue to increase.

Percent change (2001-2009)

15%

9.4%

10%
5%
0%
-5%

Index Crime

Arrests

-10%
-15%
-20%
-25%

-22.0%

Violent crime is down in the U.S., but
arrests continue to increase.
Percent change (1999-2008)

Crime has been falling across the country
since the mid-1990s, but many communities
continue to face public safety challenges, and
the drop in crime has not seen a
corresponding drop in arrests. From 1999 to
2008, the number of violent crimes reported
to law enforcement in the U.S. fell 3.1
percent, but the total number of arrests
increased 0.1 percent.30 More stark is the
difference between D.C. crime and arrest
trends: despite a 22 percent decrease in
crime in D.C. from 2001 to 2009, 31 arrests
increased 9.4 percent during this time, mostly
due to arrests for drug and nonviolent
offenses; 81 percent of arrests in 2008 were
for nonviolent offenses, including 4,229
arrests for release violations such as missed
appointments and failing drug tests.32 Arrests
for misdemeanor offenses increased 83
percent during this time. 33

1.00%

0.10%

0.00%
-1.00%

Violent Crime

Arrests

-2.00%
-3.00%
-4.00%

-3.10%

Sources: D.C.: Metropolitan Police Department, Annual Index
Crime Totals 2001-2009; Metropolitan Police Department,
Office of Research & Analytical Services July 2010; U.S.: FBI
Uniform Crime Report, Crime in the United States, 2008
(Washington, D.C.: FBI, 2009) Table 1A and 32.

The D.C. Metropolitan Police Department is divided into seven police districts, which are broken further
into 47 police service areas (PSAs) as seen in the map below.36 The number of homicides fell across
almost all police districts in D.C. from 2001 to 2009 (the 4th District—in the Northeast quadrant—had
three more homicides in 2009 than 2001).37 And the number of index (more serious) crimes38 reported
to police fell 22 percent across the city, with only the 2nd District in the Northwest quadrant experiencing
an increase (13 percent during this time).

11

WASHlNGTOO, DC
r.lETROPOUTAH PaJCE DEPARTMENT
CRIIolE 0ENSlTY & HOMICIlE LOCATIONS DURING JLlX 21110

legend

+

o

Homidde Locations
MPD PSA Boundaries
DC Major Roads

_

-w+':
o

o
I

2
I

4 Miles

I

DC Water Bodies

Low Density

N

0

Medium Density

S

_

High Density

Source: Metropolitan Police Department, Crime Density Map,
http://mpdc.dc.gov/mpdc/lib/mpdc/about/units/rrd/density/july_dc_crime_density_map.pdf

12

Crime reported to D.C. Metropolitan Police Department
%Change
2001
2009
(2001-2009)
Homicide
Index
Homicide Index Homicide Index
Crime
Crime
Crime
1st District
2nd District
3rd District
4th District
5th District
6th District
7th District
D.C. Total

17
0
36
14
54
50
61
232

7,996
5,096
8,900
6,460
6,387
5,413
4,236
44,488

9
0
17
17
25
33
42
143

6,342
5,776
6,342
3,689
3,867
4,372
4,205
34,684

-47%
0%
-53%
21%
-54%
-34%
-31%
-38%

-21%
13%
-29%
-43%
-39%
-19%
-1%
-22%

Source: Metropolitan Police Department, Annual Index Crime Totals 2001-2009,
http://mpdc.dc.gov/mpdc/cwp/view,a,1239,q,543315.asp

Even when crime is falling, arrests continue to increase.
One of the primary sources of increasing arrests is drug offenses; the number of arrests for drug abuse
violations in the U.S. increased 11.9 percent from 1999 to 2008. 39 Research shows that law enforcement
has a great deal of discretion when it comes to policing and recording drug offenses, and charging
people with these offenses.40 Rates of arrests for offenses such as drug law violations tend to have
strong correlations with the number of personnel assigned to police those specific behaviors 41 and the
amount of money spent on law enforcement.42 The number of sworn police officers in D.C. increased 6.6
percent from 2004 to 2008 and the District now has over 4,000 police officers in its department. 43
During this time, index crime dropped 11 percent,44 while the number of arrests for drug offenses
increased 11 percent; when drug arrests are taken out, all other arrests fell 3.2 percent. 45

Percent change (2004-2008)

15%

Less crime + more police = more drug arrests in D.C.
11.0%

10%

6.6%

5%
0%
-5%

-3.2%

-10%
-15%

-11%
Index Crime

Sworn Police
Officers

Total Arrests (less
drug arrests)

Drug Arrests

Source: D.C. Metropolitan Police Department, Citywide Crime Statistics Annual Totals, 1993-2009;
Julia E. Brault, Female Arrest Trends in Washington, D.C.: 2001-2008 (Washington, D.C.: Metropolitan
Police Department, 2008); Metropolitan Police Department, Annual Report 2008

13

Philip Fornaci, D.C. Prisoners’ Project46
Philip Fornaci is the Director of the D.C. Prisoners’ Project of the Washington Lawyers’ Committee for
Civil Rights & Urban Affairs, which advocates for the humane treatment and dignity of all persons
convicted or charged with a criminal offense housed in prisons, jails or community corrections
programs, assists family members with prison-related issues, and promotes progressive criminal justice
reform. Through his work in D.C., Mr. Fornaci has noticed a growing trend in the over-policing of
communities of color, especially of youth of color. In an interview with this report’s author, Mr. Fornaci
shared these thoughts:
Discretion in policing has much to do with who is arrested: the younger and darker you are, the more
likely you are to be arrested. Students of color are targeted for expulsion from schools and inclusion in
prisons; and once they are in the system, it is very hard to get out. In 1997, 50 percent of black men in
D.C. ages of 18 to 35 were under criminal justice supervision of some kind. 47 One reason that this rate is
so high is that many D.C. prisoners are held too long and are often sent back to prison for technical
parole violations;48 D.C. sends more people to prison on technical violations of parole conditions than
they do for new crimes. The most common violations tend to be for possessing marijuana or not
appearing for an appointment with a parole officer, sometimes as a result of a mental illness. Often a
person will go to jail three to four times for technical violations. These practices primarily affect lowincome people and people of color, the very people whose communities are targeted by police and
prosecutors. The cycle of arrest, prison, parole, violation, and prison has come to be termed by the D.C.
Prisoner’s Project as living “Life on an Installment Plan.”
Changes need to be made to probation and parole laws that allow people to fully exit the correctional
population and move forward in a positive way. Instead of focusing on technical violations, resources
should be going toward support services and programs to help people returning from prison make
positive choices and re-integrate into the community. In addition to these changes, more equitable
policing in communities would help reduce the disproportionate number of people of color involved in
the criminal justice system.
For more information on the D.C. Prisoner’s Project, please visit
http://www.washlaw.org/projects/dcprisoners_rights/default.htm
When serious crime is down, law enforcement can proactively target its resources on drug offenses and
other low-level offenses. Frequently, this results in targeting of specific neighborhoods as well,
especially communities of color. This situation is not unique to the District: one study of New York City
found that police would return to the same neighborhoods, often neighborhoods where residents are
primarily people of color, to make marijuana arrests. 49
In the first six months of 2010, D.C. police made 700 more arrests than the same time last year, an
increase of 2.8 percent. The biggest increases in arrests were in Police Districts 3 and 4, at 18.1 percent
and 28.3 percent respectively. 50 Policing efforts in the District targeting low-income communities and
communities of color are not uncommon. “Summer crime emergencies” produce extreme,
14

neighborhood-wide responses that are frequently the result of a highly-publicized incident of violence. 51
In D.C., over half of all arrests occur in police districts 1, 3, and 6, which roughly coincide with Wards 1, 6
and 7, and are areas that are primarily made up of communities of color. 52 Nearly half of arrests for drug
offenses occur in wards 7 and 8, 53 where most residents are black and have the lowest median incomes
in the city. 54 Selective enforcement in certain neighborhoods can lead to more criminal justice
involvement for residents of those areas, resulting in higher incarceration rates and negative impacts on
communities.
About 93 percent of arrests in D.C. are of adults and 7 percent are youth under age 18. Youth arrests
increased 42 percent from 2001 to 2009, while overall arrests increased only 9 percent. 55 This trend may
be largely due to an increase in arrests for misdemeanors, which were up 183 percent from 2001 to
2009 and made up about 25 percent of youth arrests in 2009. While increasing arrests for
misdemeanors are occurring all over the city, the greatest increases have been in wards 7 and 8 (up 249
percent and 228 percent, respectively). Nationally, youth arrests dropped 15.7 percent from 1999 –
2008. In 2008, 14.5 percent of all arrests in the U.S. were of youth under 18. 56 To compare D.C. to
another large Eastern city, in Philadelphia 12 percent of arrests are youth, down from 13.9 percent in
2008. 57
In the first six months of 2010, D.C. youth arrests for misdemeanors increased 46 percent compared to
the same time the previous year while overall youth arrests fell 1.8 percent. 58 Property 59 and drug
offense arrests for youth were down 30 and 23 percent, respectively, but arrest for violent offenses 60
were up 14 percent, primarily due to an increase in arrests for robberies and carjackings. Even with the
increase in youth arrests for select offenses, youth continue to make up a small portion of people
arrested in D.C. and reliance on punitive policies aimed at youth, such as curfews and school
suspensions, is an inappropriate and ineffective strategy for improving public safety in the District.
Where are people arrested in D.C.?
January 1 thru June 26, 2010
Adult (18+)
Juvenile (<18 years)
st

1 District
2nd District
3rd District
4th District
5th District
6th District
7th District
Unknown
D.C. Total

4,582
1,309
3,875
2,560
3,355
3,826
3,408
893
23,808

281
77
216
200
282
404
356
46
1,862

Total
4,863
1,386
4,091
2,760
3,637
4,230
3,764
939
25,670

*Note: excludes homicide arrests; For a list of all arrests by Public Safety Area (PSA) in the first 6
months of 2010, please see Appendix 3.
Source: Metropolitan Police Department, Number of Adult and Juvenile Arrests (1/1-6/26/10)
(Washington, D.C.: MPD, 2010)

15

People continue to be incarcerated at high rates.
As a result of policing practices and sentencing changes, the United States is locking up more of its
residents than ever before and holding them for longer periods of time. As of 2009, more than 2.3
million people were incarcerated in the United States; more than 1.6 million people were in prison, 61
and about 767,000 people were held in local jails. 62 Including people on parole or probation, the United
States’ total correctional population was more than 7.3 million people by the end of 2008. 63 In 2006, the
most recent year national data is available, about half of all people in prison were there for nonviolent
offenses. 64
A recent Pew Center on the States report that examined state correctional populations, including
probation, parole, prison and jail populations, found that in 2007 D.C. had the highest adult
incarceration rate in the country of any state (1 out of every 50 adults in D.C. were in prison or jail). 65 In
addition, D.C. had the third highest rate of correctional control in the country, behind Georgia and
Idaho. By Pew’s estimates, nearly 23,000 people—almost 5 percent of the D.C. population—were under
correctional control (in prison or jail or on probation or parole), a rate of one in 21 compared to the
national average of one in 31.
In mid-fiscal year 2010, there were more than 3,100 people in the D.C. Department of Corrections jail
facilities, including 2,050 people in the Central Detention Facility and 965 in the Correctional Treatment
Facility. 66 As many as 10,000 people are on parole and supervised release in the District by the Court
Services and Offender Supervision Agency (CSOSA), 67 at a rate of one in 35 adults. 68 About 338 women
and 35 youth under the age of 18 who are being tried as adults are in custody; those in custody who are
not held at the Central Detention Facility (CDF) are held in contract halfway houses and the Correctional
Treatment Facility. 69
With the passage of the 1997 Revitalization Act and
closure of D.C.’s Lorton prison - which was located
about 30 miles south of the city in Virginia - in 2001,
people sentenced to prison now serve their time
Female
11%
further outside of the city in federal Bureau of Prisons
custody, many in private, for-profit facilities like
Juvenile
1%
Rivers Correctional Institution in North Carolina. As of
March 2010, more than 6,000 people from D.C.
Male
88%
resided in prisons across the country. 70 People from
D.C. are supposed to be housed in prisons within 500
Source: DC Department of Corrections, Facts and
miles of the District, but this is not always the case;
Figures (Washington, D.C.: District of Columbia
hundreds are housed outside this range in states like
Department of Corrections, 2010).
California and Arizona, including many youth being
71
tried as adults who are housed in North Dakota. This distance makes it extremely difficult to maintain
family and community ties, which are protective factors shown to reduce recidivism. 72 D.C. is just one of
many jurisdictions that incarcerates people far from their communities; Hawaii, for instance, sends
about 50 percent of the people sentenced to prison to a private facility in Arizona.
88 percent of people in D.C.
Department of Corrections custody
are men

16

People of color disproportionately bear the burden of poverty and incarceration.
As mentioned previously in this report, people of color disproportionately live in poverty with 25
percent of African Americans and 23 percent of Latinos living below the poverty line, compared to 9
percent of non-Hispanic whites. In D.C., the disparity is more pronounced; 73 24 percent of Black
residents live in poverty in D.C., compared to 8 percent of non-Hispanic white residents. 74
At the same time, people of color are also disproportionately involved in the criminal justice system.
People of color make up the majority of people in prison and those involved in the justice system. In
2008, 38 percent of all people in U.S. prisons were black, 20 were Hispanic, and 34 percent were
white. 75 D.C. has a significant problem with the overrepresentation of people of color in the juvenile and
criminal justice system as well; more than 89 percent of the people in D.C. Department of Corrections
custody are African American, though African Americans make up only 54 percent of D.C.’s total
population.76 Hispanics make up 6 percent of the people in custody and whites, who make up 40.6
percent of D.C. residents, are only 2.2 percent of people in custody. For those sentenced to the custody
of the Bureau of Prisons from D.C., nine out of 10 are black, 2 percent are Hispanic and 3 percent are
white. 77

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

%

D.C. and the U.S. disproportionately incarcerate blacks.
89

79.6

% of total population
54
38

% of corrections pop.

40.6

34

12.9

8.8

2.2
D.C.

U.S.
Black

D.C.

U.S.
White

6

15.8

D.C.

20

U.S.
Hispanic

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, Quickfacts data, www.census.gov; Heather C. Westand and William J. Sabol, Prison
Inmates at Midyear 2008-Statistical Tables (Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2008).

The data is not available to definitively say that communities of color who are also low-income bear the
disproportionate burden of incarceration in the United States. However, given what we know about the
disproportionate impact of the criminal justice system and poverty on communities of color, it is
possible to consider that policies that disproportionately impact communities of color are also
disproportionately impacting low-income communities. The following section of this report will consider
the policies that have contributed to the disproportionate impact of the criminal justice system on
communities of color, not necessarily as a proxy for understanding the impact on low-income
communities, but as a way of better understanding how policies that can end poverty might also
eliminate racial disparities.
17

9 out of 10 people in D.C. Department
of Corrections Custody are black.

The drug war increases incarceration and racial
disparities in the justice system.

President Reagan’s “War on Drugs” gained
momentum in the 1980s, resulting in a dramatic
Hispanic,
increase in the prison population; it created the
6%
Asian,
0.2%
Black,
greatest negative impact on low-income
Undeclared,
89.3%
communities and communities of color.
1.2%
Mandatory sentences that take away discretion
Other, 1.1%
from judges, and drug-free zones that target
specific areas with specialized enforcement and
sentencing enhancements, are still sending
Source: D.C. Department of Corrections, Facts and Figures
thousands of people to prison every year for
(Washington, D.C.: District of Columbia Dept. of Corrections, 2010).
increasingly longer sentences, despite evidence
of the ineffectiveness as a public safety strategy and racial bias of these policies.
White, 2.2%

The number of people incarcerated in state prisons for drug offenses increased 1,299 percent from 1980
to 2006, with the biggest increases occurring in the 1980s. 78 More than half (52 percent) of all people
incarcerated in federal prisons in 2008 were convicted on drug charges. 79 And while use of illicit drugs is
comparable among African Americans and whites, 80 African Americans, who comprise 12.2 percent of
the general population, 81 made up 35 percent of those arrested for drug offenses in 2008 82 and 44
percent of people in state prisons for drug offenses in 2006. 83 The disproportionate enforcement of drug
laws in communities of color leads to more people of color in the criminal justice system and in prison,
and has a devastating impact on families and communities, whose loved ones are removed from their
homes, leaving other family members to care for children and each other, while also trying to maintain
ties to the incarcerated person. 84
Fair Sentencing Act of 2010: Reducing, but not eliminating, the disparity
The inconsistency in sentencing between crack and powder cocaine is illustrative of the racial disparities in
drug enforcement, and is mainly a result of inaccurate perceptions of its different effects on behavior, and
the reality that cocaine, being more expensive, enjoyed greater popularity with the affluent and powerful.
Previously, a five-gram possession of crack cocaine received a five-year federal mandatory minimum
sentence. 85 In contrast, a person would have had to sell 500 grams of powder cocaine to get the same
sentence. In August 2010, the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 was signed into law, reducing the federal
sentencing disparity between federal crack and powder cocaine offenses. Instead of the 100:1 ratio, the rule
adopts an 18:1 ratio amount of powder cocaine versus crack cocaine triggering the same sentence. The rule
also eliminates the mandatory minimum sentence for simple possession of crack; 86 it is the first time in 40
years that a mandatory minimum has been repealed. While this law will provide greater fairness to the
thousands of people affected each year, save taxpayer money, and reduce racial disparities in the criminal
justice system, it still prioritizes law enforcement on low-level drug offenses, which has a disproportionate
impact on low-income people of color, instead of focusing on more effective public safety strategies such as
increased access to drug treatment.
18

Youth of color are disproportionately impacted by the justice system.
The racial and ethnic disparities are even more apparent when looking at youth and the D.C. justice
system. Over half (55 percent) of the youth in DYRS custody 87 were from Wards 7 and 8, 88 which have
the lowest median incomes, lowest levels of high school graduation, and highest unemployment in the
District. 89 Only two youth resided in Ward 3, which has the highest median income, highest levels of
high school graduation, and lowest levels of unemployment. In 2009, the majority (about 96 percent) of
the 358 youth committed to D.C.’s Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services (DYRS) is African
American; about 4 percent were Latino and there was only one white youth. 90 About 90 percent were
young men; 85 percent were under age 18,
Over half of youth committed to DYRS
including 14 children age 13 and younger.
These youth are not necessarily incarcerated
for the most serious offenses. About 29
percent of youth in DYRS custody were
committed for violent felonies and another
17 percent for violent misdemeanors. Stolen
vehicles (17 percent), property offenses (13
percent), and drug offenses made up most
of the remainder. About 39 percent of youth
in DYRS custody were committed on
probation revocations, including violations
for missing appointments or disobeying
other rules like curfew, indicating a possible
need for more effective probation policies,
including revocation alternatives that send
fewer youth to DYRS custody.

come from Wards 7 and 8.
Ward Ward 2,
1, 7%
2%

Ward
3, 1%
Ward 4,
9%

Ward 8,
32%
Ward 5,
15%
Ward 7,
23%

Ward 6,
11%

Source: DYRS Research & Quality Assurance Division, October 1,
2009.

Across the country, racial disparities in youth involvement in the justice system persist. Forty percent of
youth in juvenile justice facilities in the U.S. are youth of color, 91 despite being only 16 percent of youth
under age 18. And 64 percent of youth in juvenile justice custody in the U.S. are committed for
nonviolent offenses. 92
Women are increasingly affected by the criminal justice system.
Poverty rates are highest for households headed by single women; 28.7 percent of households headed
by single women were living in poverty, particularly if the households are led by women of color. 93 At
the same time, women and girls in the criminal justice system are often overlooked and under-studied
because they represent a relatively small percentage of the incarcerated population. In all 50 states,
however, women are the fastest-growing demographic of the prison population; between 1990 and
2008, the rate of women sentenced to state or federal prison more than doubled, from 31 to 68 per
100,000. 94 The number of women under jurisdiction of state and federal prisons increased 25 percent
from 2000 to 2009.95 In D.C., the number of women arrested in 2008 increased by 19 percent since
19

2001, while arrests of men fell by 2 percent. 96 As of March 2010, 319 women from the District were
incarcerated in federal prisons across the country, some as far away as Texas or Florida. 97
Across the country, African American women are more than three times as likely as white women and
more than twice as likely as Hispanic women to be incarcerated. 98 Drug law enforcement is primarily
responsible for the increasing number of women, particularly women of color, in prison across the U.S.
Drug offenses now account for about 28 percent of women in state prisons (up from one in 10 in
1979 99), compared with just 19 percent of men. 100 In federal prisons, where about half of the population
is incarcerated for drug offenses, the number of women incarcerated increased 42 percent from 2000 to
2009. 101 Women in prison face unique challenges; many incarcerated women are mothers and when
they are separated from their families, their absence is a significant hardship for their children and loved
ones.

African American women are more than three times as
likely as white women to be incarcerated.
333

Incarceration rate (per 100,000)

350
300
250
200
150

142

131
91

100
50
0
Total

White

African American

Hispanic

Source: William J. Sabol and others, Prisoners in 2008 (Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2009)

Mental illness, substance abuse and traumatic experiences – including child abuse and neglect, partner
abuse, and sexual violence – are all risk factors that increase a woman’s chances of going to prison. A
study by the Rebecca Project of girls in the juvenile justice system found that 92 percent of the
incarcerated girls interviewed had experienced some form of abuse, and more than half of the girls
reported experiencing sexual violence.102 Girls and women with histories of childhood abuse or neglect
were 70 percent more likely than those without abuse histories to be arrested for property, alcohol,
drug, and misdemeanor offenses. In addition, girls hurt by sexual violence are three times more likely to
develop mental illnesses or abuse drugs or alcohol as an adult, making them more likely to be involved
in the criminal justice system later in life. Because of the close relationships between untreated trauma,
substance use and justice involvement, one could say that the “war on drugs” has become a “war on
women,” with girls, women and families as the casualties.

20

Incarceration of women has significant impacts on communities, families, and children. In 2007, there
were more than 65,000 mothers in prison; 103 almost 65 percent of mothers reported living with their
children prior to incarceration and nearly 42 percent reported being the head of a single-parent
household.104 Children whose mothers are incarcerated are more likely to live with a grandparent or go
into foster care than a child whose father is incarcerated.105 D.C’s Adoption and Safe Families Act
authorizes the termination of parental custody after a child has been living in foster care for 15 of the
last 22 months. 106 Because the average prison sentence is 22 months, many parents, particularly
mothers, risk losing parental custody of their child. According to advocates, this law contributes to the
destruction of families, particularly families of color. 107
Recommendations:
Improvements in public safety provide unique opportunities for states and localities to examine justice
practices that result in higher incarceration rates and disproportionately impact people with lower
income and communities of color. Examining these practices and re-focusing public safety efforts could
reduce incarceration rates, improve public safety, save money, and promote community well-being.
1. Focus law enforcement efforts on the most serious offenses rather than quality of life
offenses. Reducing the number of arrests and subsequent detentions of people for low-level
and quality of life offenses like trespassing or loitering will not only free resources for policing of
more serious or violent offenses, but it will reduce the number of people impacted by the justice
system for low-level offenses.
2. Consider policies that allow police to provide citations for marijuana possession rather than
arrests. A number of states across the country have decriminalized marijuana possession by
changing them from arrestable offenses to infractions. This practice frees up law enforcement
and court resources and reduces the number of otherwise law-abiding residents in the justice
system.
3. Address racial and income disparities in arrest and incarceration practices. Across the country,
people of color and those of lower-income are more likely to be arrested and incarcerated than
other racial and ethnic groups or people with higher income, despite similar offense-rates.
States and localities should evaluate arrest policies that target these groups and bring more
people into the justice system.

21

Increasing investments in housing will reduce incarceration rates, improve
public safety, and promote community well-being.
Across the country, the housing crisis has taken its toll on families and communities, leaving many
without access to quality, affordable housing. In D.C., the housing challenge is particularly salient due to
the city’s high cost of living. Stable housing is one of the most significant factors affecting the risk of
involvement in the criminal justice system; having a home is the foundation for leading a productive,
positive life. Lack of quality, affordable housing has been linked with poor life outcomes, including
decreased educational performance, exacerbation of health problems, and increased justice
involvement. 108 Yet city and state investments in housing are decreasing, having an adverse effect on
families and public safety.
The changes in D.C.’s budget from 2008 to 2010 reveal a powerful statement by city officials about their
true priorities. The recession began in 2008 and during budget strained times, city officials made a
choice to cut funding for affordable housing (as well as for schools, parks and recreation, and mental
health care) and instead increase spending on the policing and court processing of its residents. D.C.’s
Department of Housing budget has been cut more than 30 percent over the last two years. And core
housing programs are suffering the most: the Housing Production Trust Fund budget was slashed from
$42 million in 2008 to $18 million in 2010, a cut of more than 50 percent. 109

Percent change in budget (FY2008-10)

The budget for D.C. Department of Housing fell by more than 30
percent in the past 2 years while the budgets for the Attorney General
and the Police Department increased.
20%
10%

Office of the
Attorney General

11.67%
2.56%

0%

Metropolitan
Police Department

-10%
-20%
-30%

-30.42%

-40%

Department of
Housing and
Community
Development

Source: Track D.C., “Office of the Attorney General,” http://track.dc.gov/Agency/CB0; Track D.C., “Metropolitan
Police Department,” http://track.dc.gov/Agency/FA0; Track D.C., “Department of Housing and Community
Development,” http://track.dc.gov/Agency/DB0

While housing assistance is available in the District, funding to help families is dwindling and, like
families around the country, D.C. families continue to struggle to keep roofs over their heads;
foreclosures in the District rose 267 percent from 366 in the first quarter of 2005, to 1,344 in the first
quarter of 2009. 110 In 2008, more than 25,000 families were on a wait list for D.C. Housing Authority’s
Housing Choice vouchers. Housing Choice vouchers are federally funded vouchers distributed by local
22

public housing authorities that help people with very low-income, elderly people, and disabled people
afford safe, stable, and quality housing. 111 The need for housing and vouchers is concentrated in certain
areas of the city; one-third of Housing Choice Voucher holders in D.C, and a fourth of those on the
waiting list, live in Ward 8. 112
Housing costs in the District have increased significantly since 2000, 113 with fewer low-cost rental and
home ownership options available. According to the 2007 American Housing Survey (AHS), D.C.
households earning $15,000 to $20,000 per year spend 63 percent of their income on monthly housing
costs. The U.S. Census estimates that more than 22,800 households in the District fall into this income
bracket.114 By comparison, households with incomes of over $120,000 only spend 16 percent of their
income on housing. 115 The D.C. Fiscal Policy Institute reports that nearly all low-income District
households have unaffordable housing costs: 116 about 40 percent of D.C. residents spend more than 30
percent of their annual income on housing, exceeding federal standards for affordable housing, 117 and
nearly 20 percent of District residents spend more than half of their income on housing.
Across the city, affordable housing shrank by more than one-third from 2000 to 2007, 118 and the
number of homes costing less than $250,000 fell by 75 percent. This decrease in affordable home
ownership is visible in areas like Ward 8, which has the highest proportion of people of color and the
lowest rate of home ownership in the city; only 23 percent of people own their home in Ward 8,
compared to 40 percent in the rest of the District. 119
One reason for the lack of affordable housing in the District is the ongoing gentrification of the city.
Gentrification refers to the social and cultural changes that occur when an area is repopulated, generally
when people with more income move to an area previously inhabited by people with lower income,
creating a shift in the culture and economy of the neighborhood or community. Gentrification is a
double-edged sword: On one hand, it can bring needed services and business to underserved
neighborhoods such as grocery stores, banks, and other businesses, and often it has been shown to
create jobs and improve safety in that community. On the other hand, it can cause rent and property
value to rise dramatically so that low-income residents cannot afford to live in their own neighborhood
anymore; 120 residents may be forced to move out to areas far from their jobs and social networks.
Gentrification can also cause landlords to remove their housing stock from the “Section 8” public
subsidized housing pool, so the units can be sold as condominiums, reducing the availability of
affordable housing units for low-income people. According to the D.C. Housing Monitor, the availability
of “Section 8” housing units in the District fell 15 percent from 2000 to 2007, resulting in fewer
affordable housing options for struggling families and individuals. 121

23

Active & Lost Assisted Units (Quarterly)

Units

14,000
12,000

ACI;ve & losl Auisled Unils (Quanerly)

Fewer Section 8 housing units are available in D.C. now than in 2007.

1::======================

10,000

',~
',~
,~

,~

Source: NeighborhoodInfoDC, Loss of Active Section 8 Multi-Family Housing in D.C: Preservation Summary, Winter 2008
(Washington, D.C.: District of Columbia Housing Monitor, 2008)

A decrease in publicly subsidized housing – at a time of increased demand – is being felt in other
communities around the country as well. In August 2010, a suburb of Atlanta passed out 13,000
applications for only 655 available spaces (200 for public housing units, the rest for vouchers for Section
8 housing). Experts credited the economic crisis and Atlanta’s gentrification with creating a crowd of
approximately 30,000 people attempting to get on the waiting list for housing. 122 The Low Income
Housing Coalition of Alabama has said that the state has an estimated shortage of 44,000 affordable and
available housing units. 123 And according to Linda Couch, senior vice president for policy at the National
Low Income Housing Coalition, “It is common in large cities and in medium-sized cities for the waiting
list [for subsidized housing] to be six to 10 years long.” 124
Another consequence of gentrification and people being priced out of their neighborhoods is access to
transportation, which people rely on for jobs, school and services. Access to public transportation is
crucial for residents, their families, and their communities
to be successful and healthy. The neighborhoods that
“It is common in large cities and in
have public transit are more desirable locations and are
medium-sized cities for the waiting
targets for urban development projects; they are
list [for subsidized housing] to be six
therefore becoming more expensive and sometimes out
to 10 years long.”—National Low
of reach for people with less income, who stand to
Income Housing Coalition1
benefit most by the availability of public transit. 125
For many families, household budgets are stretched incredibly thin, as funds for expenses like food,
health care, and transportation become increasingly limited. Unaffordable housing has a devastating
impact on youth as families struggle to provide basic necessities; a recent report found that children
living in unaffordable housing are more likely to not have access to enough healthy food and be
seriously underweight than children living in subsidized housing. 126

24

Housing Heroes: Forward-thinking housing organizations
Some cities have organizations working on finding ways to reduce homelessness in their communities
and increase access to affordable housing while revitalizing communities.
Since 1973, Jubilee Housing, a faith-based, privately funded non-profit organization, has provided
housing and supportive services to disadvantaged community members in D.C. Currently, the
organization serves 700 people among seven different properties in the Adams Morgan neighborhood
of Ward 1. Their comprehensive supportive services include positive youth development, health
education, community building, economic empowerment, and leadership training. For more
information, please visit www.jubileehousing.org.
The Women’s Housing and Economic Development Corporation in the Bronx, New York City builds
quality, affordable, energy-saving housing for low-income women and families. Their innovative and
holistic service model won the 2000 Opportunity and Empowerment Award by the American Planning
Association and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. For more information, please
visit www.whedco.org.
The Corporation for Supportive Housing (CSH) in New York strives to end homelessness by creating
permanent housing with supportive services. CSH provides development expertise, makes loans and
grants to supportive housing sponsors, and works to reform public policy affecting housing. Since 1991,
CHS has helped about 28,900 formerly homeless adults and children move into supportive housing and
assisted in the development of about 41,600 new units of supportive housing. In 2002, CSH set a goal to
work in partnership with other housing organizations to help communities provide 150,000 units of
housing by 2012. As of 2009, CSH had achieved about 70 percent of their goal. CSH’s work has twice
been recognized through the prestigious Innovations in American Government Award from the Ash
Institute for Democratic Governance and Innovation at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of
Government. For more information, please visit www.csh.org.
The Housing Consortium of the East Bay (HCEB) in Oakland, California provides affordable housing for
people with developmental disabilities. HCEB works in three ways to provide housing: first, HCEB works
with non-profit housing developers to build affordable housing for people with developmental
disabilities; secondly, HCEB works with local housing developers and public agencies to set aside units
for people with developmental disabilities, which allows them to live affordably while being integrated
into the community; and finally, HCEB helps local housing authorities in obtaining Section 8 Housing
Choice Vouchers for people with developmental disabilities. These vouchers allow people to choose
their housing and live affordably and independently. For more information, please visit www.hceb.org.

25

Reducing homelessness can reduce incarceration.
In January 2009 there were 643,067 people in the U.S. counted as homeless on a single night; 62.7
percent were in shelters, while the rest were unsheltered — sleeping on the streets, in their cars, in
abandoned buildings, or in other places not meant for human habitation.127 Because of undercounting,
experts estimate the actual number of people experiencing homelessness is higher — closer to
672,000.128 Over two-thirds of homeless people are in cities. 129
Though unemployment has increased and more families struggle financially in recent years, fewer
resources are available to help people find quality, affordable housing. This contributes to a rise in
poverty and homelessness, as individuals and families are forced out of their homes and into shelters or
onto the streets. Across the country, homelessness is a growing problem; nineteen of 25 major cities
reported an average increase of 12 percent in homelessness in 2008. 130 And people of color are most
likely to be homeless; about 59 percent of the sheltered homeless population and 55 percent of the
poverty population are people of color, compared with only 31 percent of the total U.S. population.
African Americans constitute 12 percent of the total U.S. population but 45 percent of people who are
homeless. 131

“Homelessness and poverty is an issue for youth in D.C. Youth are vulnerable to
homelessness or running away if their parents are not able to pay rent for any
number of reasons. The young person may feel that by leaving home, he will be
less of a burden to his struggling family or the youth gets a (false) sense of
security and support from their peers. Some youth have parents who are abusing
drugs and sell the families’ food stamps to support their habit. The youth may
then hustle for food, eat only at school, or eat at other people’s house.” —Cecilia
Thomas, Roving Leaders Program for Teens, Washington, D.C.
D.C. has one of the highest rates of homelessness in the country: estimates of the homeless population
range from 12,000 to 17,800 over the course of a year. 132 A report by the National Alliance to End
Homelessness and the Homelessness Research Institute reported that in 2007 D.C. had a homelessness
rate of about 96 per 10,000 people, or about one in every 100 people. 133 Forty-seven percent of
homeless people in D.C. are “chronically homeless,” meaning they lived either in shelters or on the
streets for more than a year. Families represent over 30 percent of D.C.’s homeless population; more
than 2,000 homeless families seek shelter in D.C. over the course of a year and D.C. has more than 2,000
homeless children and youth. 134 The number of homeless people in D.C. has risen by almost 7 percent
since 2005, but the city is nowhere near able to provide even temporary assistance to people in need of
shelter. 135 In 2004, there were only 8,875 publicly and privately funded beds in DC, leaving half of the
people without homes also without emergency assistance. 136 Nationally, there are reported to be
424,042 beds available for people who are currently homeless, about a third fewer than are needed. 137
Particularly concerning is the rise in homelessness among children and youth across the country. More
than 780,000 U.S. students were homeless during the 2007-2008 school year, representing a 15 percent
increase from the previous year. 138 Youth who are homeless face extreme challenges finding food and a
26

safe place to sleep. They are vulnerable to violence and exploitation and face academic challenges or
may drop out. Not only does homelessness contribute to underachievement in schools and
malnourishment, but these factors can increase a youth’s chances of involvement in the juvenile justice
system. Frequently, youth who were homeless prior to their incarceration will return to the streets once
released, where survival often means participation in the city’s informal and often illicit economy. And
housing discrimination against people with previous criminal justice involvement leaves many people
without access to quality housing and can increase a person’s likelihood of returning to the criminal
justice system.

Criminalizing homelessness reinforces poverty and homelessness.
Enforcement of certain public ordinance laws like those against loitering and panhandling that
disproportionately impact people who are homeless have led to the “criminalization of homelessness.”
People who are homeless are perhaps the most likely to bear the burden of “zero tolerance” in cities.
Most states have implemented laws specifically directed toward the punishment of people who are
homeless, as they seek to “push out” this population to another jurisdiction, and this can result in more
people being admitted to jails. The National Coalition for the Homeless and the National Law Center on
Homelessness & Poverty issued a report in 2006 that surveyed 224 cities around the country on their
laws involving the criminalization of homelessness. 139 This report found that city ordinances frequently
serve as a prominent tool to criminalize homelessness through “quality of life” crimes and that these
laws are increasing.



28 percent of cities surveyed prohibit “camping” in particular public places in the city and 16
percent have citywide prohibitions on “camping”



27 percent prohibit sitting/lying in certain public places



39 percent prohibit loitering in particular public areas and 16 percent prohibit loitering citywide



43 percent prohibit begging in particular public places; 45 percent prohibit “aggressive
panhandling” and 21 percent have citywide prohibition on begging.

Punishment for violating these laws can result in steep fines or incarceration: about half of people who
have experienced homelessness have also spent five or more days in a city or county jail. 140 About 16
percent of incarcerated people had experienced homelessness prior to arrest, 141 and most of these
people are significantly more likely to have both a mental illness and a substance addiction, which
frequently go untreated in the community. 142
Imprisoning people for being homeless or living in poverty is a failed policy on a number of levels.
Perhaps most fundamentally, the practice serves to reinforce poverty and homelessness. Imprisoning a
person cuts that person off from employment opportunities, community treatment options, family,
community, and other support systems. Employers are less likely to hire someone who has been
convicted of a crime, 143 thus, imprisoning an individual for not conforming to society’s expectations
concerning employment and material success virtually guarantees a return to poverty and a life on the
27

street. And forcing people without homes to hide far from the eyes of police can be a risk to their own
safety.
Finding housing is particularly difficult for people returning from jail or prison. Federal laws require local
housing agencies to permanently bar individuals convicted of certain sex offenses and
methamphetamine production on public housing premises. The federal laws also give local public
housing agencies discretion to deny eligibility to virtually anyone with a prior arrest or conviction on
their record, 144 and prohibit them from participating in federally assisted housing programs like Housing
Choice Vouchers. 145 Private landlords are permitted to discriminate against someone with a prior arrest
or conviction, and people frequently have to rely on the limited options of staying with friends or family
or finding a shelter.
The D.C. Housing Authority’s (DCHA) regulations indicate tenants may be screened by “reviewing police
reports and/or criminal background checks of each member of the applicant family, including juveniles,”
and may consider in the application process the “conviction of any applicant family member for a crime
involving physical violence against persons or property or other criminal convictions that may adversely
affect the health, safety, or welfare of other DCHA residents, staff, or other members of the
community.” It goes on to state that:
DCHA may deny admission to public or assisted housing to any applicant: (1) If any adult
member of the applicant’s family (or any non-adult member who has been convicted of a crime
as an adult offender) has been convicted of a felony, or a misdemeanor involving destruction of
property or acts of violence against another person; or (2) If the applicant or a member of the
applicant’s family has participated in documented violent criminal behavior for which he or she
has not been convicted.146
In this way, entire families can be denied housing or made homeless based on arrests that were not
prosecuted or allegations against a family member that were unable to stand up in a court of law.
Recommendations:
Increased access and funding for affordable and supportive housing would not only result in less costs
incurred by jail stays, but would also greatly increase the quality of life of many people struggling with
homelessness, including children and youth, who are particularly affected by lack of housing. Not only
would increased housing options for low-income people increase public safety, it would provide
individuals and families with the foundation needed to be able to flourish as students, parents,
employees, and community members.
Providing supportive or affordable housing can be cost-effective as well. The National Alliance to End
Homelessness estimates that each homeless person costs about $14,480, mainly due to the cost of
overnight jail time. 147 A 2004 comparative study of nine different cities found that jail costs were two to
three times higher than permanent supportive housing or shelter costs.148 The study compared the cost
of one overnight stay for one person in permanent supportive housing, jail, prison, a shelter, a mental
hospital, and a general hospital. In Boston, for example, the cost of housing one person for one night in
28

permanent supportive housing was about $33, compared to jail or prison costs at about $92 and $117
per night, respectively. 149 A study in Portland, Maine found that when people lived in permanent
supportive housing, there was an associated 62 percent decrease in jail nights, representing a reduction
in costs of $38,261.150
1) Increase availability of housing vouchers. Housing vouchers help people with less income find
adequate housing and helps to reduce homelessness. Increasing the number of housing
vouchers available to people of lower-income would improve access to housing and reduce the
likelihood of homelessness.
2) Increase incentives for property owners to participate in Section 8 housing programs. With the
gentrification occurring in many cities across the country, people of lower-income and those
who rely on Section 8 housing are being pushed out of certain neighborhoods due to the lack of
available units that fall into this category. Creating incentives for providing these units will give
people more options for where to live.
3) Provide supportive housing for people transitioning out of prison or jail. People leaving
incarceration face a number of challenges, one of which is finding housing. As a result, many
people are forced into homelessness. Assisting people in finding affordable or transitional
housing options once they are released will help them get back on their feet and reduce
incidence of re-incarceration.
4) Change policies that discriminate against people with prior arrests or convictions. People with
prior arrests or convictions face significant discrimination in housing, both by law and by
individual property owners. Reducing these barriers to housing would help people to succeed in
their community, reduce their risk of re-arrest or re-incarceration, and improve public safety for
the whole community.
5) Change policing practices that arrest people for quality of life offenses that may be related to
homelessness. Many jails and prisons across the country are de facto homes for people who are
homeless. The criminalization of homelessness has led to high re-arrest rates of people who
commit quality of life offenses like loitering and sleeping on park benches. Instead of arresting
people for these offenses, we should focus resources on helping people to find housing to
reduce homelessness.

29

Increasing investments in education will reduce incarceration rates, improve
public safety, and promote community well-being.
Education can play a critical role in determining life outcomes. Research shows that education has the
potential to augment access to employment and desired job markets, and increase monetary return to
the individual and the community, ostensibly creating a context where public safety is better realized. 151
And likelihood of criminal justice involvement decreases as education attainment increases. 152 A study
by the Economic Policy Institute of early childhood development programs found that as adults, children
who received a high-quality kindergarten experienced higher employment rates and earnings, lower
rates of drug use, fewer interactions with the criminal justice system, and lower incarceration rates. 153
States with higher high school graduation rates and college enrollment have lower crime rates than
states with lower educational attainment levels. 154 An Alliance for Excellence in Education report found
that a 5 percent increase in male graduation rates could yield over $7 billion in benefits to the U.S.
annually in terms of reduced crime and increased earnings; 155 in D.C., this would amount to $69 million.
Despite evidence of its benefits, nationally spending on education by states has not grown at the same
rate as corrections spending and many young people are not receiving adequate education to be
competitive in the job market. In Florida, for example, the Legislature cut the state education budget by
$332 million in 2008, while increasing the corrections budget by $308 million; this is despite the fact that
Florida ranks last among states on per-capita-spending on K-12 education. Florida now also spends more
tax dollars on corrections than it does on the state university system – $2.4 billion for prisons in the
current fiscal year vs. $2.2 billion for universities (excluding student tuition). 156
The District of Columbia is among the states with the highest percentages of high-poverty elementary
schools in 2007–08, with 37 percent of its schools where 76 – 100 percent of students were eligible for
free lunch; the other states were Mississippi (53 percent), Louisiana (52 percent), and New Mexico (46
percent). In total, D.C. has the highest percentage of students eligible for free or reduced price lunch—
68.9 percent—of any state in the country, 157 indicating a high number of low-income students, as well as
the likelihood that a significant number of affluent parents have left the public school system. On
average, students from high-poverty schools did not perform as well on National Assessment of
Educational Progress (NAEP) reading, mathematics, music, and art assessments as students from lowpoverty schools. 158
In D.C., Wards 1, 7, and 8 have with the lowest graduation rates as well as the highest crimes rates and
lowest unemployment rates in the city. 159 Investing in education to improve graduation rates can be an
effective strategy for improving public safety and life outcomes for youth, especially youth who come
from lower-income communities.

30

% graduated High
School
% graduated College
Violent Crime (per
1000 pop.)-2007
Unemployment-2009

Ward
1

Ward
2

Ward
3

Ward
4

Ward
5

Ward
6

Ward
7

Ward
8

All
D.C.

68%

87%

96%

78%

72%

79%

71%

66%

78%

39%

64%

79%

33%

21%

44%

13%

8%

39%

17

13

1.7

12

17

16

16

22

14

10.1%

5.8%

3.2%

9.6%

15.5%

11.5%

19.5%

28.3%

14.4%

Source: Neighborhood Info D.C., “Neighborhood Profiles: Council Wards”; Department of Employment Services, “Ward
Unemployment Rates,” Accessed May 2010.

In 2006, the U.S. spent approximately $214 billion policing, processing, and imprisoning its people. 160 In
the past 20 years, spending on corrections has grown at a faster rate than every other state budget
category except Medicaid.161 From 1988 to 2008, state spending on corrections increased 333 percent,
up to $52 billion, 162 and overall corrections spending went up 239 percent from 1988 to 2006, to $69
billion (the most recent year available). 163 While education and libraries went down as a percentage of
state and local budgets, corrections’ share of these budgets more than doubled; funding for corrections
has increased almost three times as fast as education in the last 30 years. 164
Trends toward increasing spending on corrections illustrate a national prioritization of policing and
incarceration over providing quality public education for all children. The focus on incarceration as the
solution to public safety challenges is short sighted; a dedication to providing quality education for
children would provide not only significant public safety benefits, but would also provide a betterprepared population that could more significantly contribute to the growth of the economy.

Percent change in spending
(1970-2006)

Corrections spending increased three times
faster than education spending in the last 30
years.
3500%
3225%
3000%
2500%
2000%
1500%

1127%

1000%
500%
0%
Education & Libraries

Corrections

Source: National Center for Education Statistics, “Digest of Education
Statistics, Table 28,” July 8, 2008.

31

With the emphasis on law
enforcement over education, it is no
surprise that according to the 2003
National Assessment of Adult
Literacy Prison Survey, 37 percent of
people in U.S. prisons had not
finished high school. Only 4 out of 10
(41 percent) had a high school
education or GED equivalent; 74
percent had parents who had a high
school education or less; and 26
percent had parents who did not
finish high school. 165 In D.C., the
levels of education among people
incarcerated are comparable to
national levels: about 50 percent of
men in Department of Corrections

custody have completed high school or obtained a GED and close to 37 percent self-report having no
education. 166 The correlation between low levels of education and incarceration suggests that having an
education is an important factor affecting the ability to be successful in life.
While quality education is an oft-discussed goal, too many children are being hurt by failing education
systems. And it is often children from low-income communities and communities of color who are
harmed the most. Without the quality education they deserve, these children may be less likely to fulfill
their academic potential and more likely to fall through the cracks into the justice system. In addition,
the increasing presence of police officers (“school resource officers”) in schools and referrals to the
courts by schools results in more youth, especially youth who are poor, or those with learning
disabilities, and youth of color, involved in the justice system. Ensuring adequate resources to promote
education and using effective strategies for managing challenges like truancy without the use of the
justice system will result in healthier, more successful youth.
Quality education is necessary for improving the life outcomes of youth.
Despite being one of the wealthiest countries in the world, U.S. students lag in math and science test
scores compared to students in other industrialized countries. 167 In 2006, the average science score of
U.S. students was below those in 16 of 30 of the world's richest countries, and U.S. students were
further behind in math, trailing peers in 23 countries. 168 The poor state of education in the U.S. is
particularly evident in D.C.; within the same 68.3 square miles, D.C. is the home of the most powerful
political offices in the country as well as one of the worst public school systems. The D.C. Public School
system (DCPS) consists of 129 schools and is responsible for the education of about 46,000 students,
about 93 percent of whom are students of color and 19 percent are in need of special education. 169
While D.C. Public Schools (DCPS) has seen improvements in test scores over the last few years, 170 D.C.
students’ scores are still 20 points lower than the national average, 171 and the graduation rate for DCPS
students was 61.1 percent compared to 69.4 percent nationally. 172 DCPS has the fourth highest dropout
rate in the country. 173
Certainly, test scores are not the only marker of the quality of a child’s education. That being said,
however, DCPS ranked last in the 2005 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) proficiency,
with only 9.8 percent of 4th and 8th graders scoring proficiently or above in math and reading; the
national average was about 31 percent. 174 Even on the test called the Trial Urban District Assessment, a
NAEP given to a sample of students in urban districts, which is considered a fairer snapshot of urban
districts’ academic achievement, D.C. schools did not fare well; compared to other large, urban school
districts, DCPS was still 7 points below the average. 175

32

Percent Scoring at Proficiently or Above

40%

D.C. Public School's NAEP test scores ranked far below other
public schools in 2005.
35%

35%

30%

30%

29%

29%

25%
20%
15%
10%

10%

12%

11%
7%

D.C.
U.S.

5%
0%
Grade 4

Grade 4

Grade 8

Grade 8

Math

Reading

Math

Reading

Source: Editorial Projects in Education Research Center, Quality Counts at 10: A Decade of Standards-Based
Education (Bethesda, MD: Editorial Projects in Education Research Center, 2006).

The gap between the academic achievement of D.C. students and students in the rest of the country is
more apparent in certain wards in the District, especially when comparing the racial and income makeup of the neighborhoods. For example, the District of Columbia Comprehensive Assessment System (DC
CAS) assesses students on reading and math in grades 3-8 and 10. Data from DC CAS shows that:


69 percent of youth in the District were below 50 percent reading proficiency in 2009, but 91
percent of youth in wards 7 and 8 were below 50 percent;



65 percent of youth in the District were below 50 percent math proficiency in 2009, but 93
percent of youth in wards 7 and 8 were below 50 percent. 176

These numbers indicate a discrepancy between educational achievement in certain areas of the city
coinciding with income disparities; Wards 7 and 8 have the lowest median income and also the highest
number of people of color. The two wards also have the lowest high school and college graduation rates
in the city. These trends are not unique to D.C., but are symptomatic of most high-poverty urban
schools, which are generally in communities that are largely made up of people of color.

33

Ward
1

Ward
2

Ward
3

Ward
4

Ward
5

Ward
6

Ward
7

Ward
8

All
D.C.

Percent of schools with
over half of students
testing below proficient
in math

60%

50%

0%

40%

71%

63%

91%

96%

65%

Percent of schools with
over half of students
testing below proficient
in reading

70%

50%

0%

53%

77%

69%

91%

91%

69%

% People of Color-2000

75%

39%

20%

85%

92.6%

70%

98.8%

94.9%

72%

$59,14
0

$130,891

$187,709

$81,500

$54,479

$67,454

$45,039

$35,228

$78,192

Median Household
Income-1999

Source: HellaBelHadj Amor, Ph.D. (Resident Research Fellow, District of Columbia Public Schools, Office of Data and
Accountability), email message to author, July 14, 2010.

Recent research by the Southern Education Foundation found a strong correlation between children
living in extreme poverty and lower scores on state standardized tests. 177 And in a special report on
schools and poverty, the National Center on Education Statistics found that children of color are far
more likely to attend “high-poverty public schools” than white children, as indicated by the percentage
of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunches. 178

Children of color are much more likely to go to "high-poverty public schools"
than white children.
American
Indian/Alaska Native

4

Asian/Pacific
Islander

3

Hispanic

2

12

32

39
12

Black

6

White

7
0%

24

24

17
8

15
42

29

40

35

32
40%

Missing

19

28

17

20%

28

20

60%

0-25%

26-50%

51-75%

80%

5
100%

76-100%

Percent distribution of public elementary school students in specified racial/ethnic groups, by percentage
of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch (FRPL): School year 2007-08
Source: U.S. Department of Education, The Condition of Education 2010: Special Analysis, High Poverty Schools (Washington,
D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics, May 2010.)

34

Focusing school resources on areas with the lowest income or highest poverty rates can help youth in
these areas succeed and have a chance at a better future. Increasing the quality of education for all U.S.
children, especially for children from disadvantaged backgrounds, can result in significant improvements
in public safety as more youth succeed academically, fulfill their potential, and give back to their
communities.
Special education suffers when schools are not adequately funded.
A disproportionate number of children with learning disabilities and emotional or behavioral disorders
are involved in the juvenile justice system. One study found that students with emotional disturbances
are three times as likely to be arrested before leaving school; 85 percent of youth in juvenile detention
facilities have disabilities, but only 37 percent had been receiving any kind of support services in
school. 179 A 2005 study found that about one third of youth in education services in juvenile corrections
were receiving special education. 180
Investing in special education and resources for children who have with special needs will improve these
children’s chances of succeeding academically and socially as well as helping them avoid contact with
the juvenile justice system. Lack of services and resources for students, whether they are in need of
special education or counseling, contributes to increased problems in school, including truancy,
decreased academic achievement, and sometimes involvement in the juvenile justice system.
D.C. Public Schools allocated about 12 percent ($96 million) of its 2009 budget for local special
education needs, 181 but due to lack of teacher training and support staff, DCPS is still not able to provide
the necessary services for students needing special education. 182 Under the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act, public school systems are required to provide appropriate services for students or pay for
students to go to private schools to obtain appropriate services. Frequently, families in the District are
forced to enroll their children in specialized private schools where they receive better services but are
more isolated and must travel outside of their communities. About 20 percent of D.C. children in special
education are enrolled at a private institution, costing about $200 million per year.183 In 2006, there
were more than 2,500 D.C. students waiting for the special education services they needed, up from
only 300 in 2001.184 In 2008, despite a court order demanding that DCPS improve services, 1,000
students still had not received services. 185
D.C. is not alone in underfunding for special education; a 2009 study of Pennsylvania schools found that
391 of the state's 501 school districts are spending less than a basic adequacy level on special education.
Combined, that amounts to a shortfall of $380 million annually or $1,947 per student. 186 Currently, the
Washington Supreme Court is deliberating on a lawsuit brought by parents and advocates regarding
potential underfunding of that state’s special education programs. 187
Investing in out-of-school activities can create positive opportunities for youth.
Youth also need constructive activities during after-school hours that foster positive development.
Studies show that youth who participate in after-school activities are less likely to engage in certain risky
behaviors and are more likely to have higher levels of academic achievement and self-esteem than
35

youth who do not. 188 Most crime committed by youth occurs during the after-school hours between 3
pm and 6 pm, 189 and illegal behaviors tend to increase during the summer when youth are out of school
and do not have as many scheduled activities. Finding appropriate and engaging activities for youth
during these times, including after-school programs and employment, can reduce the chances that a
young person will engage in illegal activities that lead to justice involvement and the negative
consequences that result.
Evidence suggests that youth who are considered “high190
“Incarceration should not be risk” benefit the most from after-school programs, and
considered a viable life option for targeting programs for youth from lower-income families
these kids, but it is.” —Carolyn can have an even greater impact, as otherwise these
youth are less likely to participate in positive activities. 191
Dallas, Time Dollar Youth Courts1
Especially during the summer months, children from
lower-income families may not have the same
opportunities to improve their skills that middle and upper-income children do. The gap in summer
learning can impact a child’s success in the future, including whether they earn a high school degree or
go to college, or whether they become involved in the justice system. 192
Youth that come from lower-income families may face various obstacles to participating in after-school
programs. Many times their families do not have the resources to pay for after-school programs or
sports; sometimes just the cost of transportation can be a challenge for youth to get to after-school
programming. 193 Youth may not feel comfortable participating because the program may be in a
neighborhood that is considered “enemy turf,” an issue that is very real for D.C. youth. 194 These turf
wars sometimes make it difficult for youth to travel outside of their neighborhood due to the fear of
entering rival territory.
Youth development programs are especially critical for children who have a parent in prison. In 2007,
about 1.7 million children under age 18 had a parent in prison; 70 percent were children of color. 195
Most families face an increased financial burden when a parent is incarcerated, making it difficult for
youth to access programming and services like after-school activities. Children of incarcerated parents
frequently face a higher risk of being involved in the criminal justice system themselves. As many
children undergo emotional trauma if a parent is incarcerated, and face social and institutionalized
stigma and shame, 196 it is important to reach out to these children and provide positive activities and
supports to make sure that they do not become involved in the justice system.

36

Carolyn Dallas, Time Dollar Youth Courts 197
Carolyn Dallas is the executive director of Time Dollar Youth Courts (TDYC), a D.C.-based
organization that provides alternative sentencing for youth who are arrested for first-time,
nonviolent offenses. In the youth court, a young person goes before a jury of his or her peers
and is given an alternative sentence, ranging from serving as a juror, performing community
service, writing an apology letter, or attending various counseling or therapy programs. Youth
avoid formal processing within the juvenile justice system and are given an opportunity to give
back to their community. Those serving as jurors gain community service hours, experience
empowerment, and learn about the legal system. In an interview with this report’s author, Ms.
Dallas shared these thoughts:
Time Dollar Youth Court serves about 1,000 youth per year, ages 13-18. Most (95-98 percent) are
African American and come from some of the poorest neighborhoods in D.C., which are often
overcrowded and racially segregated. There is a very strong “ward identity” in D.C.; many youth
do not leave their wards, which contributes to isolation as well as tensions between youth from
different wards. Time Dollar Youth Courts is an opportunity for teens to meet other teens from
different parts of the city. They are not allowed to "beef" at Youth Court and learn how to work
together to better help their communities.
In addition, many TDYC participants come from low and moderate income families with single
females as the head of household. The youth struggle with school issues such as bullying, school
safety, and truancy. Other issues include substance abuse, trauma in their lives, and low selfesteem. The staff at TDYC witnesses the constellation of challenges that youth and families face
every day and try to make appropriate referrals to other collaborative and community-based
organizations. They recognize that increased access supportive programs, as well as social and
economic resources are vital for youth to have successful life outcomes and become productive
members of the community.
For more information on the Time Dollar Youth Courts, please visit www.tdyc.org
Various youth development programs and after-school programs in cities across the country have found
that after the instatement of the program, youth involvement in illegal activities dropped significantly.


When Baltimore founded its Police Athletic League, in which 4,000 youths were involved, youth
crime dropped by 33 percent in just one year.198



In Phoenix, when recreation centers decided to stay open later in the summer months, the city
found that youth crime dropped 55 percent. 199



Children and teens who have a mentor through the Big Brothers/Big Sisters program are 46
percent less likely to begin using drugs and 52 percent less likely to skip school. 200

37

Eduardo Ferrer, D.C. Lawyers for Youth 201
Eduardo Ferrer is the Chief Operating Officer of D.C. Lawyers for Youth (DCLY). DCLY believes that proactive
measures that promote a youth’s success are more effective than reactive, punitive policies. In addition to
supporting effective juvenile justice legislation, DCLY also conducts educational outreach to youth and
parents. DCLY works to improve the juvenile justice system by focusing on prevention, legal representation,
and rehabilitation for youth involved in the juvenile justice system. In an interview with this report’s author,
Mr. Ferrer shared these thoughts:
D.C.’s negative perception of D.C. youth contributes to over-policing and disproportionate minority contact.
While public safety is a commonly held goal in the city, there are varied perspectives on how to achieve this
goal. The perception of kids in D.C. is heavily influenced by the media, which youth advocates believe tends
to “hype up” stories of youths involved in crime. There is an image of “packs of unruly young kids” roaming
the streets. In reality, youth really have too few places to go to do constructive activities or hang out. Of
course, the “juvenile problem” almost always refers to low-income youth of color; law enforcement efforts
are primarily focused on communities of color, resulting in few to no white youth involved in the Department
of Youth Rehabilitation Services.
Policing in schools is one reason that youth of color are disproportionately represented in the juvenile justice
system. Local schools with more white students typically use in-school action to handle certain behaviors
whereas in low-income, heavily African American areas of D.C., schools turn to the police much more quickly
if there are problems. One student was arrested for being in a food fight and charged with felony assault
with a deadly weapon (missile) for throwing a pear. One reason schools turn to the juvenile justice system as
a first resort is the lack of financial and staff resources to deal with problems of students “in-house.” It is
easier and less expensive for these schools to outsource to the police and juvenile justice system. The politics
of “zero tolerance policies” make it so that policing schools is seen as making it a safer environment.
D.C. needs a different model for its public schools. The model should seek to provide more wrap-around
services and opportunities for youth, including increased after-school tutoring and activities, in order to more
closely approximate a “middle class” lifestyle for D.C.’s poor young people. Such an expanded model would
help lessen the impact of the negative influences D.C. youth may be exposed to in their communities and will
help build bridges for youth outside their community. They will be able to see that other paths are possible. It
really is a battle for the hearts and minds of these young people. Many young men see jail as a part of life or
a rite of passage. A buffer needs to be built against these environmental factors. Models like KIPP or SEED
schools are good examples. KIPP schools are open to any student and the majority are students of color and
come from low-income families. 202 The extended school days, high expectations, quality educators, strong
leadership, and an emphasis on results in standardized testing help make the KIPP model successful. More
than 85 percent of KIPP students are enrolled in college. Schools that focus on the strengths of students and
their potential instead of on punishing them are critical to reducing the number of youth involved in the
juvenile justice system.
For more information on D.C. Lawyers for Youth, please visit http://www.dcly.org

38

Percent Change in Budget (FY 20082010)

District Officials have chosen to cut funding for the Department of Parks and Recreation, which provides
vital youth programming as well as maintains safe spaces for children to play. 203 In the last two years, as
the budgets for the Office of Attorney General and the police have ballooned, funding for the
Department of Parks and Recreation has shriveled by
almost 20 percent. Programs such as those that the
“It really is a battle for the hearts and
Department of Parks and Recreation provide are
minds of these young people. Many
especially valuable to children and teens whose
young men see jail as a part of life or a
families cannot afford private camps, classes, or after
rite of passage.”—Eduardo Ferrer, D.C.
school programs. Increased funding for youth
Lawyers for Youth1
programs would increase public safety and provide
youth with safe, positive activities that enrich their
lives.

The budget for D.C. Department of Parks and Recreation fell by
almost 20 percent in the past 2 years while the budgets for the
Attorney General and the Police Department increased.

15%

11.67%

10%
5%

Office of the
Attorney General

2.56%

0%

-5%

Metropolitan Police
Department

-10%
-15%
-20%

-19.48%

-25%

Source: Track D.C., “Office of the Attorney General,”http://track.dc.gov/Agency/CB0; Track D.C., Metropolitan
Police Department,” http://track.dc.gov/Agency/FA0; Track D.C., “DPR,” http://track.dc.gov/Agency/HA0

Across the country, residents are being forced to defend the value of Parks and Recreation. In Dallas,
where the per person expenditure on these resources has fallen to $37 per person, Dallas residents
packed a town hall meeting in August 2010 to protest any more cuts to parks and recreation. 204 In
Baltimore, Maryland, FY2011 budget cuts to recreation included a 33 percent cut to Recreation Centers
and a 59 percent cut to sports programs; 205 a 57 percent cut to aquatics temporarily closed Baltimore’s
swimming pools in the middle of the August 2010 heat-wave, until public outcry and over $600,000 in
private donations helped re-open them. 206
Recommendations:
Education and positive youth development are protective factors against future illegal behavior and
incarceration; investments in keeping youth engaged in quality education are some of the most
important ways we can spend our money. Investing in education and youth programming will reduce

39

incarceration rates, improve public safety, save money in the long-run and promote community wellbeing.
1) Improve access to quality education for all children. Education is one of the most important
investments that can be made in a child, as it opens doors to the future. All youth, regardless of
race or income-level should be afforded a quality education.
2) Invest in special education services for children who need it. Youth with special education
needs may be more likely to end up in the justice system. Providing early education specifically
tailored to these youth can help improve graduation rates and the likelihood of success later in
life.
3) Invest in after school and recreational programs for youth. As the majority of youth offenses
occur in the off-school hours, providing constructive activities for youth during this time will
improve the safety of youth and of communities and provide youth the opportunity to expand
their horizons with different activities, including sports, the arts and other extra-curriculars.

True Reformer Building, Northwest Washington, D.C.

40

Increasing access to mental health and substance abuse treatment will reduce
incarceration rates, improve public safety, and promote community well-being.
Access to regular, quality healthcare is critical in keeping individuals, families, and communities healthy
and safe. Healthcare is particularly important for infants and children so they can develop properly and
succeed academically and socially. While regular checkups are necessary as a preventative measure, so
too are treatment options for people who need them. In particular, resources for people with mental
illness or substance abuse issues are vital; with treatment, people can recover and lead productive,
healthy lives, but without treatment, it can be difficult to provide for oneself and one’s family, increasing
the risk of poverty.
People with untreated mental illness may also be more likely to be involved in the justice system; over
half of people in prisons and jails report mental illness of some kind, compared to 25 percent of the
general population. 207 And people who cannot access drug treatment in the community are more likely
to be arrested on a drug-related offense. People entering prison have higher rates of chronic health,
substance abuse, and mental health problems than the general population. 208 Furthermore, without
access to appropriate medical and mental health treatment while incarcerated or upon re-entry, a
person may be more likely to end up back in prison.
While the importance of treatment is undeniable, it can be prohibitively expensive and inaccessible for
those without quality insurance coverage. The high costs of health care can be a significant financial
burden particularly when a family member has a chronic illness; families and individuals may be plunged
deeper into poverty, or illness may go untreated, including mental health or substance abuse problems.
Research has shown that socio-economic status impacts directly on rates of mental illness, as well as
indirectly through the impact of economic hardship on low- and middle- income groups. 209
In 2008, the Center for Disease Control reported that 43.6 million people were uninsured, including 20
percent of adults between the ages of 18 and 65. 210 While people of color made up 34 percent of the
adult population in the U.S in 2008, 52 percent of all uninsured adults were people of color.211 More
than 8 million children (one out of every 10) in the United States do not have any form of health
insurance. The racial and ethnic disparities among uninsured children are striking: one in 13 white
children is uninsured, compared to1 in 5 American Indian children, 1 in 6 Latino children, 1 in 9 black
children, and 1 in 9 Asian/Pacific Islander children. 212
In 2007-2008, 9.8 percent of D.C. residents were uninsured, down from 13 percent in 2000-2001. 213
While D.C. has one of the smallest uninsured populations in the country, this high level insurance is not
equitably distributed; of D.C.’s 7,600 uninsured children and 48,600 uninsured adults, 80 percent were
people of color, even though only 60 percent of the population of D.C. is made up of people of color. 214
In 2003, the Urban Institute found that African Americans were 2 ½ times more likely and Latinos were 8
times more likely than whites to be uninsured in the District. And while 19 percent of District residents
lived in the Southeast quadrant in 2003, residents of the area represented 23 percent of the
uninsured. 215
41

A disproportionate number of people of color are uninsured
in the U.S.
100%
90%

Percent of the Population

80%

1%
1%
5%

1%
1%
5%

15%
30%
12%

70%
60%
50%

American Indian

15%

Asian

40%
66%

30%
20%

Other

Hispanic
Black

48%

White

10%
0%
Uninsured Adults

All Adults

Source: The Kaiser Family Foundation, Health Insurance Coverage in the United States, 2008,
http://facts.kff.org/chart.aspx?cb=57&sctn=160&ch=1259

The financial burden of healthcare costs tends to be highest for people of lower income, who are less
likely to have insurance. And even with insurance, costs can still be a barrier to receiving needed care for
those with lower incomes. Low-income families (those who make less than 100 percent of the federal
poverty line) pay a disproportionately larger share of family income for total out-of-pocket health care
expenditures than all other income groups. Families who make less than 100 percent of the federal
poverty line put almost 30 percent of their income toward health care. 216 In contrast, families who make
400 percent or more of the federal poverty line spend only 6 percent of their income on health care. In
2003, 18.7 million people (almost 8 percent of the population) spent 20 percent of their family income
on out-of-pocket healthcare expenses. 217

42

Cecilia Thomas, Roving Leaders Program for Teens 218
Cecilia Thomas is a Youth Outreach Coordinator at the Roving Leaders Program for Teens, an
initiative of the D.C. Department of Parks and Recreation. Through outreach efforts and planned
social and recreational events, the staff builds positive long-term relationships with young
people whom others may perceive as hard to reach. Many of the children they work with have
untreated mental illness or learning disabilities, often leading them to the justice system. In an
interview with this report’s author, Ms. Thomas shared these thoughts:
The behavior that lands a youth with a referral to court may be a result of acting out because of
an un-diagnosed learning disability or mental illness. Because mental health resources are scarce
in schools and evaluations tend to happen in elementary and middle school, many youth slip
through the cracks, especially if they are quiet or their issues are not outwardly visible. Even if
schools identify issues in a child and recommend treatment, families may not take the advice to
get their kids the help they need, or they may not be able to access appropriate treatment.
Often, parents are reticent to admit that their child needs special education, due to the perceived
stigma attached. The juvenile justice system frequently acts as a safety net in D.C.; in wealthier
communities, families can generally afford treatment or rehabilitation for their children, but in
certain areas of D.C., the only way a child can access treatment is through the juvenile justice
system.
Many of the youth that the staff of the Roving Leaders Program works with struggle with mental
health issues, as do their parents. Many also have substance abuse issues, but drug treatment
services in D.C. are limited, and sometimes people must be referred by the justice system. The
District does not have a drug treatment program for the youth.
Whether a youth is struggling with a learning disability, mental health issue, or is in need of
counseling, it is more effective to find out why a youth is in trouble than to punish him.
Sometimes teens who are arrested for truancy are avoiding school because they feel unsafe
there. When working with youth, it soon becomes apparent that they often face a whole host of
challenges; family drug abuse, financial difficulties, and trauma often contribute to a youth’s
wayward behavior. Increasing services for youth and their families will help build a stronger
future for children.
For more information on the Roving Leaders Program for Teens, please visit
http://app.dpr.dc.gov/DPR/services/community_service_programs.asp?id=4

43

Uninsurance Rates by Race, Adults 1864 in the District of Columbia, 2003

Adult Latinos have the highest uninsurance rates in D.C.
35%

32%

30%
25%
20%
15%
10%

9%

10%
4%

5%
0%
All

African American

Latino

White

Source: Jennifer King and the State Planning Grant team, Insurance and Uninsurance in the District of
Columbia: Starting with the Numbers (Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute, 2003)

Untreated mental illness can result in criminal justice involvement.
According to recent reports, more than 25 percent of adults in the United States have a diagnosable
mental health disorder. 219 Studies show African Americans are just as much at risk for mental health
disorders as their white counterparts, yet receive substantially less treatment. In 2005, African
Americans were 7.3 times as likely to live in high poverty neighborhoods with limited or no access to
mental health services, 220 which may make them more likely to end up in the criminal justice system.
Similarly, almost 20 percent of young people nationwide experience one or more mental, emotional, or
behavioral disorders at any given time. Mental health care interventions, however, have been shown to
successfully treat these disorders as well as reduce accompanying behaviors like aggression, high-risk
sexual activity, and substance use. Participation in mental health treatment has also been shown to help
improve self-esteem and academic performance in youth. 221
At midyear 2005, more than half of all people in prisons and jails in the U.S. had a mental health
problem; 222 56 percent of people in state prisons, 45 percent of people in federal prisons, and 64
percent of people in jails had a mental health problem. Close to three quarters of those with mental
health problems in correctional facilities were also substance dependent and incarcerated women had
higher rates of mental health problems than incarcerated men; almost three quarters of women in state
prisons and jails had mental health problems.

44

100%

More than half of all people in prisons and jails have
mental health problems.

80%

64%

56%

60%
40%

45%
25%

20%
0%
General Population

Jails

State Prisons

Federal Prisons

Source: Doris J. James and Lauren E. Glaze, Mental Health Problems of Prison and Jail Inmates
(Washington D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2006).

Despite the clear need for mental health services, especially for low-income populations and at-risk
children and teens, the budget for the D.C. Department of Mental Health has been severely reduced. 223
While funding for police and the Attorney General’s office has increased, the Department of Mental
Health has suffered a 17 percent cut from 2008 to 2010. Over 5,000 children in need of mental health
treatment in D.C. do not receive it and only 1.2 percent of children enrolled in D.C. Medicaid access
mental health services for moderate mental health needs. 224 According to the D.C. Behavioral Health
Association:
Nearly all of the D.C. children in need of mental health treatment qualify for Medicaid, and
could have accessed these services paid by federal matching dollars, through D.C.’s Medicaid
Managed Care Organizations (MCOs). However, a 2007 D.C. Inspector General report found that
the MCOs made $97 million in excess profits, arising from their failure to deliver mental health
services to D.C. residents that needed them. 225

45

The budget for D.C. Department Mental Health fell by more than
17 percent in the past 2 years while the budgets for the Attorney
General and the Police Department increased.
Percent change in budget (FY20082010)

15%

11.67%

10%
5%

Office of the
Attorney
General
Metropolitan
Police
Department
Department of
Mental Health

2.56%

0%

-5%

-10%
-15%
-20%

-17.02%

Source: Track D.C., “Office of the Attorney General,” http://track.dc.gov/Agency/CB0; Track D.C.,
“Metropolitan Police Department,” http://track.dc.gov/Agency/FA0; Track D.C., “DMH,”
http://track.dc.gov/Agency/RM0

Mental health issues are even more prevalent in the juvenile justice population, where approximately
65 to 70 percent of youth in the criminal justice system have a diagnosable mental health disorder and
25 percent have disorders serious enough to require hospitalization. 226 Recent reports indicate that
many young people enter the juvenile justice system solely to access mental health care that is
unavailable in the community. In 2001, more than 12,700 children with mental illnesses were placed in
state custody because their families could not access treatment for them. 227 About 70 percent (9,000) of
these children entered state custody through the juvenile justice system.
Additionally, many children involved in the juvenile justice system have experienced trauma of some
kind, such as sexual abuse, community violence, or maltreatment. Research shows that while up to 34
percent of children in the United States have experienced at least one traumatic event, between 75 and
93 percent of youth entering the juvenile justice system annually in this country are estimated to have
experienced some degree of traumatic victimization. 228 These experiences may increase risk of mental
illness or emotional or behavioral disorders. 229
Across the U.S., mental health budgets are being slashed due to the fiscal crisis. According to the
National Association of State Mental Health Planning Divisions (NASMHPD), 92 percent of reporting
states cut their mental health budgets in FY2010. Over half – 58 percent – had cut services for people
with low incomes who were not eligible for Medicaid. This is at a time when almost three in five states
reported an increase in demand for community mental health services, and 21 percent had an increased
demand for crisis services. 230
Investing in mental health treatment – or at least maintaining current funding will reduce incarceration
for both adults and children, lead to more positive life outcomes, and save tax dollars in the long run. It
is vital for both young people and adults to have access to counseling and mental health services in their
communities, be it through schools or community-based clinics, especially because those who need it
the most may not be able to afford private therapy or counseling. Addressing the needs of residents
46

with mental health issues and trauma-related emotional or behavioral disorders will increase public
safety as well as provide people with the resources they need to live healthy and productive lives.
Untreated substance abuse can lead to criminal justice involvement.
In 2008, 22.2 million people aged 12 and over in the U.S. (close to 9 percent of the general population)
were dependent on illicit drugs and/or alcohol, 231 but only four million people received treatment.
During that same time, 3.7 million people living in poverty needed treatment for substance addiction,
but less than 18 percent received it. 232 Substance abuse is particularly prevalent among incarcerated
populations; in 2004, about 80 percent of both federal and state prisoners reported ever using drugs,
and about 25 percent of prisoners incarcerated for violent crimes reported using drugs at the time of
their offense. 233Furthermore, one-half to two-thirds of inmates in jails and State and Federal prisons
meet standard diagnostic criteria (DSM-IV) for alcohol/drug dependence or abuse. 234
Often receiving treatment through the criminal justice system is the only way people can access help. In
2007, the criminal justice system was the largest single source of referrals to substance abuse treatment
nationally, comprising 37 percent of all admissions. 235
As in many areas, substance abuse is a serious
issue in D.C.; the Office of National Drug Control
Policy (ONDCP) reports that about 60,000 D.C.
residents are addicted to alcohol and other
drugs. 236 But from 2005 to 2006, about 16,000
D.C. residents reported needing but not
receiving treatment for substance abuse.
Nationally, the biggest reason people seeking
drug treatment don’t receive it is that they can’t
afford it; 237 it should come as no surprise then,
that the highest need for substance abuse
treatment is in wards that are most economically
distressed. In Wards 5 and 8, where median
household incomes are significantly lower than
the city average, more than 4 percent of people
are in need of but not receiving treatment. 238

The largest single source of referrals
to substance abuse treatment come
from the criminal justice system.

All Others
63%

Criminal
Justice
System
37%

Source: The TEDS Report, “Substance Abuse
Treatment Admissions Referred by the Criminal
Justice
System,”
August
13,
2009.
www.oas.samhsa.gov/2k9/211/211CJadmits2k9.htm

47

Ward 1
Ward 2
Ward 3
Ward 4
Ward 5
Ward 6
Ward 7
Ward 8
All D.C.

Median Household
Income (1999)

Needed but did not receive
treatment for drug use
(averages 2004-2006)

$59,140
$130,891
$187,709
$81,500
$54,479
$67,454
$45,039
$35,228
$78,192

3.27%
3.03%
1.98%
2.22%
4.43%
2.82%
3.12%
4.23%
3.06%

Source: Neighborhood Info D.C., “Neighborhood Profiles: Council Wards;”Department of Health
and Human Services, Substate Estimates from the 2004-2006 National Surveys on Drug Use and
Health (Department of Health and Human Services; Washington, D.C., 2008).

In D.C., substance abuse is also prevalent in people who have contact with the criminal justice system.
Of the over 2,000 people under the supervision of the Substance Abuse Treatment Branch of the Court
Services and Offender Supervision Agency, 239about 34 percent have co-occurring substance abuse
problems. Approximately 25 percent of women supervised by D.C.’s Court Services and Offender
Supervision Agency (CSOSA) identify as having various mental health conditions and about 40 percent
reported histories of substance abuse and addiction in 2009. 240
Mandated treatment through the criminal justice system is not the answer; instead, with more funding
for community based substance abuse treatment programs, people may be less likely to have contact
with the criminal justice system in the first place. The District recently took a positive step in substance
abuse prevention by applying for and winning a $10.6 million grant from the Substance Abuse and
Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). 241 Increased funding for programs focused on sober
living would have public safety benefits as well as allow people be better able to live, study, and work
successfully while investing in their families and communities.
Recommendations:
Lack of treatment for mental illness and substance abuse contributes significantly to increases in
correctional populations. Investing in treatment before people become involved in the justice system
will reduce incarceration rates, improve public safety and promote community well-being.
1) Increase access to community-based mental health and substance abuse treatment. Providing
treatment to people before they come into contact with the justice system can help increase
public safety, improve the lives of individuals with mental health or substance abuse problems,
and save money in the long run. Research shows that treatment based in the community is both
more effective and more cost-effective than treatment in the justice system.

48

2) Address youth mental health needs before they come into contact with the justice system.
The majority of youth in the juvenile justice system has either a mental health problem or have
experienced trauma. Addressing youth’s needs before they become involved in the justice
system can save them the often traumatic experience of being involved in the system and can
improve their lives and futures.

Navy Memorial, Washington, D.C.

49

Increasing investments in job training and employment will reduce
incarceration rates, improve public safety, and promote community well-being.
The recent recession and subsequent loss of over 7 million jobs has been tremendously difficult for
communities across the country. Low-income communities and communities of color have been hit
particularly hard. As of March 2010, the unemployment rate in D.C. was 11.6 percent, compared to the
national average of 9.7 percent, 242 but there are stark differences in unemployment among the eight
wards. The highest rates of unemployment are in communities of color: over 28 percent in Ward 8, 20
percent in Ward 7, and 15 percent in Ward 5. In contrast, Wards 2 and 3, which are majority white, have
unemployment rates of about 6 and 3 percent, respectively. 243

% People of Color2000
Unemployment-2009
Violent Crime
(per 1,000 pop.)-2007

Ward
1

Ward
2

Ward
3

Ward
4

Ward
5

Ward
6

Ward
7

Ward
8

All
D.C.

75%

39%

20%

85%

92.6%

70%

98.8%

94.9%

72%

10.1%

5.8%

3.2%

9.6%

15.5%

11.5%

19.5%

28.3%

14.4%

17

13

1.7

12

17

16

16

22

14

Source: Neighborhood Info D.C., “Neighborhood Profiles: Council Wards;” Department of Employment Services, “Ward
Unemployment Rates,” Accessed May 2010.

Employment, wages, crime, the economic health of a community, and incarceration rates are all
interrelated. This is evident in D.C., where Ward 8 has over 28 percent unemployment and 22 violent
crimes per 1,000 people, the highest levels in the city. 244 Increased employment is associated with
positive public safety outcomes; research shows that states with lower rates of unemployment also
have lower crime rates. 245 Conversely, high rates of incarceration in a community are also associated
with reduced job opportunities, creating a toxic cycle of poverty, unemployment, and incarceration. 246
People who are incarcerated are more likely to report extended periods of unemployment and lower
wages than people in the general population. In 2002, about one-third of people in jail in the U.S.
reported that that were unemployed prior to their arrest, compared to the national unemployment rate
of 6 percent. 247 During that same year, 83 percent of people in jail reported income in the month prior
to arrest of less than $2,000. 248 Once a person has been incarcerated, it is even more difficult to find
employment, as jail time can reduce the probability of employment by between 15 and 30 percent. 249
Formerly incarcerated people often face employment discrimination and limited access to job training,
making it difficult to find and keep a job that pays enough to support oneself and one’s family.

50

Reverend Tucker, New Commandment Baptist Church 250
Reverend Tucker is Pastor of the New Commandment Baptist Church in the Park View
neighborhood of D.C., founded in 1990. When Reverend Tucker arrived, he estimated that 80
percent of the church members were unemployed, just out of jail, just off drugs, or still on
drugs; it was rare to get a “normal” person. In an interview with the author of this report,
Reverend Tucker shared these thoughts:
A parishioner started a drug and substance abuse ministry that began with only 2-3 people but
within two months, the program had so many attendees, it had to be moved out of the church
basement and across the street. There was a clear desire of the church community to get help in
a supportive environment. I soon realized, however, that unemployment had to be dealt with if
they wanted to help people get off drugs and out of the criminal justice system; it is easy to fall
back into old patterns with idle time.
In 1997, I helped found the Jobs Partnership, which is modeled after a program in North Carolina
that brings the faith and business community together to provide jobs for people who are
unemployed. He co-founded Jobs Partnership with a Catholic Church and a Presbyterian Church.
In the 13 years since it began, the partnership has helped 3,000 people find employment, many
of whom had been formerly incarcerated. The program provides 48 hours of intensive training,
which includes job and life skills and provides mentors for those seeking employment.
The Jobs Partnership also advocates for fair employment practices. Recently we discovered that
a legislator in another state introduced a bill that would ban people coming out of prison from
working a Census job. These Census jobs would create a large opportunity for employment for a
number of people coming to Jobs Partnership. Jobs Partnership and others organized a petition
to fight against the bill and planned a press conference to discuss the proposal. We feel that this
proposed law would increase hostility toward a population against whom the deck is already
stacked and increase unemployment, particularly among people coming home from prison.
Fighting to end employment discrimination and increasing opportunities to earn a fair wage are
at the heart of my battle to improve the quality of life for his parishioners. Our work highlights
how economic justice is critical to strengthening communities and reducing incarceration.
For more information on Jobs Partnership, please visit http://www.newcomma.org
Creating jobs can improve public safety and reduce incarceration.
Creating more job opportunities so individuals and families can support themselves is one way to
improve public safety and reduce incarceration; 251 one study found that a 10 percent increase in wages
would reduce the amount of hours young men spend participating in illegal activities by 1.4 percent. 252
Local jobs could be created by supporting a community’s local economy in ways that are informed by
residents’ voices. Programs that provide small business loans and investments in “green” technology
would increase capital investment in the community as well as create jobs.
51

Unemployment rate

40%
30%

People who are incarcerated experience much higher
rates of unemployment than the general population.
29%

20%
10%

6%

0%
Jail Population

General Population

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey,”
Access May 2010.

“Youth in the United States are facing an unprecedented crisis in employment. In April 2010,
youth unemployment (16-19) remained close to its all time high at 25.4 percent. The Center for
Labor Market Studies (CLMS) at Northeastern University estimates that the 2008 employment
rate for teens is at the lowest rate in more than 60 years – 32.8% for all teens and 22.7% for
black teens. The Center also estimates that individuals under the age of 25 represented 60% of
the 1.2 million jobs lost last year. Youth and young adults ages 16-24 represent nearly a third of
those who are currently unemployed across the country. Minority youth and young adults are
often the first and last to feel the impacts of a recession. Our nation is facing a silent crisis –
hundreds of thousands of youth lack the opportunities they need to develop the skills they must
possess in order to succeed in today’s global economy. Investing in job training and employment
services for youth will provide immediate economic stimulus and enduring benefits to our youth
and to our nation.” – National Youth Employment Coalition 253

Youth employment is also an important component of positive youth development, helping youth earn
money and build self-esteem. Employment opportunities for youth have also been shown to have public
safety benefits. From 1997 to 2004, the District experienced evidence of the value of employment
opportunities for youth. As the unemployment rate for D.C. youth increased, the referral rate of youth
to juvenile court also increased. 254 Rather than focus on corrections, law enforcement, and the judiciary
system when allocating funding, jurisdictions could turn their attention to employment resources,
employability training, and the availability of well-paying jobs, for both adults and youth. D.C.’s Summer
Youth Employment Program (SYEP) has had both successes and challenges, with most of the problems
being administrative. Over 21,000 youth participated in 2009, but the lack of quality placements and
issues around payment delivery affected the program’s ability to serve the high number of youth in the
District interested in participating. 255

52

In Washington, D.C. the youth unemployment rate is correlated
with the juvenile court referral rate for violent/property offenses.
Youth Unemployment Rate (%)

40

10,000

35

8,000

30
25

6,000

20

4,000

15
10

2,000

5
0

Juvenile Referral Rate
(Per 100,000 Youth)

12,000

45

0
1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Unemployment Rate (Age 16-19)

2002

2003

2004

2005

Referral Rate (Age 13+)

Source: Superior Court of D.C.: Family Court, Annual Report to Congress, Family Court, 2006, www.dccourts.gov;
Bureau of Labor Statistics, www.bls.gov/lau

Recommendations:
Research shows that employment is one of the key predictors of crime rates and that investments in
improving employment rates will improve public safety. Having stable employment also reduces the
chances that someone will become involved in the justice system. Investing in employment and job
training will reduce incarceration rates, improve public safety, and promote community well-being.
1) Invest in job training for people in underserved communities. Access to training for people in
lower-income communities can open doors to more jobs and careers, leading to better life
outcomes and less justice-involvement.
2) Remove barriers to employment for people with prior arrests or convictions. People with prior
arrests or convictions face obstacles to employment based on both the law and on individual
discrimination by employers. As having a job is one of the most important keys to success after
release from prison, removing these barriers can open up opportunities for success.
3) Encourage economic development in low-income communities. Creating jobs in low-income
communities will have lasting impacts on individuals, families and the entire community,
including improved public safety and less need for social services.
4) Provide programs that help youth find employment, especially during the summer months.
Youth need constructive activities during the school year, but especially during the summer
months to keep them engaged and productive. Youth employment programs encourage youth
and teach responsibility and other marketable skills. Engaging youth now will help them build
the skills they need to stay competitive in the job market.

53

Conclusion and Recommendations
The use of incarceration and the justice system as a response to social problems is destructive, ripping
families apart and having devastating impacts on communities of color and low-income communities.
We must invest in policies and programs that prevent people from coming into contact with the justice
system in the first place. A future where people feel safe and have the opportunities and resources to
flourish must first be imagined in order to be achieved. The best public safety strategy will build strong
communities of healthy, engaged children, and employed adults who have access to quality healthcare,
education, housing, and supportive services that are affordable, and where people are treated fairly and
respectfully by the justice system. Components of this vision include:
All residents have access to quality, affordable housing. Communities across the country would have
plentiful affordable and supportive housing options. Adequate funding for federal housing support
programs such as Housing Choice Vouchers would help reduce the risk of homelessness and
incarceration. Formerly incarcerated people would not experience housing discrimination, which would
also reduce homelessness and reliance on shelters, as well as give people returning from prison a real
chance to turn their life around. As stable, affordable housing is the foundation for education,
employment, and access to other social programs and services, people in stable living environments are
better able to make investments in themselves, their families, and their neighborhoods. With quality,
affordable housing, families can afford other necessities such as health care, education, and healthy
food. Communities would reap the benefits in public safety, cost savings, and long-term community
enrichment.
What can community residents, advocates, and public officials do?


Advocate for an increase in funding for housing vouchers which allow families choice in
where they live, and maintain the number of publicly-financed housing units in areas that
are experiencing “gentrification.”



Advocate for the increase of incentives for property owners to participate in “Section 8”
housing program to increase the availability of quality, affordable housing.



Demand an end to predatory loaning practices the target low-income residents.



Demand an increase in publicly subsidized supportive housing programs for people
transitioning out of homelessness or prison.



Work with local housing and homeless coalitions to change public housing policies that
discriminate against families in which one member may have an arrest or conviction.

All children have access to quality public education in their neighborhood. All children, especially those
from disadvantaged neighborhoods, would be afforded the resources they and their schools need for
quality education. States and communities would make long-term investments in education. Resources
would be available for improving facilities, providing needed materials for students, hiring quality
54

educators, and providing counseling services as well as special education. This long-term investment
would create lasting changes for communities in terms of economic development, civic involvement,
and reductions in crime. The investment in education, especially for students from low-income families,
would not only promote social justice, it would also improve public safety and overall prosperity.
What can community residents, advocates, and public officials do?


Hold schools and school officials accountable for enacting a serious plan to improve student
academic achievement and graduation rates, particularly in schools with high levels of
poverty.



Demand that policymakers provide the needed funding to make the improvements in
teacher quality and resources that schools need to improve.



Demand an increase in quality in-school support and counseling services for students who
have experienced trauma, have learning disabilities, or emotional disturbances.

All young people have the opportunity to pursue higher education. All people who desire to continue
their education would have the opportunity to pursue affordable post–secondary education and
vocational training. Scholarships and grants would allow young people to continue their education,
increase their earning potential, and give back to their communities.
What can community residents, advocates, and public officials do?


Advocate for an increase in funding for scholarship and grants that would help youth attend
college.



Demand quality, affordable community college courses that are accessible to working
residents who want to further their education while pursuing a career.



Eliminate barriers to federal school loans for students with drug offense convictions.

Youth would not be unnecessarily criminalized. Schools would follow a positive youth development
agenda, which would guide decisions around how to address youth delinquency. Educators would have
the resources and will to handle school incidents appropriately themselves, instead of turning to police.
Schools would recognize that zero-tolerance policies do not make schools safer, but instead contribute
to a negative learning environment and disproportionately affect students of color. By coping more
effectively with challenging students, schools would decrease the number of students “pushed out” of
school and into the justice system.
What can community residents, advocates, and public officials do?


Demand more accountability from school systems. Ask for data around school suspensions
and expulsion, and insist on adequate funding for special education and other services.



Advocate for the end of “zero-tolerance” policies in schools and the over-policing of schools.
55

Youth are involved in positive activities during after-school time and throughout the summer. All
youth would have access to quality after-school and summer time programming. These programs would
be accessible, affordable, relevant, engaging, and located in geographically sensitive locations. Afterschool and summer time activities and mentoring programs increase a youth’s academic, social, and
emotional wellbeing and reduce the risk of involvement in illegal behaviors. Youth would have
opportunities to help improve their communities, reduce crime, and improve public safety.
Empowerment programs that give young people the opportunity to participate in problem-solving
activities, leadership development, advocacy, and direct service would play a role in reducing negative
youth behavior, including illegal activity.
What can community residents, advocates, and public officials do?


Demand an end to funding cuts for government agencies that provide critical after-school
and summertime programming for youth.



Advocate for an increase in affordable and accessible after-school and summertime
activities for youth from low-income communities and communities of color.

All people have access to health care, mental health care, and substance abuse treatment in their
communities. Residents would have access to the full spectrum of healthcare, both physical and mental,
which is crucial to increasing public safety. Decreasing the cost of healthcare, especially for those
already struggling financially, would allow people to access care without becoming further
impoverished. People who are healthy and have access to treatment for mental illness and substance
abuse are more likely to be productive citizens, less likely to participate in illegal activities, and more
likely to invest in themselves, their families, and their communities.
What can community residents, advocates, and public officials do?


Demand that policymakers encourage doctors and hospitals to increase their locations in
underserved areas.



Demand that government insurance plans cover mental health and substance abuse
treatment.



Increase reimbursement rates for those who are covered by public insurance plans so that
low-income residents can afford to access care.



Support the public/private partnership called Medical Homes DC, which seeks to improve
access to quality primary care in the District’s medically underserved neighborhoods.

All people would have the opportunity to engage in substantial employment as well as increase their
job skills through training programs. All residents, regardless of level of education, would have access
to employment opportunities that provide fair wages. Increasing opportunities for job skills training and
vocational training would allow people to be better able to acquire and keep a job that pays enough to
provide for oneself and/or one’s family, which would also have important public safety benefits for
56

communities. People with more employment opportunities and earning potential would be better able
to make other investments in their communities, their families, and themselves. Ending employment
discrimination against people who have been involved in the justice system would enable them to be
successful and make the changes necessary to contribute positively to the community.
What can community residents, advocates, and public officials do?


Advocate for the creation of jobs that pay well in areas of the city that need them the most,
as well as job training programs to prepare residents for new jobs.



Press for an increase in the minimum wage for both public and private sector jobs.



Demand a change in any tax system that is regressive and taxes low-income residents at a
higher rate than high-earning residents.



Advocate for an increase in funding and access to unemployment insurance to support
families and individuals as they look for a new job.

Policing would focus on protecting public safety rather than ensnaring people in the criminal justice
system. Ineffective and unfair sentencing enhancement zones in high-density areas would be
eliminated. And an end to targeted policing in low-income communities and communities of color would
help reduce the disproportionate representation of people of color in the criminal justice system, and
better utilize public resources.
What can community residents, advocates, and public officials do?


Demand information regarding the density of police officers in certain neighborhoods to
evaluate targeting of low-income communities and communities of color.



Consider policies that make simple possession of marijuana a citation rather than an arrest.



Learn how your public safety dollars are spent. Demand that law enforcement officers live in
the communities they work.

All community members have access to affordable public transportation options. Residents would be
able to travel easily to work, school, and needed services using affordable public transportation. Public
transportation is particularly critical in low-income neighborhoods where residents may not own cars
and jobs and services may not exist. Affordable transportation would allow people improve their quality
of life and thus improve public safety.
What can community residents, advocates, and public officials do?


Advocate for public transportation decisions during the economic downturn that keep
transportation affordable and available for low-income neighborhoods.



If plans are being made to expand public transportation, demand that plans account for the
needs of under-served communities and low-income communities.
57

Communities are well-cared-for and green spaces and recreational facilities are available for residents
to enjoy. When looking to reduce incarceration and increase public safety, it is critical to address the
environmental conditions that contribute to incarceration of community residents. A thoughtful design
of the physical environment of a community can improve public safety. Abandoned buildings would be
repurposed, vacant lots developed for uses such as a community parks and community gardens, street
lighting replaced or increased, and graffiti removed. Residents would be integrally involved in planning
for their neighborhood’s future.
What can community residents, advocates, and public officials do?


Demand that planning agencies attend to the needs and voices of residents of low-income
communities when undertaking “beautification” or “revitalization” projects.



Advocate for the creation or refurbishing of parks, community gardens, and playgrounds in
disadvantaged neighborhoods.

58

Appendix 1
Ward
1

Ward
2

Ward
3

Ward
4

Ward
5

Ward
6

Ward
7

Ward
8

All
D.C.

% People of Color2000

75%

39%

20%

85%

92.6%

70%

98.8%

94.9%

72%

Median Household
Income-1999

$59,140

$130,891

$187,709

$81,500

$54,479

$67,454

$45,039

$35,228

$78,192

Violent Crime (per
1,000 pop.)-2007

17

13

1.7

12

17

16

16

22

14

Persons Receiving
Food Stamps-2009

8,168

3,160

331

10,217

16,407

13,396

24,370

31,570

13,452

Unemployment2009

10.1%

5.8%

3.2%

9.6%

15.5%

11.5%

19.5%

28.3%

14.4%

Persons Receiving
TANF-2009

3,002

892

43

3,608

6284

4,042

11,212

16,053

5,642

% graduated High
School

68%

87%

96%

78%

72%

79%

71%

66%

78%

% graduated
College

39%

64%

79%

33%

21%

44%

13%

8%

39%

Needed but did not
receive treatment
for drug useaverages 2004-2006

3.27%

3.03%

1.98%

2.22%

4.43%

2.82%

3.12%

4.23%

3.06%

Sources:
% People of Color, Median Household Income, Violent Crime, Food Stamps, TANF, % graduated High School, %
graduated college: Neighborhood Info D.C., “Neighborhood Profiles: Council Wards,”
www.neighborhoodinfodc.org/wards/wards.html;
% graduated High School, % graduated college: D.C. Office of Planning, “2000 Educational Level by Ward,”
http://planning.dc.gov/planning/cwp/view,a,1282,q,569859.asp
Unemployment: Department of Employment Services, “Ward Unemployment Rates,” Accessed May 2010.
www.does.dc.gov/does/frames.asp?doc=/does/lib/does/SeptemberWards09.pdf;
Treatment for drug use: Department of Health and Human Services, Substate Estimates from the 2004-2006
National Surveys on Drug Use and Health (Department of Health and Human Services; Washington, D.C., 2008).
www.oas.samhsa.gov/substate2k8/substate.pdf

59

Appendix 2: Metropolitan Police Arrests by Offense Type and Adult/Juvenile
Status, January 1 – June 26, 2010

e
~., ~~~.

Aoorav:l1e<l Assault

~,

-

00'

~,

....,

% within Arrest T
~,

-~
~-

'OO~

1000%

.~

,

100.0%

.~

100.0%

'OO~

.~

100.0"-

814%

18.6%

'OO~

"

91.3%
,~

91.4%

2.6%

'OO~
'OO~

"

,~

100.0%

.~

,,~

~,

90.7%

9.3%

100.0"2814
100.0%

92.5%

75%

~

100.0"-

801%
2175
78.9%

'"
'"
231%

'M

,

m

~OO

100.0%
4703
97.4%

~

=

,="

m

•

~

"

~

"
"

.m

,ro

OO~

1.1%

100.0"-

00."

'.N

'OO~

% within Arrest T

OO~

~.~

100.0"-

OO~

OO~

'OO~

~,

1978
00.7%

3.3%

100.0"-

1837
!IO.4%

1.8%

'OO~

100.0"-

'"

00,.

'"

49.2%

,

'OO~
'OO~

,=
00'

•

~,

% within Arrest T
~,

% within Arrest T;oo
~,

~,

• "'
,

~

m

'00

'"'

13.7%

100.0"-

'"

98.1%

,~

,~

on

m

91.5%

8.5%

100.0"-

92.5%

75%

'OO~

.~

100.0%

"

27.8%

'OO~

"n
•

,~

~

72.4%

•

M

~

,,~

~

1.4%

100.0"-

OO~

0.7%

'"
,

,

on

,

~

,~

~

38.8%

100.0%

87.4%

32.8%

94.5%

5.5%

100.0"-

88.4%

'"

11.8%

'OO~

1000%

.~

100.0%

00"

'"

0.5%

100:'

"'

'OO~

'"
'"
m

~,

~,

~,

""

85.1%
23.109
92.4%

'"n
•

,~

m

~

,~

14.9%

100.0"25.013
100.0"-

,.~

7.6%

'"

87.2'%

n.~

92.7%

12.8%
1,870
7.3%

~~

_12.5%

-12.4%

.~

_9.6%

51%

-30.1%

.,%

-26.3%

~

_15.t%

-22.7'%

-1000%

_26.1%

-100.0%

~

-16.7'%

1000%

~"

-19.1%

-29.0%

_19.'1%

111.11%

-1000%

100.0%

37%

-22.6%

,,.

-26.3%

-1000%

~.~

11%

-20.2%

•.m

01%

-2.3%

'().J%

97%

45.9%

16.4%

-15.2'%

-11.1%

_15.2%

~7.5%

-50.0%

~O.O"-

-71%

-55.9%

-11.7%

-14.5%

~.~

4.8%

-28%

~.N

_14.5%

-12.1%

-23.1%

_13.1%

~.~

~

_23.7%

18.3%

-42.8%

15.5%

-21.5%

-39.4%

_28.4%

4m

1154%

1.7%

33%

~

,.,.

-11.7%

-25.8%

_13.8%

,~

_1.8%

..

~

'OO~

~

,

~.6'J'o

,~

'OO~

81.4%

% within Arrest T

% within Arrest T
Co.... !
% within Arrest T

~

'M

~

% within Arrest T;oo

% within Arrest T;oo

m

,

Total

-25.8%

• <

'OO~

37.9%

1000%
4937
98.8%

~,

M

,,~

,~

,~

~,

% within Arrest T;oo

,
,

.....-

'OO~

82.1%
86.3%

% within Arrest T

«,

19.9%

,,

'OO~

100.0%

% within Arrest T

TOTAL

'OO~

100.0'"

M'

% within Arrest T;oo

W._

.~

3.5%

~.~

~,

.-

'OO~

•

00.5%

100.0%

'"

77%

18.5%

,,-,""-

V:ond:Ilisn'IT arr(leIi
VeodiJ>J ViolaOOns

~

«

81.5%

~,

OW

..

100.0'"

'D
92.3%

~.~

% within Arrest T;oo

Viol:JOOnS

m

79.7%

Pros1iIuIioo &

The1IIrom Auto

~

,
•

5.6%

,~

~,

"',

8.S%

"
"
•
"

"

~.4"

~,

--

'OO~

,
,
,
,

.~

% within Arrest T;oo

~,~

'OO~

1000%

~,

R~1Ig

,~

100.0"-

% within Arrest T

Release Viobtionsn'UtJitive

'"

'OO~

4.3%

,

~,

Commertialized VICe

"
",
•

24.8%

~_7"

~,

other M1sdeme"""'"

,,~

12.5%

% within Arrest T;oo

other FeDlies

75.2%

.

'"Chan
Juve1lilo'

Adult

~I -57.1%

875%

% within Arrest T

% within Arrest T;oo

'00

100.0%

"n ,=
• "
, n
• ,

22.4%

,

~-

'OO~

100.0%

~,

~-

571%

,~

.~

% within Arrest T;oo

% within Arrest T

42_~

"

~,

OIIenses !Ig:Iinst the Family
:ond Children

100.0"-

1000%
II

~,

Dn"llaw!l

12.5%

OO~

% within Arrest T

-~

81.5%

100.0"-

~,

~--

"', 100:.1

10.0%

,~

% within Arrest T

Homi~ler'

'",

OO~

•

I

TOUlI

<

100.0%

91.1%

~,

% within Arrest T

•

13.4%

"D

% within Arrest T
% within Arrest T

",

,~

,

'"

~,

~,

""""'"

T,~1lic

..

Juvenile'

Adult

Total

00.6%

n.6,.

% within Arrest Twe

..

IJuve1lile'

AdUlt,

% within Arrest Twe

N"'roIic

~

~

Number and Percoot

,,-

~

by Top Anesl Chafll". rompao-ed to the same peOOd in 2009

Top Arrest Charge'

e
..
..

METROPOUTAN POUCE DEPARTMENT
Numl>!>r of Adultand Juvenile AIr...15 (1/1-¥.'6J1OI.

"
"

25.7~1

,,.

'OO~

'So<vco-fO£_d.",. ~.Just"'" InIonnIttiMS)':lem (CJIS) dot. . . 01 Ufl10 Td. . . "'_soIeIl'",,1IIo rop_chetgo. 0-..""""", """,_«1

"" more It>on """ one'" cI>oooIe.
'So<vco-fO£l>omiadodo'•. _ _ (HB} .. d T11110.

""./MY_

'Fo<1IIo_.d1lloCJIS WeeIIly""""'Repoft. tI>e ""'" .,.,....",..·uud_;.deJned .. _urtde£1IIo_ 01 18
Tit!<> 16 """,-'j<NenIe... tried .. _
"rK"'

._""=o;' __.

7he above oor>--hornid<Je """"" renea """"" made by all ~ in "'" DiI;/Jjc/ <Jf Columbia.

60

"'""«

17 J'l'a"d_l. The... .,.,....",.."

Appendix 3: Metropolitan Police Arrests by Ward, 2001 and 2009
Ward

2001

2009

% Change 2001-2009

Adult

Juvenile

All

Adult

Juvenile

All

Adult

Juvenile

All

1

6,802

357

7,159

6,064

346

6,410

-10.85%

-3.08%

-10.46%

2

7,433

210

7,643

5,731

349

6,080

-22.90%

66.19%

-20.45%

3

1,032

48

1,080

983

77

1,060

-4.75%

60.42%

-1.85%

4

3,287

242

3,529

3,467

387

3,854

5.48%

59.92%

9.21%

5

5,728

380

6,108

7,123

634

7,757

24.35%

66.84%

27.00%

6

7,171

478

7,649

8,580

524

9,104

19.65%

9.62%

19.02%

7

5,677

480

6,157

7,439

837

8,276

31.04%

74.38%

34.42%

8

7,056

631

7,687

7,868

878

8,746

11.51%

39.14%

13.78%

UNK

1,283

54

1,337

1,541

64

1,605

20.11%

18.52%

20.04%

Total

45,469

2,880

48,349

48,796

4,096

52,892

7.32%

42.22%

9.40%

Source: Metropolitan Police Department, Research and Analysis Division, July 2010.

61

About the Justice Policy Institute
The Justice Policy Institute is a non-profit research and public policy organization dedicated to reducing
society’s reliance on incarceration and promoting fair and effective solutions to social problems.
About the authors
Sarah Lyons is a 2009 Emerson National Hunger Fellow conducting research for the Justice Policy
Institute. A program of the Congressional Hunger Center, the Emerson National Hunger Fellowship is a
leadership development opportunity for motivated individuals seeking to make a difference in the
struggle to eliminate hunger and poverty. Sarah graduated summa cum laude from the University of
Notre Dame in 2009 with a degree in anthropology and peace studies and a minor in gender studies.
Nastassia Walsh is a research associate at the Justice Policy Institute. In her more than four years as a
researcher at JPI, Walsh has had the opportunity to work on a number of different collaborations and
projects, both nationally and in D.C. She joined JPI shortly after earning her Master's Degree in forensic
psychology from Marymount University, where she studied psychological principles in the law and
injustices in the criminal justice system. Walsh also holds a Bachelor of Science degree in psychology and
justice studies from Arizona State University.
Acknowledgements
This report would not have been possible without the generous support of the Open Society Institute
and the Public Welfare Foundation. This report is the culmination of interviews with many people in
Washington, D.C., including community leaders and advocates, as well as research and data analysis.
Special thanks are due to Betsy Biben, James Berry, and staff, Public Defenders Service of D.C.; Carolyn
Dallas and Rene Gornall, Time Dollar Youth Courts; Eduardo Ferrer and Daniel Okonkwo, D.C. Lawyers
for Youth; Ricardo Flores, Latin American Youth Center; Philip Fornaci, D.C. Prisoner’s Project; Barry
Holman, Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services; David Muhammad, Department of Youth
Rehabilitation Services; Deborah Shore and staff, Sasha Bruce Youthwork; Cecilia Thomas, Roving
Leaders Program for Teens; Reverent Stephen Tucker, New Commandment Baptist Church; Princess
Whitaker-Taylor and the Life Manager Staff, Peaceoholics; Ed Lazare, D.C. Fiscal Policy Institute; and
Michael Edwards, Defeat Poverty DC.
The authors would like to express their gratitude to Jason Ziedenberg, Tracy Velázquez, Paul Ashton and
Amanda Petteruti for their insight and review of the report and Adrea Hernandez for her assistance with
data.
JPI staff includes Paul Ashton, Jason Fenster, Jasmine Greene, Kate Hatheway, Amanda Petteruti, Kellie
Shaw, Ellen Tuzzolo, Tracy Velázquez, Keith Wallington, and Nastassia Walsh.

62

1

Council of the District of Columbia, ward information, www.dccouncil.washington.dc.us/wardseven, accessed
September 7, 2010.
2
Council of the District of Columbia, ward information, accessed September 7, 2010.
3
U.S. Census, GCT1901.Median Household Income (In 2008 Inflation-Adjusted Dollars) (Washington, D.C.: American
Community Survey, 2010) www.census.gov
4
Angie Rodgers and Ed Lazere, Income Inequality in the District of Columbia Is Wider Than in Any Major U.S. City
(Washington, D.C.: D.C. Fiscal Policy Institute, 2004)
www.dcfpi.org/income-inequality-in-the-district-of-columbia-is-wider-than-in-any-major-us-city
5
Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Local Area Unemployment Statistics,” Accessed May 2010.
http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=LASST11000003 and
Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey,” Accessed May 2010.
www.bls.gov/cps/
6
Department of Employment Services, “Ward Unemployment Rates,” Accessed May 2010.
www.does.dc.gov/does/frames.asp?doc=/does/lib/does/SeptemberWards09.pdf
7
U.S. Census, “Income, Poverty and Health Insurance in the United States, 2008.”
www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/incpovhlth/2008/pov08fig03.pdf
8
D.C. Fiscal Policy Institute, Poverty on the Rise in the District: The Impact of Unemployment in 2009 and 2010
(Washington, D.C.: D.C. Fiscal Policy Institute, 2010). www.dcfpi.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/3-2410EstimatingPoverty2009.pdf
9
U.S. Census, “Income, Poverty and Health Insurance in the United States, 2008.”
10
D.C. Fiscal Policy Institute, Census Data Show No Major Changes in D.C. Poverty in 2008 Yet
Figures Reveal Large Disparities in Poverty between Different Population Groups (Washington, D.C.: D.C. Fiscal
Policy Institute, 2009). http://dcfpi.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/10-2-09ACSPovertyData.pdf
11
Neighborhood Info D.C., “Neighborhood Profiles: Council Wards,”
www.neighborhoodinfodc.org/wards/wards.html
12
National Poverty Center, “Poverty in the United States,” 2006. www.npc.umich.edu/poverty/
13
D.C. Fiscal Policy Institute, Census Data Show No Major Changes in D.C. Poverty in 2008 Yet
Figures Reveal Large Disparities in Poverty between Different Population Groups, 2009.
14
Ed Lazere, DC’s Two Economies: Many Residents Are Falling Behind Despite the City’s Revitalization (Washington,
D.C.: D.C. Fiscal Policy Institute, 2007). www.dcfpi.org/10-24-07dc.pdf
15
D.C. Fiscal Policy Institute, D.C. Poverty Demographics (Washington, D.C.: D.C. Fiscal Policy Institute, March
2009). http://dcfpi.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/poverty1.pdf
16
National Center for Children and Poverty, Low-income Children in the United States: National and State Trend
Data, 1998–2008 (New York, NY: 2009). www.nccp.org/publications/pdf/text_907.pdf
17
U.S. Census data: Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, www.census.gov
18
Vanessa R. Wight and others, Who Are America’s Poor Children? The Official Story (New York: National Center for
Children in Poverty, 2010). www.nccp.org/publications/pub_912.html
19
Cecilia Thomas, Supervisory Youth Outreach Coordinator, Roving Leaders Program. Interview by author.
Washington, D.C., April 5, 2010.
20
Rene Gornall, Development Coordinator, Time Dollar Youth Court. Interview by author. Washington, D.C., April
1, 2010.
21
David Muhammad, Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services. Interview by author. Washington, D.C., May 5,
2010.
22
See Justice Policy Institute, Pruning Prisons and Costs of Confinement, www.justicepolicy.org
23
National Association of State Budget Officers, State Expenditure Report 2008 (Washington, D.C.: NASBO, 2009).
www.nasbo.org
24
Metropolitan Police Department, Annual Report 2007 (Washington, DC: Metropolitan Police Department, 2007).
http://mpdc.dc.gov/mpdc/frames.asp?doc=/mpdc/lib/mpdc/publications/ar_2007.pdf; Metropolitan Police
Department, “Proposed FY2010 Budget for the Metropolitan Police Department,” April 1, 2009.
http://newsroom.dc.gov/show.aspx/agency/mpdc/section/4/release/16577/year/2009

63

25

D .C. Fiscal Policy Institute, What’s in the FY2010 Budget for Education? (Washington, D.C.: May 14, 2010)
www.dcfpi.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/FY11education3.pdf
26
D .C. Fiscal Policy Institute, What’s in the FY2010 Budget for Education?, 2010, Figure 1.
27
D.C. Fiscal Policy Institute, What’s in the Final FY2011 Budget? (Washington, D.C.: June 30, 2010) www.dcfpi.org
28
See Justice Policy Institute, Pruning Prisons and Costs of Confinement, www.justicepolicy.org
29
National Governors Association/National Association of State Budget Officers, Fiscal Survey of States, June 2010
(Washington, DC: June 2010) www.nga.org/Files/pdf/FSS1006.pdf
30
FBI Uniform Crime Report, Crime in the United States, 2008 (Washington, D.C.: FBI, 2009) Table 1A and 32.
www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm
31
Metropolitan Police Department, Annual Index Crime Totals 2001-2009,
http://mpdc.dc.gov/mpdc/cwp/view,a,1239,q,543315.asp
32
Metropolitan Police Department, Annual Report 2008 (Washington, D.C.: Metropolitan Police Department, 2009)
http://mpdc.dc.gov/mpdc/frames.asp?doc=/mpdc/lib/mpdc/publications/ar_2008_web.pdf
33
Metropolitan Police Department, Office of Research & Analytical Services, July 2010.
34
Bureau of Justice Statistics, “Results from State by State and National Trends Database,” Accessed June 2010.
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search/Crime/State/StateCrime.cfm
35
Metropolitan Police Department, “Mayor Fenty and Chief Lanier Announce Lowest Number of Homicides in Four
Decades,” January 1, 2010. http://newsroom.dc.gov/show.aspx/agency/mpdc/section/2/release/18919/year/2010
36
NOTE: On May 2, 2004, the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia (MPD) implemented a
major restructuring of its Police Service Areas (PSAs) following in-depth analysis, public discussions and City Council
review. The new structure was designed to enhance police services in District neighborhoods and increase
community involvement in targeting crime. MPD aimed to accomplish this by aligning the PSAs more closely with
DC neighborhoods, improving police coordination with other city services in addressing problems that affect crime,
and giving Commanders the staffing flexibility to fight crime more effectively at the neighborhood level. The
restructured plan reduced the number of PSAs from 83 to 44, thus creating new boundaries for all of the PSAs as
well as for five of the seven police districts. Since then, the PSAs have been expanded to 47. Source: PSA Boundary
Realignment Evaluation,
http://mpdc.dc.gov/mpdc/frames.asp?doc=/mpdc/lib/mpdc/about/units/rrd/psaboundaryrealignmentevaluation.
pdf
37
Metropolitan Police Department, Annual Index Crime Totals 2001-2009
38
Index crimes include: Homicide, Forcible Rape, Robbery, Aggravated Assault, Burglary, Larceny/Theft, Stolen
Auto, Arson (UCR data on Arson after 2005 are not currently available at the district level)
39
FBI Uniform Crime Report, Crime in the United States, 2008 (Washington, D.C.: FBI, 2009)
www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm
40
Philip Beatty, Amanda Petteruti, and Jason Ziedenberg, The Vortex: The Concentrated Racial Impact of Drug
Imprisonment and the Characteristics of Punitive Counties (Washington, D.C.: Justice Policy Institute, 2007).
41
Donald J. Black, “Production of Crime Rates,” American Sociological Review 34 (1970): 733–748.
42
Philip Beatty, Amanda Petteruti, and Jason Ziedenberg, The Vortex: The Concentrated Racial Impact of Drug
Imprisonment and the Characteristics of Punitive Counties (Washington, D.C.: Justice Policy Institute, 2007).
43
Metropolitan Police Department, Annual Report 2008
44
D.C. Metropolitan Police Department, Citywide Crime Statistics Annual Totals, 1993-2009,
http://mpdc.dc.gov/mpdc/cwp/view,a,1239,q,547256,mpdcNav_GID,1556.asp
45
Julia E. Brault, Female Arrest Trends in Washington, D.C.: 2001-2008 (Washington, D.C.: Metropolitan Police
Department, 2008). http://mpdc.dc.gov/mpdc/lib/mpdc/about/units/rrd/female_arrest_trends_website.pdf
46
Philip Fornaci, Executive Director, D.C. Prisoners’ Project. Interview by author. Washington, D.C., April 14, 2010.
47
Eric Lotke, “Hobbling a Generation: Young African American Men in Washington, D.C.'s Criminal Justice System—
Five Years Later,” Crime Delinquency 44, no. 3 (1998): 355-366
48
NOTE: A “technical violation” is when someone on probation or parole does not follow all the rules and
conditions of their community supervision, e.g. they miss an appointment, lose housing or a job, or fail a drug test.

64

49

Harry G. Levine and Deborah Peterson Small, Marijuana Arrest Crusade: Racial Bias and Police Policy in New York
City 1997-2007 (New York, NY: New York Civil Liberties Union, 2008). www.nyclu.org/files/MARIJUANA-ARRESTCRUSADE_Final.pdf
50
NOTE: excludes homicide arrests; For a list of all arrests by Public Safety Area (PSA) in the first 6 months of 2010,
please see Appendix 3. Metropolitan Police Department, Number of Adult and Juvenile Arrests (1/1-6/26/10)
(Washington, D.C.: MPD, 2010)
51
Allison Klein, “D.C. Police to Check Drivers in Violence-Plagued Trinidad,” Washington Post, June 5, 2008.
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/04/AR2008060402205.html
52
Metropolitan Police Department, Number of Adult and Juvenile Arrests (1/1-6/26/10) (Washington, D.C.: MPD,
2010) http://mpdc.dc.gov/mpdc/lib/mpdc/about/units/rrd/cjis/cjis_report_062610.pdf
53
Metropolitan Police Department, Office of Research & Analytical Services, July 2010.
54
See Appendix 1.
55
Metropolitan Police Department, Office of Research & Analytical Service.
56
FBI Uniform Crime Report, Crime in the United States, 2008 (Washington, D.C.: FBI, 2009)
www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm
57
Philadelphia Police Department, data request prepared for JPI, August 2010.
58
Metropolitan Police Department, Number of Adult and Juvenile Arrests (1/1-6/26/10), 2010.
59
Property offenses include arson, burglary, larceny/theft and unauthorized use of a vehicle (UUV).
60
Violent offenses include murder, rape, robbery/carjacking and aggravated assault.
61
Heather C. West, Prisoners at Yearend 2009–Advance Counts, Appendix Table 1. (Washington, D.C.: Bureau of
Justice Statistics, 2010) http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/py09ac.pdf
62
Todd D. Minton, Jail Inmates at Midyear 2009–Statistical Tables, Table 1. (Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice
Statistics, 2010) http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/jim09st.pdf
63
Bureau of Justice Statistics, “Key Facts at a Glance, Correctional Populations,” Accessed June 1, 2010.
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/tables/corr2tab.cfm
64
William J. Sabol and others, Prisoners in 2008 (Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2009).
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/p08.pdf
65
The Pew Center on the States, 1 in 31: The Long Reach of American Corrections (Washington, D.C.: Pew Public
Safety Performance Project, 2009).
www.pewcenteronthestates.org/uploadedFiles/PSPP_1in31_report_FINAL_WEB_3-26-09.pdf
66
D.C. Department of Corrections, Facts and Figures (Washington, D.C.: District of Columbia Department of
Corrections, 2010).
http://doc.dc.gov/doc/frames.asp?doc=/doc/lib/doc/populationstats/DCDepartmentofCorrectionsFactsnFiguresAp
r10.pdf
67
D.C. Prisoners Project, DC Prisoners: Issues for the Obama Administration (Washington, D.C.: Washington
Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs, 2009)
68
The Pew Center on the States, 1 in 31: The Long Reach of American Corrections, 2009.
69
D.C. Department of Corrections, Facts and Figures, 2010.
70
D.C. Prisoners Project, DC Prisoners: Issues for the Obama Administration (Washington, D.C.: Washington
Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs, 2009)
71
See Robert E. Pierre, “In Prison at the ‘End of the Earth,’” Washington Post, December 27, 2008.
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/26/AR2008122601972.html
72
Joseph P. Ryan and, Huilan Yang, “Family contact and recidivism: a longitudinal study of adjudicated delinquents
in residential care.” Social Work Research, Washington, DC: March 1, 2005
73
National Poverty Center, “Poverty in the United States,” 2006. www.npc.umich.edu/poverty/
74
D.C. Fiscal Policy Institute, Census Data Show No Major Changes in D.C. Poverty in 2008 Yet
Figures Reveal Large Disparities in Poverty between Different Population Groups, 2009.
75
Heather C. Westand and William J. Sabol, Prison Inmates at Midyear 2008-Statistical Tables (Washington, D.C.:
Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2008). http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/pim08st.pdf
76
D.C. Department of Corrections, Facts and Figures, 2010.
77
Federal Bureau of Prisons, March 31, 2010.

65

78

Correctional Populations in the United States, 1997, and Prisoners in 2005, Prisoners in 2006 (appendix table 5);
William J. Sabol and others, Prisoners in 2008, Table 7 (Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2009)
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/p08.pdf
79
William J. Sabol and others, Prisoners in 2008, 2009, Appendix Table 17.
80
Office of National Drug Control Policy, “Minorities and Drugs,” Accessed May 2010.
www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/drugfact/minorities/index.html
81
Human Rights Watch, Decades of Disparity (New York, NY: Human Rights Watch, 2009).
www.hrw.org/en/node/81110/
82
FBI Uniform Crime Report, Crime in the United States, 2008, 2009, Table 43A.
83
William J. Sabol and others, Prisoners in 2008, 2009, Table 7.
84
For more information, see Michelle Alexander, The New Jim Crow (New York: The New Press, 2010)
85
U.S. Sentencing Commission Preliminary Crack Cocaine Retroactivity Data Report, May 2010 Data.
www.ussc.gov/USSC_Crack_Retroactivity_Report_2010_May.pdf
86
Office of Defender Services, “Crack Cocaine Sentencing: Guideline Amendments and Elimination of
Crack/Powder Disparity,” www.fd.org/odstb_CrackCocaine.htm
87
DYRS custody includes home placement, Residential Treatment Center (RTC), jail, therapeutic group home,
abscondence, New Beginnings, group home, independent living, foster care, and PIW.
88
DYRS Research & Quality Assurance Division, October 1, 2009.
89
See Appendix 1
90
DYRS Research & Quality Assurance Division, October 1, 2009.
91
Melissa Sickmund and others, Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement Databook (Washington, D.C.: OJJDP,
2008) www.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/ojstatbb/cjrp/
92
Melissa Sickmund and others, 2008.
93
National Poverty Center, “Poverty in the United States,” 2006.
94
Bureau of Justice Statistics, Correctional Populations in the United States, 1997 (Washington, D.C.: Bureau of
Justice Statistics, 1997). http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/cpus9701.pdf; William J. Sabol and others,
Prisoners in 2008 (Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2008).
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/p08.pdf
95
William J. Sabol and others, Prisoners in 2008, 2009, Table 9.
96
Julia E. Brault, 2008. http://mpdc.dc.gov/mpdc/lib/mpdc/about/units/rrd/female_arrest_trends_website.pdf
97
Bureau of Prisons, March 31, 2010
98
William J. Sabol and others, Prisoners in 2008, 2009, Table 19.
99
Judith Greene and Kevin Pranis, The Punitiveness Report-Hard Hit: The Growth of the Imprisonment of Women,
1977-2004, (New York, NY: Women’s Prison Association, 2004).
www.wpaonline.org/institute/hardhit/part1.htm#np
100
William J. Sabol and others, Prisoners in 2008, 2009, Appendix Table 15.
101
William J. Sabol and others, Prisoners in 2008, 2009, Table 8.
102
Rebecca Project, “The Girl-Prison Pipeline: Sexual Violence, Girls and the Juvenile Justice System,” 2010.
www.rebeccaproject.org/images/stories/factsheets/Girls-FactSheet-3.pdf
103
Lauren Glaze and Laura M. Maruschak, Parents in Prison and Their Minor Children (Washington, D.C.: Bureau of
Justice Statistics, August 2008). http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/pptmc.pdf
104
Lauren Glaze and Laura M. Maruschak, 2008.
105
Lauren Glaze and Laura M. Maruschak, 2008.
106
U.S. Department of Health Human Services, “Reasonable Efforts and Safety Requirements for Foster Care and
Adoption Placements.”
www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/laws_policies/cblaws/public_law/pl105_89/pl105_89a1.htm#one
107
Public Defenders Office of D.C. Interview by author. Washington, D.C., April 27, 2010.
108
Elizabeth J. Mueller and J. Rosie Tighe, “Making the case for affordable housing: Connecting housing with health
and education outcome,” Journal of Planning Literature 21, no. 4 (2007).

66

109

D.C. Fiscal Policy Institute, Nowhere to Go: As DC Housing Costs Rise, Residents Are Left with Fewer Available
Housing Options (Washington, D.C.: D.C. Fiscal Policy Institute, 2010). www.dcfpi.org/wpcontent/uploads/2010/02/2-5-10housing1.pdf
110
NeighborhoodinfoDC, “District of Columbia Housing Monitor, Spring 2009,”
www.neighborhoodinfodc.org/housing/DCHousingMonitor_2009_2/
111
D.C. Fiscal Policy Institute, Meeting DC’s Challenges, Maintaining Fiscal Discipline: Preserving and Expanding
Affordable Housing (Washington DC: DC Fiscal Policy Institute, 2007). www.dcfpi.org/preserving-and-expandingaffordable-housing
112
Bay Area Economics, Ward 8 Comprehensive Housing Analysis Washington, D.C. (Bay Area Economics-Prepared
for the D.C. Office of Planning; Washington, D.C., August 2008).
www.cnhed.org/download/123321_U127242__742768/Ward%208%20Housing%20Data%20Report2.pdf
113
D.C. Fiscal Policy Institute, Nowhere to Go: As DC Housing Costs Rise, Residents Are Left with Fewer Available
Housing Options, 2010.
114
U.S. Census Bureau, “2005-2007 American Community Survey,” www.census.gov/acs/www/
115
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and U.S. Department of Commerce, “American Housing
Survey for the Washington Metropolitan Area: 2007,” Current Housing Report, February 2009: 114.
www.census.gov/prod/2009pubs/h170-07-18.pdf
116
D.C. Fiscal Policy Institute, Nowhere to Go: As DC Housing Costs Rise, Residents Are Left with Fewer Available
Housing Options, 2010.
117
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s definition of affordability is for a household to pay
no more than 30 percent of its annual income on housing. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development,
“Affordable Housing,” June 8, 2010. www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/affordablehousing/
118
D.C. Fiscal Policy Institute, Nowhere to Go: As DC Housing Costs Rise, Residents Are Left With Fewer Affordable
Housing Options, 2010.
119
Bay Area Economics, 2008.
120
Robert I. Lerman and Signe-Mary McKernan, “Promoting Neighborhood Improvement while Protecting LowIncome Families,” The Urban Institute: Opportunity and Ownership, no.2 (May 2008): 1.
121
District of Columbia Housing Monitor, Loss of Active Section 8 Multi-Family Housing in D.C: Preservation
Summary, Winter 2008 (Washington, D.C.: District of Columbia Housing Monitor, 2008)
www.neighborhoodinfodc.org/housing/S8Summary_2008_1.pdf
122
NPR News, “Atlanta Housing Shortage Sparks Desperation, Chaos.”
www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129179066
123
“Low-income housing group to meet here,” February 16, 2010.
www.demopolistimes.com/2010/02/16/low-income-housing-group-to-meet-here/
124
Transcript from NPR, “Affordable Housing Dwindles As Need Grows,”
www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129233128
125
Transportation for America and the Transportation Equity Network, Stranded at the Station: The Impact of the
Financial Crisis on Public Transportation (August 2009).
www.thestrategycenter.org/sites/www.thestrategycenter.org/files/T4_Stranded_at_the_Station_REPORT_v2.pdf
126
Children’s HealthWatch Medical-Legal Partnership, Rx for Hunger (Boston: Children’s HealthWatch MedicalLegal Partnership, 2009). www.medicallegalpartnership.org/sites/default/files/page/Rx%20for%20Hunger%282%29.pdf
127
U.S. Office of Housing and Urban Development, “2009 Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress.”
(Washington, D.C.: June 2010) www.hudhre.info/documents/5thHomelessAssessmentReport.pdf
128
Meghan Henry and M William Sermons, The Geography of Homelessness (Washington, D.C.: National Alliance to
End Homelessness and the Homelessness Research Institute, 2010)
www.endhomelessness.org/content/article/detail/3001
129
U.S. Office of Housing and Urban Development, 2010.
130
National Coalition for the Homeless and the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty, Homes not
Handcuffs: The Criminalization of Homelessness in U.S. Cities, (Washington, D.C.: National Coalition for the
Homeless and the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty, July 2009): 14.

67

www.nationalhomeless.org/publications/crimreport/CrimzReport_2009.pdf; U.S. Conference of Mayors, Hunger
and Homelessness Survey: A Status Report on Hunger and Homelessness in America’s Cities, A 25-City Survey,
(Washington, D.C.: The U.S. Conference of Mayors, December 2008).
www.usmayors.org/pressreleases/documents/hungerhomelessnessreport_121208.pdf
131
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, The Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress,
2007 (Washington, D.C.: Office of Community Planning and Development, 2007)
www.huduser.org/Publications/pdf/ahar.pdf
132
The Washington Legal Clinic for the Homeless, Homelessness and Poverty: Washington, DC (Washington, DC:
The Washington Legal Clinic for the Homeless, 2010). www.legalclinic.org/about/facts.pdf
133
Meghan Henry and M William Sermons, 2010, Appendix A.
134
The Washington Legal Clinic for the Homeless, 2010.
135
The Homeless Services Planning and Coordinating Committee, The 2009 Count of Homeless Persons in Shelters
and on the Streets in Metropolitan Washington (Washington, D.C.: The Metropolitan Washington Council of
Governments, 2009). www.mwcog.org/uploads/pub-documents/zVZeVw20090513103355.pdf
136
Anthony A. Williams and Neil O. Albert, A Strategy for Ending Homelessness in Washington D.C. by 2014
(Washington, D.C.: National Alliance to End Homelessness, 2004).
www.endhomelessness.org/content/article/detail/593/
137
U.S. Office of Housing and Urban Development, 2010.
138
Kari Huus, “Tidal Wave of Homelessness,” Msnbc.com, March 2, 2009.
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29356160/ns/us_news-education/page/2/
139
National Coalition for the Homeless and the National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty, A Dream Denied:
The Criminalization of Homelessness in U.S. Cities (2006)
www.nationalhomeless.org/publications/crimreport/report.pdf
140
Office of Housing and Urban Development, “Homelessness: Programs and the People They Serve,” Chapter 2,
December 1999, www.huduser.org/portal/publications/homeless/homelessness/contents.html
141
Dale E. McNiel and others, “Incarceration Associated with Homelessness, Mental Disorder, and Co-occurring
Substance Abuse,” Psychiatric Services 56, (July 2005): 842-843.
http://ps.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/56/7/840
142
Dale E. McNiel and others, 2005.
http://ps.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/56/7/840
143
Justice Policy Institute, Employment, Wages and Public Safety (Washington, D.C.: Justice Policy Institute, 2007).
144
After Prison: Roadblocks to Reentry, A Report on State Legal Barriers Facing People with Criminal Records (New
York: Legal Action Center, 2004). www.lac.org/roadblocks-to-reentry/upload/lacreport/LAC_PrintReport.pdf
145
Amy L. Solomon and others, Outside the Walls: A National Snapshot of Community-Based Prisoner Reentry
Programs (Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute). www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/410911_OTWResourceGuide.pdf
146
District of Columbia Municipal Regulations,” Title 14: Housing,”
http://os.dc.gov/os/frames.asp?doc=/os/lib/os/info/odai/title_14/61.pdf
147
National Alliance to End Homelessness, The Cost of Homelessness, March 2010.
www.endhomelessness.org/section/tools/tenyearplan/cost
148
Lewin Group, Costs of Serving Homeless Individuals in Nine Cities, (Washington, D.C.: Lewin Group, December
19, 2004): 1. http://documents.csh.org/documents/ke/csh_lewin2004.PDF
149
Lewin Group, 2004.
150
Melany Mondello and others, The Cost of Homelessness: A Cost Analysis of Permanent Supportive Housing
(Portland, Maine: Shalom House Inc and others, 2007)
www.mainehousing.org/Documents/HousingReports/CostOfHomelessness.pdf
151
Justice Policy Institute, Education and Public Safety (Washington, D.C.: Justice Policy Institute, 2007).
http://justicepolicy.org/content-hmID=1811&smID=1581&ssmID=61.htm
152
Justice Policy Institute, Effective Investments in Public Safety: Education (Washington, D.C.: 2007).
http://justicepolicy.org/images/upload/07-02_FAC_Education_AC-PS.pdf
153
Robert G. Lynch, Enriching Children, Enriching the Nation: Public Investment in High Quality Prekindergarten,
(Washington, D.C.: Economic Policy Institute, 2007). www.epi.org/publications/entry/book_enriching/

68

154

Justice Policy Institute, Education and Public Safety, 2007.
Alliance for Excellent Education, Saving Futures, Saving Dollars: The Impact of Education on Crime Reduction
and Earnings (Washington, D.C.: Alliance for Excellent Education, 2006).
www.all4ed.org/publications/SavingFutures.pdf
156
Mary Jo Melone, “Does prison spending shackle schools and crime prevention?” Posted March 2010
http://floridathinks.com/florida-issues/florida-issues/does-prison-spending-shackle-schools-and-crime-prevention/
157
National Center for Education Statistics, “Numbers and Types of Elementary and Secondary Schools from the
Common Core of Data: School Year 2008-2009, First Look: D.C.” http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2010/2010345.pdf
158
National Center for Educational Statistics, “Special Analysis 2010: High Poverty Schools.”
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/2010/analysis/index.asp
159
Department of Employment Services, 2010.
160
These numbers include federal, state and local expenditures. Bureau of Justice Statistics, “Direct Expenditures
by Criminal Justice Function, 1982-2006,” April 2010.
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/tables/exptyptab.cfm
161
The Pew Center on the States, “Congressional Leaders Take on Recidivism and Corrections Spending,” January
27, 2010. www.pewcenteronthestates.org/news_room_detail.aspx?id=56979
162
National Association of State Budget Officers, State Expenditure Reports (Washington, D.C.: NASBO, 2009)
www.nasbo.org
163
Bureau of Justice Statistics, Key Facts at a Glance: Direct Expenditures by Criminal Justice Function, 1982-2006.
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/tables/exptyptab.cfm
164
U.S. Department of Education, “Amount and percentage distribution of direct general expenditures of state and
local governments, by function: Selected years, 1970-71 through 2005-06,” Table 28, 2008.
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d09/tables/dt09_028.asp
165
U.S. Department of Education, “Literacy Behind Bars: Results From the 2003 National Assessment of Adult
Literacy Prison Survey,” 2007. http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2007/2007473.pdf
166
D.C. Department of Corrections, 2010.
167
U.S. Department of Education, “Highlights From PISA 2006: Performance of U.S. 15-Year-Old Students in Science
and Mathematics Literacy in an International Context,” 2006, http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2008/2008016.pdf
168
U.S. Department of Education, “Highlights From PISA 2006: Performance of U.S. 15-Year-Old Students in Science
and Mathematics Literacy in an International Context,” 2006.
169
D.C. Public Schools, “Facts and Statistics,”
http://dcps.dc.gov/DCPS/About+DCPS/Who+We+Are/Facts+and+Statistics
170
th
DCPS 4 grade students’ scores improved by an average of 8 points from 2005 to 2009.
171
U.S. Department of Education, The Nation’s Report Card: Mathematics 2009 Snapshot State Report
(Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics, 2009).
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/stt2009/2010454DC4.pdf
172
Editorial Projects in Education Research Center, Quality Counts at 10: A Decade of Standards-Based Education
(Bethesda, MD: Editorial Projects in Education Research Center, 2006).
www.edweek.org/media/ew/qc/2006/17shr.dc.h25.pdf
173
Robert Stillwell, Public School Graduates and Dropouts from the Common Core of Data: School Year 2007-08:
First Look (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for
Education Statistics, 2010). http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2010/2010341.pdf
174
Editorial Projects in Education Research Center, 2006. www.edweek.org/media/ew/qc/2006/17shr.dc.h25.pdf
175
U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics National
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009 Reading Assessment, (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Education, 2009) http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/dst2009/2010459.pdf
176
District of Columbia Public Schools, Office of Data and Accountability, July 14, 2010
177
The Southern Education Foundation, The Worst of Times: Children in Extreme Poverty in the South and the
Nation. (Atlanta: 2010). www.southerneducation.org/pdf/TWOT-Extreme%20Child%20Poverty%20Rpt-Final.pdf
155

69

178

U.S. Department of Education, The Condition of Education 2010: Special Analysis, High Poverty Schools
(Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics, May 2010.)
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/2010/analysis/index.asp
179
Southern Poverty Law Center, “SPLC Launches 'School to Prison Reform Project' to Help At-Risk Children Get
Special Education Services, Avoid Incarceration,” September 2007.
www.splcenter.org/get-informed/news/splc-launches-school-to-prison-reform-project-to-help-at-risk-childrenget-special
180
M. M. Quinn and others, “Youth with disabilities in juvenile corrections: A national survey,” The Council for
Exceptional Children 71, no. 3 (2005): 339-345. www.neglected-delinquent.org/nd/docs/mquinn0305.pdf (For
more information see http://cjjr.georgetown.edu/pdfs/ed/edpaper.pdf)
181
D.C. Public Schools, D.C Public Schools FY09 Mid-Year Revised Budget All Funds by Program and Activity
(Washington, D.C.: D.C. Public Schools, March 2009). www.dcps.dc.gov/downloads/ABOUT%20DCPS/Budget%20%20Finance/FY10%20documents/DCPS-BUDGET-REVISED-FY09-BUDGET-BY-PROG-APRIL-2009.pdf.
182
Dan Keating and V. Dion Haynes, “Special-Ed Tuition a Growing Drain on D.C.” Washington Post, June 5, 2006.
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/04/AR2006060400973_2.html
183
Bill Turque, “Special Education Still Lags in District,” Washington Post, September 3, 2008.
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/02/AR2008090201615.html
184
Dan Keating and V. Dion Haynes, 2006.
185
Bill Turque, 2008.
186
Augenblick, Palaich and Associates, Inc., Costing out the Resources Needed to Meet Pennsylvania’s Special
Education Goals (Denver, Colorado: 2009). www.thearcpa.org/images/Final%20Costing%20Out%20-%200209.pdf
187
Chantelle Lusebrink, “State Supreme Court hears oral arguments in school’s special education funding suit,” The
Sammamish Review, July 7, 2010.
http://sammamishreview.com/2010/07/07/state-supreme-court-hears-oral-arguments-in-school%E2%80%99sspecial-education-funding-suit
188
The Afterschool Alliance, Afterschool Issue Overview (Washington, D.C.: The Afterschool Alliance, August 2009).
www.afterschoolalliance.org/Research%20Factsheets%202010/Fact_Sheet_Afterschool_Essential_3_22_2010.pdf
189
Howard N. Snyder and Melissa Sickmund, Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report (Washington,
D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2006).
http://ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/ojstatbb/nr2006/downloads/NR2006.pdf
190
National Institute on Out-of-School Time at the Wellesley Centers for Women at Wellesley College, Making the
Case: A 2009 Fact Sheet on Children and Youth In Out-of-School Time (Wellesley, MA: National Institute on Out-ofSchool Time at the Wellesley Centers for Women at Wellesley College, 2009).
www.niost.org/pdf/factsheet2009.pdf
191
SAMHSA, The National Survey on Drug Use and Health Report: Youth Activities, Substance Use, and Family
Income (Washington, D.C.: SAMHSA, 2007). www.oas.samhsa.gov/2k7/youthActs/youthActs.htm
192
The National Summer Learning Association, Summer Can Set Kids on the Right—or Wrong—Course (Baltimore,
MD: The National Summer Learning Association, 2007). www.summerlearning.org/resource/collection/CB94AEC59C97-496F-B230-1BECDFC2DF8B/Research_Brief_02_-_Alexander.pdf
193
David Muhammad, Youth Rehabilitation Services. Interview by author. Washington, D.C., May 5, 2010.
194
Carolyn Dallas, Executive Director, Time Dollar Youth Courts. Interview by author. Washington D.C., April 1,
2010.
195
The Sentencing Project, Incarcerated Parents and their Children: Trends 1991-2007 (Washington, D.C.:
Sentencing Project, 2009). www.sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/publications/inc_incarceratedparents.pdf
196
Creasie Finney Hairston, Focus on Children of Incarcerated Parents (Baltimore, MD: Annie E. Casey Foundation,
2007). www.aecf.org/KnowledgeCenter/SpecialInterestAreas/ChildreWithIncarceratedParents.aspx.
197
Carolyn Dallas, 2010.
198
Richard Mendel, Youth Crime and Community Development: A Guide for Collaborative Action (Columbia, MD:
The Enterprise Foundation, 2003).
www.eric.ed.gov:80/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_
SearchValue_0=ED482413&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED482413

70

199

Richard Mendel, 2003.
J.P. Tierney and others, Making a Difference: An Impact Study of Big Brothers Big Sisters (Philadelphia, PA:
Public/Private Ventures, 2000). www.ppv.org/ppv/publications/assets/111_publication.pdf
201
Eduardo Ferrer, Chief Operating Officer, D.C. Lawyers for Youth. Interview by author. Washington, D.C., April 12,
2010.
202
KIPP Schools, “About KIPP,” www.kipp.org/about-kipp/results
203
Track D.C., “DHCD,” http://track.dc.gov/Agency/DB0
204
Patrick Michels, “Talking Streets, Parks and Pools at Last Night’s Budget Town Hall at the Flight Museum,” Dallas
Observer, August 25, 2010.
http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2010/08/angela_hunts_budget_town_hall.php
205
City of Baltimore, Fiscal Year 2011 Agency Detail,
www.baltimorecity.gov/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=d6GW7HzAShY%3d&tabid=215&mid=526
206
Julie Scharper, “Council calls off emergency meeting on pools,” The Baltimore Sun, August 12, 2010.
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2010-08-12/news/bs-md-pools-reopen-20100812_1_pools-part-of-budget-cutsemergency-meeting
207
National Institute of Mental Health, “The Numbers Count: Mental Disorders in America,” June 3, 2010.
www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/the-numbers-count-mental-disorders-in-america/index.shtml#Intro; Doris
J. James and Lauren E. Glaze, Mental Health Problems of Prison and Jail Inmates (Washington D.C.: U.S. Bureau of
Justice Statistics, September 2006). http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/mhppji.pdf
208
Donna Willmott and Juliana van Olphen, “Challenging the Health Impacts of Incarceration: The Role for
Community Health Workers,” Californian Journal of Health Promotion 3, no. 2 (2005): 38-48.
www.csuchico.edu/cjhp/3/2/38-48-willmott.pdf
209
Christopher G. Hudson, PhD., “Socioeconomic Status and Mental Illness: Tests of the
Social Causation and Selection Hypotheses,” American Journal of Orthopsychiatry Vol. 75, No. 1 (2005): 3–18.
210
Center for Disease Control and Prevention, “Health Insurance Coverage,” April 2, 2009.
www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/hinsure.htm
211
The Kaiser Family Foundation, “Health Insurance Coverage in the United States, 2008.”
http://facts.kff.org/chart.aspx?cb=57&sctn=160&ch=1259
212
Children’s Defense Fund, “Racial and Ethnic Disparities,” Accessed March 2010.
www.childrensdefense.org/helping-americas-children/childrens-health/racial-ethnic-disparities.html
213
Ed Lazere, Good News About Health Insurance Coverage in DC: Census Data Show DC’s Uninsured Rate Has
Dropped and Is One of the Lowest in the U.S (Washington, D.C.: D.C. Fiscal Policy Institute, September 2009).
www.dcfpi.org/good-news-about-health-insurance-coverage-in-dc-census-data-show-dc%e2%80%99s-uninsuredrate-has-dropped-and-is-one-of-the-lowest-in-the-u-s
214
Kaiser Family State Health Facts, “District of Columbia Non Elderly Uninsured,” 2008.
www.statehealthfacts.org/profileind.jsp?cat=3&sub=40&rgn=10 and U.S. Census Bureau, “State and County
Quickfacts: District of Columbia,” Accessed May 2010. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/11000.html
215
Jennifer King and the State Planning Grant team, Insurance and Uninsurance in the District of Columbia: Starting
with the Numbers (Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute, 2003)
www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/311234_insurance_uninsurance.pdf
216
Alison A. Galbraith and others, “Out-of-Pocket Financial Burden for Low-Income Families with Children:
Socioeconomic Disparities and Effects of Insurance,” Health Services Research 40, no. 6 (2005): 17-29.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1361224/
217
Jessica S. Banthin and Didem M. Bernard, “Changes in Financial Burdens for Health Care: National Estimates for
the Population Younger Than 65 Years, 1996 to 2003,” The Journal of the American Medical Association 296, no. 92
(December, 2006): 2714. http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/296/22/2712
218
Cecilia Thomas, Supervisory Youth Outreach Coordinator, Roving Leaders Program for Teens. Interview by
author. Washington, D.C., April 5, 2010.
219
National Institute of Mental Health, 2010.
220
American Psychological Association, “African Americans Have Limited Access to Mental and Behavioral Health
Care,” 2010. www.apa.org/about/gr/issues/minority/access.aspx
200

71

221

The National Academies, Preventing Mental, Emotional, and Behavioral Disorders in Young People: Progress
and Possibilities (Washington, D.C.: The National Academies, March 2009).
www.bocyf.org/prevention_researchers_brief.pdf
222
Doris J. James and Lauren E. Glaze, Mental Health Problems of Prison and Jail Inmates (Washington D.C.: Bureau
of Justice Statistics, September 2006). http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/mhppji.pdf
223
Track D.C., “DMH,” http://track.dc.gov/Agency/RM0
224
D.C. Behavioral Health Association, Press Release, “Press Availability and Comment on Nixon-Peabody Report to
the Committee on Health on Youth Mental Health Needs: Keep Kids and Communities Safe by Addressing their
Mental Health Needs, and Eliminate the Barriers to Access,” July 8, 2010.
225
D.C. Behavioral Health Association, 2010.
226
National Center for Mental Health and Juvenile Justice, Mental Health Screening within Juvenile Justice: The
Next Frontier (Washington, D.C.: National Center for Mental Health and Juvenile Justice, November 2007).
www.modelsforchange.net/publications/198
227
U.S. General Accounting Office, Child Welfare and Juvenile Justice (Washington, D.C.: U.S. General Accounting
Office, April 2003). www.gao.gov/new.items/d03397.pdf
228
DG Kilpatrick and others, “Violence and risk of PTSD, major depression, substance abuse/dependence, and
comorbidity: Results from the National Survey of Adolescents,” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 71,
no.4 (2003): 692-700; Sprague, C. Informing Judges about Child Trauma. NCTSN Service System Briefs.
229
GS Goodman and others, “Child maltreatment and memory,” Annual Review of Psychology 61 (2009): 325-351
230
Ted Lutterman, “State Mental Health Division Budget Reductions.” Presentation given to NASMHPD
Commissioners Meeting, December 2009, received from NASMHPD staff.
231
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration,
Office of Applied Studies, Results from the 2008 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: National Findings,
“Figure 7.1: Substance Dependence or Abuse in the Past Year among Persons Aged 12 or Older: 2002-2008”
(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration, Office of Applied Studies, 2008). www.oas.samhsa.gov/nsduh/2k8nsduh/2k8Results.cfm#7.1
232
SAMHSA Office of Applied Studies, “Substance Use Treatment Need and Receipt among People Living in
Poverty,” January 14, 2010. www.oas.samhsa.gov/2k10/173/173Poverty.cfm
233
Christopher J Mumola and others, Drug Use and Dependence, State and Federal Prisoners, 2004 (Washington,
D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2006). www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/dudsfp04.pdf
234
National Institute on Drug Abuse, “Treating Offenders with Drug Problems: Integrating Public Health and Public
Safety,” March 2009. www.nida.nih.gov/tib/drugs_crime.html
235
The TEDS Report, “Substance Abuse Treatment Admissions Referred by the Criminal Justice System,” August 13,
2009. www.oas.samhsa.gov/2k9/211/211CJadmits2k9.htm
236
Office of National Drug Control Policy: Drug Policy Information Clearinghouse, “Washington, D.C.: Profile of
Drug Indicators,” August 2008. www.ondcp.gov/statelocal/dc/dc.pdf
237
U.S. Service Administration for Mental Health and Substance Abuse, 2008 National Survey of Drug Use and
Health (Washington, D.C.: 2009) www.oas.samhsa.gov/nsduh/2k8nsduh/2k8Results.cfm#7.3
238
Neighborhood Info D.C.; Department of Health and Human Services, Substate Estimates from the 2004-2006
National Surveys on Drug Use and Health (Department of Health and Human Services; Washington, D.C., 2008).
www.oas.samhsa.gov/substate2k8/substate.pdf
239
Court Service and Offender Supervision Agency, “Mental Health Fact Sheet Substance Abuse and Treatment
Branch (SATB), Community Supervision Services Re-Entry and Sanctions Center (RSC), Office of Community Justice
Programs,” www.csosa.gov/newsmedia/factsheets/mental-health.pdf
240
Willa Butler and Veronica Powell, Female Probationers/Parolees under CSOSA and National Supervision
(Washington, D.C.: Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency, 2007).
www.mmsend1.com/ls.cfm?r=193559349&sid=9435482&m=1001682&u=ICCA&s=http://images.magnetmail.net/i
mages/clients/ICCA/attach/Female_Probationers_CSOSA.doc
241
D.C. Department of Health, “District of Columbia Receives $10.6 Million Grant for Substance Abuse Prevention,”
June 29, 2010. http://newsroom.dc.gov/show.aspx/agency/doh/section/2/release/20135

72

242

Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Local Area Unemployment Statistics,” 2010; Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Labor Force
Statistics from the Current Population Survey,” Accessed May 2010. www.bls.gov/cps/
243
Department of Employment Services, “Ward Unemployment Rates,” Accessed May 2010.
www.does.dc.gov/does/frames.asp?doc=/does/lib/does/SeptemberWards09.pdf
244
See Appendix 1
245
Justice Policy Institute, Employment Wages and Public Safety Brief, (Washington, D.C.: Justice Policy Institute,
2007). http://justicepolicy.org/images/upload/07_10_REP_EmploymentAndPublicSafety_AC.pdf
246
Richard B. Freeman and Joel Rogers, What Workers Want (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1999)
247
Doris J. James, Profile of jail inmates, 2002 (Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2004).
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/pji02.pdf; Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Labor Force Statistics from the
Current Population Survey,” 2010.
248
Doris J. James, 2004.
249
Richard B. Freeman “Employment and earnings of disadvantaged young men in a labor shortage economy,” in
The Urban Underclass (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 1991).
250
Reverend Stephen Tucker, Pastor, New Commandment Baptist Church. Interview by author. Washington, D.C.,
April 7, 2010.
251
William Schweke, Smart Money: Education and Economic Development (Washington, D.C.: Economic Policy
Institute, 2004). www.dcfpi.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/2-5-10housing1.pdf
252
Justice Policy Institute, Employment Wages and Public Safety Brief, 2007.
253
National Youth Employment Coalition, letter to House Committee on Ways and Means, May 20, 2010.
www.nyec.org/content/documents/ FinalHR4213YouthEmploymentLetterMay2010SignOn.pdf
254
Superior Court of the District of Columbia: Family Court, “Annual Report to
Congress, Family Court, 2005,” www.dccourts.gov; Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Table: Employment status of the
civilian noninstitutional population in states by sex, race, Hispanic or Latino ethnicity, marital status, and detailed
age,” Accessed March 28, 2006. www.bls.gov/lau/
255
D.C. Alliance of Youth Advocates, Recommendations to Improve the DC Summer Youth Employment Program
(Washington, D.C.: D.C. Alliance of Youth Advocates, 2009). www.dcaya.org/documents/RecommendationsSYEP2008.pdf

73