MOVING TOWARD A MORE
INTEGRATIVE APPROACH
TO JUSTICE REFORM
________________________________________________

POLICY REPORT
________________________________________________

“Behind the Cycle” is a project of the
Open Society Institute – Washington, D.C.

February 2008

draft advance copy- Not to be distributed

__________________________________________________________
This report was written by Catherine V. Beane,
Principal of Beane Consulting.
For further information:
Beane Consulting
1818 Dublin Street
New Orleans, LA 70118
(202)270-4944
www.beaneconsulting.com

Nkechi Taifa
Open Society Institute- DC
1120 19th Street, NW, 8th Fl.
Washington, DC 20036
(202)721-5600
http://www.soros.org/initiati

Beane Consulting provides facilitation, policy
advocacy, and leadership development services
to nonprofit organizations and public service
agencies. Beane Consulting works with people
and organizations across the country who share
our commitment to the values of justice,
community service, and equal opportunity for
all, especially those marginalized by political,
social, and economic disparities. Working
together, we build programs, expand leadership
skills, and achieve policy goals.

The Open Society Institute works to build
vibrant and tolerant democracies whose
governments are accountable to their citizens.
To achieve its mission, OSI seeks to shape
public policies that assure greater fairness in
political, legal, and economic systems and
safeguard fundamental rights. On a local level,
OSI implements a range of initiatives to
advance justice, education, public health, and
independent media. OSI places a high priority
on protecting and improving the lives of
marginalized people and communities.

ves/washington/

draft advance copy- Not to be distributed

ii

FOREWARD/PREFACE________________________________________
TO BE INSERTED-

draft advance copy- Not to be distributed

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS________________________________________
SECTION

PAGE
Executive Summary

2

I.

Introduction

4

II.

America’s Cycle of Incarceration:
What It Looks Like, Who It Impacts, & What Fuels It

10

III. Understanding Risk Factors for Delinquent Behavior & Criminal Conduct

19

IV. Decreasing the Risk of Delinquent Behavior and Criminal Conduct:
Intervening Early to Promote Protective Factors and Build Resilience

34

V.

Integrative Approaches To Justice Reform: Identifying Opportunities &
Overcoming Challenges

VI. Moving Forward: Recommendations & Conclusion

51
62

Appendices:
A. Individuals Interviewed

70

B. Participants in Interdisciplinary Discussion & Strategy Session

72

C. Summary of Risk and Protective Factors for Delinquent Behavior and
Criminal Conduct

73

draft advance copy- Not to be distributed

1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A defining characteristic of America’s criminal justice system is its disproportionate impact
on the poor and people of color, particularly young men of color. Profound connections exist
between what has been called a “cycle of incarceration” and such unaddressed social conditions
as education, economic opportunity, housing, poverty, race, and health. This cycle of
incarceration is fueled by criminal justice policies that emphasize incarceration over the kinds of
human service interventions that address the individual, family, school, and environmental risk
factors for delinquent or criminal behavior.
This report posits that in order to make real progress in breaking the cycle of incarceration,
advocates, researchers, service providers, and academics need to break out of their disciplinary
silos, share information, and develop collaborative approaches to abate the disproportionate
numbers of the poor and people of color entering into and cycling through the criminal justice
system. This report presents a vision of an integrative approach to justice reform – an approach
that utilizes multi-disciplinary collaboration to share perspectives on the issues that fuel the cycle
of incarceration, to promote public investments in effective intervention strategies, and to
advance public safety by decreasing the likelihood that a person will engage in risky or criminal
behavior, instead of building more prisons and jails. A more integrative approach to
policymaking and resource allocation would help to ensure that the limited pool of available
public resources are used most effectively to address the issues of poverty, race, economic
opportunity, education, family, and housing inherent in the cycle of incarceration.
After framing the issues this project seeks to address and describing the methodology utilized
(Chapter 1), this report sets forth a detailed description of America’s cycle of incarceration,
examining the roles of race and concentrated poverty in that cycle (Chapter 2), and the risk and
protective factors that impact the likelihood that a person will engage in criminal conduct
(Chapters 3 and 4). This report next sets forth conceptual approaches that have been developed
to understand the cycle of incarceration and its impact on communities, as well as strategies that
have been utilized successfully to build policymaker support for effective crime prevention
strategies – investing in human service interventions and other programs rather than building
more prisons and jails (Chapter 4). This report then discusses opportunities for moving toward a
more integrative approach to justice reform, and the challenges that are implicit in collaborating

draft advance copy- Not to be distributed

2

across disciplines (Chapter 5). Finally, this report evaluates potential next steps and makes
recommendations for moving toward a more integrative approach to justice reform (Chapter 6).
These recommendations include:
•

Establish an ongoing, interdisciplinary “Behind the Cycle” working group to further
refine the ideas set forth in this report.

•

Continue interdisciplinary outreach to expand participation in the working group.

•

Circulate report and solicit endorsements for the concept of moving toward a more
integrative approach to justice reform from organizations across multiple disciplines.

•

Identify policy issues for interdisciplinary collaboration, research, and advocacy.

•

Promote the utilization of integrative approaches to justice reform issues.
o Convene a multi-disciplinary gathering in the Fall of 2008 to promote the
integrative approach to justice reform.
o Disseminate information about integrative approaches to policy advocacy and
integrative approaches to policy making.

•

Advocate for the appointment of a National Advisor to the President on Poverty and
Justice Issues.

•

Convene a National Blue Ribbon Commission on Poverty and the Cycle of Incarceration.

•

Develop funding strategies to support integrative approaches to justice reform.

Implementation of the recommendations proposed in this report provides a means of seeding and
energizing a new movement to promote more effective approaches to criminal justice issues, to
address significant budgetary challenges, and to respond to the significant social policy and
human service needs that exist in communities across America.

draft advance copy- Not to be distributed

3

I.

INTRODUCTION
America’s criminal justice system is marked by what has been described as a “cycle of

incarceration” – a clearly discernible pattern of disproportionate numbers of the poor and people
of color, particularly young men of color, entering into and cycling through the criminal justice
system. All too often, one’s life opportunities after incarceration are so limited that recidivism is
the inevitable outcome. This cycle of incarceration is deeply embedded in communities across
America plagued by concentrated poverty, inadequate education, substance abuse, racial tension,
unemployment, insufficient housing, and poor health outcomes. As one commentator has
remarked, “[T]he national approach to solving social and economic problems in low-income
communities of color in the United States has essentially become one of massive investment in a
criminal justice apparatus that imposes punishment at record levels while draining resources
from community-strengthening investments.”i
A wealth of social science research supports what many intuitively grasp: profound
connections exist between unaddressed social conditions and this cycle of incarceration. Crime
has been described as “the outcome of the interaction of a constellation of factors”ii – interrelated
factors that cross the artificial boundaries of issue area, academic discipline, agency jurisdiction,
and governmental structure. Crime is not the result of a single event or circumstance, nor can it
be prevented by an isolated policy change or a singularly-focused intervention devoid of the
broader, interrelated context.
Despite this, many advocates, researchers, academics, and direct service providers operate in
disciplinary silos when it comes to criminal justice. Some rarely discuss issues with peers
outside their own areas of training and expertise, others are not aware of the connections between
their issues and criminal justice, and still others simply are not comfortable with the language
and culture of lawyers and the criminal justice system. Even when it occurs to us to break out of
our silos, we simply do not know how to do it: we lack the institutional mechanisms to support
information sharing and interdisciplinary collaboration, and we lack models of success to guide
us in creating them. Institutional inertia keeps us doing things the same way we have always
done them instead of charting a different course. We frequently are forced to compete with each
other for limited resources, which in turn creates a dynamic that further inhibits information

draft advance copy- Not to be distributed

4

sharing and collaboration. And at times, our roles and responsibilities with regard to the criminal
justice system conflict in ways that impede consensus and trust.
In some areas, however, the seeds are being sewn for a different, more integrative approach
to justice issues. Criminal justice advocates have focused significant attention over the past
several years on the issue of reentry, partnering with community based organizations, churches,
mental health providers, employment counselors, substance abuse treatment programs, and
housing experts to support people as they leave prison and reenter society. As a result of these
cross-disciplinary efforts, there is a growing consensus among policymakers that funding
programs to support prisoners as they reenter society is an effective crime prevention strategy
that generates community, financial, and public safety benefits. Similarly, the use of “wrap
around services” has helped to integrate the efforts of youth-serving agencies to support children
and adolescents who have had contact with child welfare and juvenile justice systems – children
and adolescents who are at significant risk for delinquent conduct and continued court
involvement. And specialty courts and “holistic advocacy” on behalf of defendants charged with
criminal conduct are gaining traction in addressing the underlying issues that lead to criminal
activity.
While focusing on reentry is critical to breaking the cycle of incarceration, many agree that
we have, in some respects, given up too much ground. As one advocate interviewed for this
project noted, “If criminal justice is a 30-chapter book, reentry is somewhere around chapter 26.
If we start the conversation at reentry, we’re losing an opportunity to effect change much earlier
in the cycle of incarceration. We lose the opportunity to break the cycle even before it’s begun.”
This perspective, coupled with the progress that has been made on reentry, suggests that the
time is ripe to begin a new level of inquiry and strategy. Can the reentry analysis be taken a step
further back along the entry continuum, to identify policy solutions and programmatic
interventions that cut across disciplinary silos and to prevent initial entry into the criminal justice
system? Is there an interdisciplinary strategy that could build policymaker support for investing
in collaborative, pre-entry interventions and programs instead of investing in more “bricks and
mortar” in which to house a rapidly growing prison population? Is there an integrative approach
to justice reform that could ultimately decrease the number of the poor and people of color
(particularly young men of color) entering into and cycling through America’s criminal justice
system?

draft advance copy- Not to be distributed

5

“Behind the Cycle” – a project of the Open Society Institute – Washington, D.C. – is an
effort to answer these questions. Through intensive research that included interviews, focus
groups, and a literature review, this project tested three underlying assumptions: first, that the
intuitive connections between unaddressed social issues and the cycle of incarceration could be
supported by social science research; second, that advocates, direct service providers, and
researchers in other disciplines were likely to be exploring many of the same issues explored in
the criminal justice arena, although likely utilizing different language and approaches; and
finally, that creating an opportunity for interdisciplinary dialogue, information-sharing, and
problem-solving would aid in identifying opportunities for cross-disciplinary collaboration. This
report presents the results of this inquiry through a multi-disciplinary analysis of the interrelated
social policy issues that fuel initial entry into the criminal justice system, and by setting forth
recommendations for moving toward a more integrative approach to justice reform.
Project Background & Methodology
An initial strategy session was hosted by the Open Society Institute – Washington, D.C.
on January 24, 2007, with the goal of bringing together advocates who work behind the cycle
(social justice communities) with those who work within the cycle (criminal justice reform
communities) to begin a joint dialogue that discusses the salient issues, and begins to identify
strategies to abate the disproportionate numbers of people of color and the poor entering and
cycling through the criminal justice system. More than fifty advocates and interested persons
participated in this session.
Several underlying themes emerged from the discussion. First, if we address the underlying
social issues that contribute to a person’s initial entry into the criminal justice system, progress
can be made in breaking the cycle of incarceration and in creating a more integrative approach to
justice reform. Second, the stakes are high: if we as a society do not address these underlying
issues, we will continue to spend an increasing percentage of government budgets building more
prisons and jails in which to warehouse people, instead of investing limited government
resources in programs and services that develop contributing members of society. Third, public
education is critical to generating the public and political will to invest in programs and policies
that will break the cycle of incarceration. Fourth, it is important to understand the profile of the
incarcerated population, i.e., the cycle of poverty that includes inadequate housing, limited

draft advance copy- Not to be distributed

6

access to health care, mental health and special education issues, vulnerability of the family
structure, and the impact of racial discrimination. Relatedly, it is critical that the social and
historical phenomena of slavery provide a contextual backdrop and inform the discussion as a
whole. And finally, it is important to evaluate the connections (causative factors, appropriate
remedies, advocacy strategies, and effective messages) between reentry advocacy efforts and
potential “Behind the Cycle” advocacy efforts.
While this initial strategy session included people from the education, health care, civil
rights, and housing arenas, participants predominantly represented criminal justice organizations.
Many of the meeting’s participants are actively involved in on-going reentry efforts, either
providing direct services to people as they transition from prisons and jails back to the
community, conducting research on reentry initiatives, or advocating for policy changes to
support reentry initiatives. As a result, much of the discussion centered on reentry instead of
what might be called “pre-entry” issues, and the discussion did not achieve the desired level of
cross-disciplinary perspective. The experience crystallized the importance in moving forward of
identifying who, outside of the criminal justice reform community, is already thinking about and
working on “Behind the Cycle” issues.
With this background in mind, the Open Society Institute – Washington, D.C. asked
Beane Consulting to undertake a research project intended to achieve four specific goals: to
identify organizations and individuals from various disciplines who are already engaged in
efforts to address the panoply of social issues that contribute to entry into the cycle of
incarceration; to identify reports and studies relevant to these efforts; to create an opportunity
for interdisciplinary dialogue to identify strategies and opportunities to abate the disproportionate
numbers of people of color and the poor entering and cycling through the criminal justice
system; and to draft a report that describes the project and evaluates potential strategies and
opportunities that are identified.
Between May 1 and July 23, 2007, Beane Consulting conducted interviews with more than
forty researchers, advocates, direct service providers, and advocates in the fields of education,
health care, housing, employment, criminal justice, civil rights, poverty law, and child welfare.iii
Beane Consulting also reviewed more than 100 reports, articles, and research papers from these
different issue areas. The results of this research phase of the project were summarized in a
Preliminary Research Memorandum.

draft advance copy- Not to be distributed

7

On July 30, 2007, the Open Society Institute – Washington, D.C. convened a meeting of
thirty educators, lawyers, policy advocates, researchers, academics, and human service providers
from the fields of education, health care, mental health, criminal justice, housing, economic
opportunity, child welfare, and poverty law. These participants represented national advocacy
organizations, foundations, universities, and direct service providers.iv The purpose of this
meeting was three-fold: first, to present and discuss the results of the research phase of the
project; second, to identify potential opportunities for interdisciplinary collaboration to abate the
disproportionate number of people of color and the poor entering and cycling through America’s
criminal justice system; and third, to identify potential next steps for the project.
Research Results
As reflected in the following pages, we have learned much through this project. After
framing the issues this project seeks to address and describing the methodology utilized (Chapter
1), this report sets forth a detailed description of America’s cycle of incarceration, examining the
roles of race and concentrated poverty in that cycle (Chapter 2), and the risk and protective
factors that impact the likelihood that a person will engage in criminal conduct (Chapters 3 and
4). This report next sets forth conceptual approaches that have been developed to understand the
cycle of incarceration and its impact on communities, as well as strategies that have been utilized
successfully to build policymaker support for smart and effective crime prevention strategies –
investing in human service interventions and other programs rather than building more prisons
and jails (Chapter 4). This report then discusses opportunities for moving toward a more
integrative approach to justice reform, and the challenges that are implicit in collaborating across
disciplines (Chapter 5). Finally, this report evaluates potential next steps and makes
recommendations for moving toward a more integrative approach to justice reform (Chapter 6).

i

Mauer, Marc. “Keeping America Open," commemorating the 10th Anniversary of the Open Society Institute's
U.S. Programs, at p. 84 (2006).
ii
Raphael, Dennis, Ph.D. Making the Links: What Do Health Promotion, Crime Prevention, and Social
Development Have in Common? Summary of Presentation to The Atlantic Summer Institute on Health and Safe
Communities. UPEI. August, 2004 (at p. 3). See also Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Blueprint
for Violence Prevention, Office of Juvenile Justice & Delinquency Prevention (July 2004) at p. 15 (“poor family
functioning, parenting practices, and family interaction styles have been demonstrated as consistent risk factors for
substance abuse, delinquency, and criminal behavior”).

draft advance copy- Not to be distributed

8

iii

Interviews included one-on-one interviews (in person and via telephone), and one focus group. A list of people
participating in the interviews and focus group, along with their organizational affiliation, is included at Appendix
A.
iv
A list of people participating in this strategy session, along with their organizational affiliation, is included at
Appendix B.

draft advance copy- Not to be distributed

9

II.

AMERICA’S CYCLE OF INCARCERATION:
WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE, WHO IT IMPACTS & WHAT FUELS IT
America relies on incarceration as the primary means of dealing with crime and other social

problems. “America’s prisons and jails now house some 2.2 million inmates – roughly seven
times the figure of the early 1970s. And Americans are investing vast resources to keep the
system running: The cost to maintain American correctional institutions is some $60 billion a
year.”v Policymakers have increasingly shifted toward incarceration as the primary strategy for
addressing crime, even in the face of growing evidence that the overuse of incarceration has
created diminishing public safety returns. As has been noted, “[t]he exponential increase in the
use of incarceration has had modest success at best in producing public safety,” while negatively
impacting families and communities.vi Rather than merely reflecting society, America’s prisons
have themselves become a force in shaping society.
This chapter paints a clear picture of a growing prison industry marked by entrenched racial
disparity, mass institutionalization of young men of color, and pockets of concentrated poverty
throughout the country that fuel the cycle of incarceration. Indeed, criminal justice expert Marc
Mauer’s observations regarding criminal justice policies in America seem particularly
instructive: “The question remains whether alternative models of responding to disorder and
producing justice can gain priority over ‘get tough’ policies. In a broad sense, this will involve a
reconsideration of the appropriateness of using the criminal justice system as a means of
addressing problems that would be better served by focusing attention on poverty, racism, and
other economic ills.”vii
America’s Choice to Incarcerate: Increasing Government Expenditures with Decreasing
Returns on Investment
Statistics regarding incarceration in the United States are staggering, demonstrating a rapid
increase in the sheer numbers of people incarcerated in America’s jails and prisons, and an
increasing percentage of state budgets consumed by corrections costs to the detriment of other
programs and state commitments. With 5% of the world’s population, the United States has 25%
of the world’s population of incarcerated people. Currently, the United States incarcerates some
750 prisoners per 100,000 citizens – a rate several times higher than European countries, and

draft advance copy- Not to be distributed

10

higher than the rates in formerly repressive states like South Africa and Russia. viii Consider the
following:
•

The number of people in prisons and jails increased from 330,000 in 1972 to 2.1 million
in 2005.ix

•

Between 1970 and 2000, the general population increased by less than 40%, but the
number of people in prison rose by more than 500%.x

•

Probation and parole populations have skyrocketed from 1.8 million to over 7 million.xi

•

Between 1982 and 2003, national spending on criminal justice increased from $36 billion
to $186 billion, with over $61 billion allocated to local, state, and federal corrections.
Corrections spending grew by more than 570%, faster than any other aspect of the
criminal justice system.xii

•

Growth in incarceration rates is not expected to dissipate: based on national and state
estimates and trends, it is expected that state and federal prison populations will increase
by 192,000 over the next five years.xiii

•

The estimated 192,000 new prisoners could cost as much as $27.5 billion over the next
five years.xiv

•

Drug offenders represent the “most substantial growth in incarceration in recent
decades,” from 40,000 in 1980 to 450,000.xv

In addition to these statistics regarding adult incarceration rates, one advocate interviewed for
this project noted that more than 100,000 children enter the juvenile justice system each year as
“status offenders” – runaways, truants, or deemed otherwise “incorrigible” by judicial systems.
The rapid expansion of the sheer numbers of people incarcerated in the United States is
attributable to a “dizzying array of influences” that impact how many people are incarcerated at
any given time. These include such policy-level decisions as moving from indeterminate to
determinate sentencing, abolition of parole and adoption of truth-in-sentencing requirements,
passage of three-strikes laws, and the establishment of sentencing guidelines.xvi The numbers
and rates of growth are also impacted by the discretion judges, prosecutors and corrections
officials exercise in individual cases, and larger forces at work in society.
One might expect that incarcerating more people would have a positive effect on public
safety: there is a common expectation that “crime rates will decline as the number of people in
prison increases, and crime will increase if incarceration rates fall.”xvii Some posit, however,

draft advance copy- Not to be distributed

11

that “other social and economic factors, such as poverty rates and education levels, have a
greater impact on crime than imprisonment rates,” and “the general consensus among
criminologists is that crime rates are a product of a complex set of factors, including but not
limited to imprisonment.”xviii While “major studies of the relationship between incarceration
and crime show[] disparate findings, with different estimates of whether the relationship exists,
what the relationship may be, and even whether incarceration rates at some point may actually
increase crime,” there appears to be a consensus in the research that increased incarceration rates
have some effect on reducing crime, accounting for perhaps 25% of the drop in crime during the
1990s, and that “continued growth in incarceration will prevent considerably fewer, if any,
crimes than past increases did and will cost taxpayers substantially more to achieve.”xix This
“tipping point of ‘diminishing returns’ from our investment in prisons,” is attributable to the
expansion of incarceration by states, which now imprison offenders with shorter criminal records
than in the past, such that “[i]increasing the proportion of convicted criminals sent to prison . .
has produced diminishing marginal returns in crime reductions. This does not mean an absence
of returns – just that the benefit to public safety of each additional prisoner consistently
decreases.”xx
The choice to incarcerate and the resulting rapid growth in prison populations has significant
implications for other state spending priorities. Prisons are the fourth-largest state budget item,
behind health, education and transportation,xxi and increased allocations of limited state dollars
on prisons will necessarily mean fewer available dollars for other social programs and priorities.
The “diminishing returns” of incarceration, particularly of lower-rate offenders, further
exacerbates the tension between the financial impact of criminal justice policy choices and other
state spending priorities. One criminal justice researcher has noted that as prison systems expand,
an increased number of lower-rate offenders are drawn into the system and an equal amount of
resources are spent per offender, but the state receives less return on its incarceration investment
in terms of declining crime rates.xxii Criminal justice policy choices that impact incarceration
trends also have negative impacts on families and communities, and contribute to increased
recidivism and future criminality.xxiii
Entrenched Racial Disparities and Mass Institutionalization of Young Men of Color

draft advance copy- Not to be distributed

12

Understanding the impact of race on the criminal justice system is critical to understanding
the cycle of incarceration. The statistics overwhelmingly support the proposition that “[t]he
American prison and jail system is defined by an entrenched racial disparity in the population of
incarcerated people,”xxiv and there has been “mass institutionalization” of young men of color.
Consider the following:
•

African Americans are incarcerated at nearly six (5.6) times the rate of whites.xxv

•

One in three (32%) black males can expect to serve time in prison at some point in their
lives; Hispanic males have a 17% chance; and white males have a 6% chance.xxvi

•

High school dropout rates have increased for young men of color and college enrollment
levels have declined, while incarceration rates have grown.xxvii

•

In 2000, African Americans were 13% of the resident population, but represented 44% of
all convicted federal offenders.xxviii

•

In 2005, one in eight (12%) black males aged 25-29 was in prison or jail, as were 1 in 26
(3.9%) Hispanic males and 1 in 59 (1.7%) white males in the same age group.xxix

The most recent statistics show a continued impact on African American males in particular,xxx
and a growing proportion of the Hispanic population entering prisons and jails over the past
decade.xxxi Indeed, “black men in their early 30’s [are] more likely to have been in prison than to
have graduated from college,” and “some 9 percent of all black children now have a father in
jail.”xxxii
State policies to divert youthful offenders to adult criminal systems, the abandonment of
rehabilitation and treatment for drug users in favor of criminal sanctions, and the imposition of
zero-tolerance policies to exclude youth with problems from school, “have had a cumulative and
hardening effect of limiting life options for young men of color.”xxxiii While complex, other
“factors contributing to the dramatic increase in the number of African Americans in prison and
jail” include: the war on drugs, which has caused a dramatic surge in the number of incarcerated
persons, and which has disproportionately affected communities of color;xxxiv harsher
punishment of crack cocaine offenders than powder cocaine offenders; school zone drug laws;
three strikes and habitual offender policies; inadequate defense resources; racial profiling; and
zero tolerance policies.
This racial backdrop reaffirms that any discussion of the causes of America’s cycle of
incarceration must recognize and grapple with a racial context that increases the likelihood that

draft advance copy- Not to be distributed

13

certain populations will have more contact with the criminal justice system than others. It’s not
enough to talk only about the risk factors for criminal behavior. We must also acknowledge and
understand the disparate impact that criminal justice policies are having on communities of color.
And yet, as several advocates noted during interviews, race is precisely the issue that many (both
in the general public and among policymakers) are both uncomfortable discussing and unwilling
to acknowledge. Some expressed the opinion that especially in the context of the criminal justice
system, “we are better off talking about fairness in mainstream audiences. More people
understand it’s not fair.” But this begs the question raised by one advocate, “if race is a glaring
thing, how do we address it without talking about it?”
Concentrated Poverty: Exacting Multiple Costs on Individuals and Communities, Including
Higher Crime Rates
One advocate interviewed for this project observed that “we end up with band-aid solutions
because the real problem is poverty, and we’re not willing to deal with poverty.” In 2007, the
United States Government Accountability Office issued a report in which it examined “what the
economic research tells us about the relationship between poverty and adverse social conditions,
such as poor health outcomes, crime, and labor force attachments.”xxxv In presenting its report,
the GAO noted that in 2005,
•

Poverty rates vary by geographic location and setting: poverty rates for urban areas were
double those in suburbs, and were highest in the South.

•

African-American and Hispanics have significantly higher rates of poverty than whites:
in 2005, 24.9% of African Americans, and 22% of Hispanics lived in poverty, compared
to 8.3% of whites.

•

12.3 million children (17.1% of children under the age of 18) lived in poverty.

•

In 2002, poverty was more common among children under age 5 than any other age
group.xxxvi

•

Children of color were at least three times more likely to be in poverty than those who
were white: 3.7 million, or 34.2% of children who were African American, and 4
million, or 27.7% of, children who were Hispanic, compared to 4 million, or 9.5% of
children who were white.xxxvii

draft advance copy- Not to be distributed

14

The GAO found that “evidence suggests a link between poverty and crime.”xxxviii The report
notes that economic theory predicts such a finding (low wages and unemployment makes crime
more attractive), and that some empirical research supports this finding as well.xxxix Statistics
from the public defense arena support the conclusion that there is a link between poverty and
crime: conservative estimates suggest that more than 80% of all defendants processed through
the criminal justice system qualify for court appointed counsel, and are by definition indigent.
Another report has noted, “researchers have identified not just poverty, but concentrated
poverty, as a significant contributor to crime rates due to the socioeconomic disadvantages it
brings.”xl More than 3.5 million poor people live in neighborhoods affected by concentrated
poverty, defined as poverty rates of 40 % and higher.xli While demographic changes between
1990 and 2000 resulted in a decrease in the number of poor households living in areas of
concentrated poverty, the declines varied by geographic region, and also varied within and
among metropolitan areas. Essentially, “the pockets of concentrated poverty were redistributed
to new neighborhoods.”xlii Rather than appearing by accident, such pockets of concentrated
poverty “emerged in part due to decades of policies that confined poor households, especially
poor black ones, to these economically isolated areas. The federal government concentrated
public housing in segregated inner-city neighborhoods, subsidized metropolitan sprawl, and
failed to create affordable housing for low-income families and minorities in rapidly developing
suburbs, cutting them off from decent housing, educational, and economic opportunities.”xliii
There is clearly a connection between concentrated poverty and race. “Housing patterns in
the U.S. often result in low-income African Americans living in concentrated poverty, but poor
whites and other groups are rarely found in such situations.”xliv While one-tenth of the country’s
poor people lived in these areas, the rates are higher among poor minorities: 15 % of poor
minorities live in areas of concentrated poverty, including 19 % of poor African Americans.xlv
“Nearly every major American city still contains a collection of extremely poor, racially
segregated neighborhoods. In cities as diverse as Cleveland, New York, Atlanta, and Los
Angeles, more than 30 percent of poor blacks live in areas of severe social and economic
distress.”xlvi
The effects of concentrated poverty in human terms are profound, exacting “multiple costs on
individuals and society.”xlvii Higher crime rates, especially violent crime rates, are typical for
high-poverty, inner-city neighborhoods. xlviii Other costs include limited job opportunities;

draft advance copy- Not to be distributed

15

inadequate educational opportunities; reduced private-sector investment; increased prices for
goods and services; and “heavy burdens on local governments that induce out-migration of
middle-class households.”xlix
Concentrated poverty also contributes to poor physical and mental health. People living in
areas of concentrated poverty experience negative health outcomes at higher rates, and the
incidence of depression, asthma, diabetes, and heart ailments have been linked to living in
distressed neighborhoods.l High rates of negative health outcomes are attributable to a number
of factors, including the stress of being poor and marginalized; living in an area with dilapidated
housing and high crime; and a “supply of health care that is far inferior to that which most
suburban residents take for granted.”li
A growing body of social science research confirms that concentrated poverty cuts off
mainstream social and economic opportunities for families and children living in distressed
neighborhoods.lii While environmental effects do not entirely outweigh family characteristics
and individual outcomes, living in conditions of extreme, concentrated poverty makes it all the
more difficult for people to make even modest progress.liii The inevitable results are significant
limitations on life chances, and diminished quality of life.liv
A Force that Shapes Society
Sociologists are increasingly viewing prisons “with their poor, black and uneducated
populations … not just as a reflection of society, but [as] a force that shapes it.”lv Over the past
decade, there has been growing interest in America’s criminal justice and prison policies among
social science researchers and academicians. As one commentator has observed, “in the last
decade, discussion of incarceration has moved to the center of the field, in the work of respected
scholars at top institutions who are interested in a broad understanding of American
inequality.”lvi
Sociologists who have begun to focus on this area have made significant observations with
regard to race and poverty as they relate to the criminal justice system. With regard to race,
sociologist Bruce Western has found that 30% of black males born in the late 1960s who did not
attend college served time in prison, and “[f]or high school dropouts, the figure is a startling 59
percent.”lvii Research also suggests that patterns of mass incarceration “render invisible a
substantial portion of American poverty.”lviii For instance, Western has found that while the

draft advance copy- Not to be distributed

16

government reports unemployment levels for black male high school dropouts in 2000 at 33 %,
these statistics do not provide an accurate assessment of unemployment in this population
because government surveys exclude prisoners. Including prisoners in the assessment, the
unemployment level for black male high school dropouts at the height of the technology boom in
2000 was actually 65 %.lix
According to Western, “prisons have grown into potent ‘engines of inequality,’ … [which]
actively widen the gap between the poor – especially poor black men – and everyone else.”lx
Prisons essentially stigmatize men who have limited education and job skills, making it harder
for them to find jobs; slashing their wages when they do find jobs; and branding them as bad
future spouses.lxi “The effects of imprisonment ripple out from prisoners, breaking up families
and further impoverishing neighborhoods, creating the conditions for more crime down the
road.”lxii
v

Shea, Christopher. “Life Sentence.” Boston Globe, September 23, 2007. See also, Mauer, Marc, and King,
Ryan S. “Uneven Justice: State Rates of Incarceration By Race and Ethnicity.” The Sentencing Project, July 2007.
(noting a 500% rise in the jail and prison populations since the early 1970s).
vi
Mauer & King. “Uneven Justice” at p. 1.
vii
Mauer, Keeping America Open, supra note. 1 at p. 84.
viii
Shea, “Life Sentence,” supra note 5.
ix
Mauer, Marc. 2005. Incarceration and Crime: A Complex Relationship. Washington, DC, The Sentencing
Project.
x
Id.
xi
Public Safety, Public Spending: Forecasting America’s Prison Population 2007 – 2011, Pew Public Safety
Performance Project (2007) at p. 1.
xii
Id. at p. 2.
xiii
Id. at p. 9.
xiv
Id at p. 18.
xv
Mauer, Incarceration and Crime, supra note 9 at p. 6.
xvi
Pew, Public Safety, Public Spending supra note 11 at p. 3.
xvii
Id. at p. 23.
xviii
Id.
xix
Id. at p. 24 (citing a recent review conducted by the Vera Institute of Justice).
xx
Id. at p. 23
xxi
Id. at p. 25.
xxii
Mauer, Incarceration and Crime, supra note 9 at p. 6. See also, Pew, Public Safety, Public Spending, supra
note 11 at p. 24 (“the benefit to public safety of each additional prisoner consistently decreases”).
xxiii
Mauer, Incarceration and Crime, supra note 9 at p. 6.
xxiv
Mauer and King, Uneven Justice, supra note 5 at p. 4.
xxv
Id. at p. 3.
xxvi
Facts About Prisons and Prisoners, The Sentencing Project. See also, Mauer, Marc, and King, Ryan, Schools
and Prisons: Fifty Years After Brown v. Board of Education, at p. 5.
xxvii
Dellums Commission, A Way Out: Creating Partners for Our Nation’s Prosperity by Expanding Life Paths
of Young Men of Color, Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies Health Policy Institute (2005) at p. 3.

draft advance copy- Not to be distributed

17

xxviii

“African Americans and the Correctional System” from “Joint Center DataBank” available online at
http://www.jointcenter.org/DB/factsheet/correctionalsys.htm.
xxix
Facts About Prisons and Prisoners, supra note 26.
xxx
Mauer & King, Uneven Justice, supra note 5 at p. 4.
xxxi
Id. at p. 2.
xxxii
Shea, “Life Sentence,” supra note 5.
xxxiii
Dellums Commission, A Way Out, at p. vii.
xxxiv
Id. (Three-fourths of all persons imprisoned for drug offenses are black or Latino, and while blacks
constitute 13.3% of monthly drug users, they represent 32.5% of persons arrested for drug offenses).
xxxv
GAO, Poverty in America: Economic Research Shows Adverse Impacts on Health Status and Other Social
Conditions As Well As the Economic Growth Rate, 2007, at p. 1.
xxxvi
Snyder and Sickmund, Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report at page 7.
xxxvii
GAO, Poverty in America, supra note 35 at p. 5 – 6.
xxxviii
Id. at p. 16.
xxxix
Id.
xl
Mauer and King, Schools and Prisons, supra note 26 at p. 2-3.
xli
Drew, Rachel Bogardus. “The Truth About Concentrated Poverty.” National Housing Institute (2006).
xlii
Id.
xliii
The Brookings Institution. “Katrina’s Window: Confronting Concentrated Poverty Across America.”
October 2005.
xliv
Mauer and King, Schools and Prisons, supra note 26 at p. 2-3.
xlv
Drew, “The Truth About Concentrated Poverty,” supra note 41.
xlvi
“Katrina’s Window,” supra note 43.
xlvii
Id.
xlviii
Id. See also Turner, Margery Austin, and Rawlings, Lynette A. “Overcoming Concentrated Poverty and
Isolation.” The Urban Institute (2005).
xlix
“Katrina’s Window,” supra note 43. See also Turner and Rawlings, “Overcoming Concentrated Poverty and
Isolation,” supra note 48.
l
“Katrina’s Window,” supra note 43.
li
Id.
lii
See Turner and Rawlings, “Overcoming Concentrated Poverty and Isolation,” supra note 48, and “Katrina’s
Window,” supra note 43.
liii
“Katrina’s Window,” supra note 43.
liv
See Turner and Rawlings, “Overcoming Concentrated Poverty and Isolation,” supra note 48, and “Katrina’s
Window,” supra note 43.
lv
Shea, “Life Sentence,” supra note 5.
lvi
Id.
lvii
Id.
lviii
Id.
lix
Id.
lx
Id.
lxi
Id.
lxii
Id.

draft advance copy- Not to be distributed

18

III. UNDERSTANDING RISK FACTORS FOR
DELINQUENT BEHAVIOR & CRIMINAL CONDUCT
The previous chapter makes clear that those whom America incarcerates are
disproportionately black, brown, male, and poor. But what else do we know about incarcerated
populations? What other characteristics do they have in common? How do these characteristics
contribute to the cycle of incarceration? And what might those common characteristics tell us
about where to invest public resources to break the cycle of incarceration and prevent initial
entry into the criminal justice system? This chapter addresses these questions by describing
individual, family, school, and community risk factors for delinquent and criminal behavior.
This chapter lays the groundwork for a subsequent discussion of the need for a more integrative
approach to justice reform, an approach that utilizes multi-disciplinary collaboration to promote
intervention strategies that advance public safety by decreasing the likelihood that a person will
engage in risky or criminal behavior.
The Risk Factor Paradigm: Multiple Factors Operating Across Multiple Domains
Answering the question “What causes crime?” is not as easy as one might think. Many
different factors contribute to crime: individual factors such as antisocial behavior, emotional
development, and cognitive impairment; family factors such as child maltreatment or abuse,
family structure, and parenting practices; school factors such as deficiencies in educational
systems, truancy, and the school to prison pipeline; and community factors such as poverty,
unemployment, and the availability of stable housing. While these various factors can increase
the risk of criminal conduct, they do not invariably result in it, a distinction that challenges
common understanding of what it means for an event or condition to “cause” an effect such as
crime.lxiii Furthermore, statistical associations between particular risk factors and crime “never
provide any guarantee that the factor in question causes crime.”lxiv In short, there is “no single
factor or set of factors which causes an individual to become involved in crime,” and it is
difficult to identify specific and proximate causal links between these various factors and the
incidence of crime .lxv
Because of these difficulties, the criminal justice field has borrowed a “risk factor paradigm”
approach from the public health arena as a means of better understanding the causes of criminal

draft advance copy- Not to be distributed

19

conduct and of tailoring intervention strategies to prevent criminal behavior. lxvi In the medical
community, doctors inquire about a patient’s medical history, family history, diet and weight in
order to identify whether a patient has any risk factors for such diseases as cancer or heart attack,
and then suggest interventions to prevent disease based upon the different variables that may be
present in the patient’s risk assessment.lxvii Similarly, in the criminal justice arena, researchers
focus on identifying factors in the various domains of a person’s life (individual, family, school,
community) that increase the likelihood that a person will engage in risky or criminal
behavior.lxviii With these risk factors identified, one can then identify appropriate intervention
strategies to promote the development of corresponding protective factors that might decrease
the risk of crime.
The risk-factor and associated typology paradigm described in the literature and utilized in
public policy circles is not without its critics. Some research supports the idea that while most
young people will grow out of the behavior that initiates their involvement with the juvenile
justice system without further incident or intervention, a core group of juvenile offenders
continue to engage in the behavior into adulthood. There is debate in academic circles about
whether so-called “career criminals” or “life-course persistent offenders” can be distinguished
from other offenders, and the extent to which “adult criminal trajectories” can be predicted from
childhood based on a risk factor analysis.lxix While there is disagreement as to the accuracy of
these various predictive models, and whether all offenders desist from further criminal activity
over time, there seems to be significant consensus with regard to key underlying assumptions of
this report: there are common characteristics shared by those who enter and cycle through the
criminal justice system; individual characteristics and childhood experiences interact with
family, school, community, and other factors to impact the “criminal trajectory” of a person; and
identifying these characteristics can help us to understand who is at risk for getting drawn into
the cycle of incarceration.
In applying this approach, researchers have found that a person’s risk of engaging in such
behavior increases with the number of risk factors he or she has, and with the number of domains
impacted.lxx Evidence suggests “problem behaviors associated with risk factors tend to cluster”
(i.e., delinquency and violence cluster with such other problems as drug abuse, teen pregnancy
and school misbehavior).lxxi Risk factors for crime are thus “cumulative in their effect.”lxxii
While a full recitation of all risk factors and the nuances of their inter-connectedness with each

draft advance copy- Not to be distributed

20

other is beyond the scope of this report, a basic understanding of factors that increase the
likelihood of criminal conduct by an individual or of crime occurring in a particular community
or environment is important if we are to identify points of intervention that could break the cycle
of incarceration by preventing initial entry into the criminal justice system.lxxiii This report’s
focus on preventing initial entry into the criminal justice system necessarily requires a discussion
of the factors that lead to both adult criminal offenses as well as juvenile delinquent conduct.
Because of this connection, this report draws upon research involving both populations (adult
offenders and juvenile delinquents) in discussing risk factors.
Individual Risk Factors:
Research suggests that individual risk factors for criminal behavior range from such
characteristics as age and gender, to physiologically-based issues such as cognitive dysfunction
and “intellectual deficits,” and to behaviors such as substance abuse, aggression, and emotional
disorders. In addition to the information presented in Chapter 2 regarding race and poverty
(America disproportionately incarcerates people who are black, brown and poor) it is clear that
males are more likely to commit crime than females, and young adults (age 18 – 34) represent
the largest portion of offenders.lxxiv Although there is on-going debate as to whether one can
accurately isolate the factors that distinguish those who outgrow delinquent behavior as juveniles
and those who persist with such behavior into adulthood, research also links early onset of
delinquent behavior (before age 13) with “a greater risk of becoming serious, violent, and
chronic juvenile offenders.”lxxv Those adult offenders who persist in criminal behavior generally
begin their contact with the criminal justice system as adolescents, and thus understanding
“factors which precipitate juvenile involvement are helpful in understanding adult crime.”lxxvi
Early onset of aggression and antisocial behavioral problems are considered to be among the
best predictors of later delinquency.lxxvii Such behaviors are often associated with inattentionhyperactivity, neurocognitive risk (e.g., poor reading, language, and problem-solving skills),
difficult temperament, and poor parenting. These behaviors “compromise healthy development
and increase the risk for significant impediments to later wellness – impediments such as
violence, delinquency, dropping out of school, depression, and drug abuse.”lxxviii Other
individual personality and behavioral factors that increase the risk of criminal conduct include

draft advance copy- Not to be distributed

21

failure to consider the consequences of one’s behavior, and lack of self-control, critical
reasoning, and judgment.lxxix
Research suggests that cognitive dysfunction, so-called “intellectual deficits,” and emotional
disabilities are characteristic of those caught in the cycle of incarceration. Several forms of
mental and emotional disabilities disproportionately affect juvenile justice and adult offender
populations. Researchers estimate that 32 – 43% of incarcerated youths suffer from such
disabilities as emotional and/or behavioral disorders, learning disabilities, mental retardation, and
ADHD, and that “an additional and substantial portion of delinquent youths and criminal adults
[have] more global intellectual deficits.” Among those with more “global intellectual deficits,”
research suggests “intellectual disadvantages may be concentrated in the area of verbal I.Q.….
[suggesting] a specific and pervasive deficit in language that may affect the child’s receptive
listening and reading, problem solving, expressive speech and writing, and memory for verbal
material.”lxxx Furthermore, “[b]asic cognitive deficiencies may also be associated with impaired
social cognitive processes, such as failure to attend to appropriate social cues (e.g., adults’
instructions, peers’ social initiations).”lxxxi In addition, researchers have found that poor
academic performance (low grades and low rates of advancement) and poor school-related
behavior (conduct problems, absenteeism, suspensions, expulsions, and dropouts) are
characteristic of incarcerated youths, and are linked to violence as adolescents and adults.lxxxii
Research strongly suggests that one’s environment can markedly influence I.Q., that prior
knowledge of words and concepts acquired through schooling, parenting, or other environmental
factors influences one’s verbal I.Q. score, and that interventions at every age from infancy to
college can reduce racial gaps in both I.Q. and academic achievement – all suggesting that while
“intellectual deficits” have been noted as a significant individual risk factor for delinquent or
criminal conduct, such deficits are closely tied to the family, educational, and environmental risk
factors described later in this chapter, and that appropriate interventions could address this
significant risk factor for delinquent or criminal conduct.lxxxiii
Both mental health problems and substance abuse are prevalent among prison and jail
inmates. In a recent 2005 survey, more than half of all prison and jail inmates either exhibited
symptoms of a mental disorder or had a recent history of mental health problems, including a
clinical diagnosis and treatment.lxxxiv Three-quarters of those who had mental health problems
also met criteria for substance dependence or abuse.lxxxv With regard to substance abuse, “[d]rug

draft advance copy- Not to be distributed

22

abuse among correctional populations is a pervasive problem affecting between 60% and 80% of
offenders under supervision.”lxxxvi A recent report found that a third of state inmates committed
their current offense while under the influence of drugs; over half used drugs in the month
preceding the current offense, and more than two-thirds used drugs regularly at some point in
their lives; among federal prisoners, 26% reported using drugs at the time of the offense, and
50% reported using drugs in the month prior to the offense.lxxxvii Many family precursors to
substance abuse are identical to the precursors to involvement in crime.lxxxviii As one advocate
interviewed for this project noted, “Society is massively failing to address the mental health
needs of millions, and the criminal justice system has become a substitute mental health
provider.”
Prenatal and perinatal complications may be connected to later delinquent or criminal
behavior.lxxxix Such complications in pregnancy and delivery can lead to health problems that
negatively influence development.xc Some research suggests a link between prenatal exposure to
cigarette smoke (from mothers who smoked during pregnancy) and conduct disorders and other
problem behaviors.xci In addition, prenatal exposure to drugs, and birth symptoms typically
associated with babies born to teenage mothers (poor nutrition, low birth weight and premature
delivery) have been associated with delinquency before age 18 and violent delinquency.xcii Other
research suggests “mild neuropsychological deficits present at birth can snowball into serious
behavior problems by affecting an infant’s temperament,” which, in turn, “can affect children’s
control of behaviors such as language, aggression, oppositional behavior, attention and
hyperactivity.”xciii
Family Risk Factors
“Poor family functioning, parenting practices, and family interaction styles have been
demonstrated as consistent risk factors for substance abuse, delinquency, and criminal
behavior.”xciv Inadequate parenting practices include high levels of parent-child conflict, low
levels of positive parent-child involvement, and poor monitoring and supervision of children. xcv
Family dynamics and parental/caregiver involvement “are significantly correlated with an
individual’s propensity to engage in violent behavior,” and a lack of parental involvement
“increases the risk for violence, particularly among males.”xcvi “Severe or inconsistent family
discipline practices can also contribute to delinquency and violent behavior.”xcvii It is not

draft advance copy- Not to be distributed

23

uncommon for the parents of children at risk for delinquent or criminal conduct to suffer from
antisocial personality disorder, substance abuse, or depression.xcviii Parents suffering from such
psychopathologies show the kinds of deficiencies in their parenting skills that increase the risk of
delinquent or criminal conduct for their children.xcix
Research suggests that the structure and size of a family can impact the likelihood that a
person will become criminally involved. Children from single-mother households are at higher
risk for poor behavioral outcomes, as well as children from families with four or more siblings
by the age of 10.c Adolescents in father-absent households have an elevated risk of
incarceration.ci Some studies have looked in particular at the impact that parental incarceration
has on children.cii An estimated 2.3 million children have parents who are incarcerated in
federal, state, or local jails, and fathers account for 90% of incarcerated parents.ciii While
research on this issue is far from complete, “[the] literature suggests that parental separation due
to imprisonment can have profound consequences for children,” including “intergenerational
patterns of criminal behavior.”civ One recent survey found that 46% of jail inmates had a family
member who had been incarcerated.cv
Child abuse and neglect are significant family-level risk factors for future criminal behavior,
and “commonly occur with other family risk factors associated with early-onset offending.”cvi
Abused and neglected children offend more frequently and begin doing so at earlier ages than
other children.cvii Being abused or neglected as a child increases the likelihood of arrest as a
juvenile by 59%, as an adult by 28%, and for a violent crime by 30%.cviii “Focusing specifically
on the relationship between physical abuse and children’s aggression, one study suggests that 20
percent of abused children become delinquent before reaching adulthood. … [and] one study that
compared children without a history of abuse or neglect with children who had been abused or
neglected found that the latter group accrued more juvenile and adult arrests by the age of 25.”cix
“[T]here is also increasing evidence that childhood victimization has the potential to affect
multiple domains of functioning… [including] mental health problems, such as posttraumatic
stress disorder, suicide attempts, and alcohol problems in women; social and behavioral
problems, including running away, prostitution, and lower rates of employment; and cognitive
and intellectual functioning, including lower reading ability and IQ scores in young adulthood.”cx
Research has also made clear not only that “experiencing violence as a child leads to increased
risk of being arrested for violent crime,” but also that “childhood neglect and emotional

draft advance copy- Not to be distributed

24

maltreatment are associated with violence as well.”cxi In discussing the nexus between child
abuse and neglect and criminal conduct, one expert interviewed for this project noted that there
are significant racial disparities in the child welfare and child protection intervention process,
specifically with regard to the extent to which abuse and neglect cases are reported and
substantiated, and the children are removed from homes. He noted further that there is little
documentation as to why this disparity exists, but that it is likely attributable to some of the same
underlying causes as the disproportionate representation of communities of color in the criminal
and juvenile justice systems discussed in Chapter 2.
Relatedly, domestic violence within a family is a risk factor for delinquent or criminal
behavior. “Each year, approximately 3.3 million children witness physical and verbal spouse
abuse. Witnessing domestic violence has been linked to increased child behavior problems,
especially for boys and younger children.”cxii When domestic violence co-occurs with child
abuse, alcohol abuse and incarceration in male batterers, and maternal psychological distress,
there is an even greater impact on children.cxiii
School Risk Factors
Repeatedly during interviews, advocates and researchers from multiple disciplines identified
deficiencies in educational systems, destructive school discipline policies, truancy, and the
seeming inability of schools to identify and service disadvantaged youth who are in need of
special educational services, as being directly related to the cycle of incarceration.cxiv Certainly,
there are strong correlations between educational failure and the cycle of incarceration. As one
report notes, “individuals with low attainment and poor quality education – these often overlap –
can expect to face inferior employment prospects, low wages, poor health, and greater
involvement in the criminal justice system.”cxv Another report finds “[c]hildren with lower
academic performance are more likely to offend, more likely to offend frequently, more likely to
commit more serious offenses, and more likely to persist in crime.”cxvi In addition to poor
academic performance, researchers have identified failure to develop strong bonds to schoolcxvii
and truancycxviii as risk factors for delinquent conduct.
Surveys of people in prisons and jails have consistently shown that incarcerated people “have
less educational attainment than the general population in the United States.”cxix In the late
1990s, sixty-eight percent of people in state prisons did not have a high school diploma, and only

draft advance copy- Not to be distributed

25

12.7% of the incarcerated population had completed high school compared with 48.4% of the
general population.cxx By one estimate, 70% of inmates in state and federal prisons are
functionally illiterate or read below the eighth grade level.cxxi Although dropout rates have fallen
over the last 30 years, nearly half a million youth quit high school in 2000.cxxii
As was noted by several education researchers and civil rights advocates, the use of school
suspensions and expulsions “has increased dramatically over the past 25 years.”cxxiii Such school
suspensions and expulsions precipitate dropping out of school – a “significant link in what is
now called ‘the school to prison pipeline.’”cxxiv “Under-resourced urban schools that are ill
equipped to address the needs of impoverished students, zero tolerance and other punitive
disciplinary policies, ‘high stakes testing,’ and racism” are all components of the pipeline.cxxv
Advocates noted in particular that racism appears evident in the school to prison pipeline: school
expulsions and suspensions disproportionately impact students of color, resulting in increased
risk of involvement in the juvenile and adult criminal justice system.cxxvi Several advocates
noted that given the presence of metal detectors, uniformed officers, and various methods of drug
detection on campuses, schools are themselves increasingly turning into prisons. One
description that was heard repeatedly during interviews is that schools have “criminalized normal
adolescent behavior” and are treating school discipline issues as criminal issues.
Educational failure is directly related to other risk factors for criminal behavior, and has
significant implications in other domains of a person’s life. In one recent report of the Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), researchers linked educational failure,
difficulty finding employment, and law-violating behavior. Specifically, they noted that “[i]f, as
research has found, educational failure leads to unemployment (or underemployment), and if
educational failure and unemployment are related to law-violating behavior, then patterns of
educational failure over time and within specific groups may help to explain patterns of
delinquent behavior.”cxxvii
As this brief section demonstrates, there is considerable evidence that educational failure is a
significant risk factor for delinquent or criminal behavior. The reasons why students fail in
school are more complex. At the level of the individual student, research suggests some do more
poorly in school because of specific cognitive deficits or emotional/behavioral issues. But there
are also considerable failures at the policy/systems level: deficient school environments,
inadequate funding, and exclusionary policies such as those outlined above all contribute to

draft advance copy- Not to be distributed

26

educational failure. One expert interviewed for this project noted that educational access is a
significant issue for the half a million children in foster care. Another education expert
interviewed for this project noted, “Schools frequently lack sufficient resources to adequately
and effectively support a child with transition issues and support needs, as well as the technical
skill and staffing sophistication to do it.” And because measurements of intelligence
(particularly verbal I.Q. scores) rely heavily on a variety of verbal tasks involving such things as
general word and vocabulary knowledge and reading comprehension skills, the “intellectual
deficits” that are characteristic of incarcerated youth and adults are likely to influenced by the
inferior schools and poor parenting practices described above rather than the result of an inability
to learn.
Community Risk Factors
The environment in which a person lives can influence the likelihood of criminal conduct or
delinquency.cxxviii “Although researchers debate the interaction between environmental and
personal factors, most agree that ‘living in a neighborhood where there are high levels of poverty
and crime increases the risk of involvement in serious crime for all children growing up
there.’”cxxix Community factors that contribute to the risk of delinquent or criminal conduct
include poverty, unemployment, inadequate living conditions, such as substandard housing and
homelessness, and environmental exposure to such chemicals as lead.
As discussed more fully in Chapter 2, high-poverty neighborhoods exact “multiple costs on
individuals and society,” and are plagued by higher crime rates, especially violent crime rates.cxxx
Neighborhoods with concentrated poverty “are more likely to be physically deteriorated and to
have more crime and street violence, greater availability of illegal drugs, and more negative peer
influences and adult role models.”cxxxi These same neighborhoods also have fewer social
supports, less effective social networks, and fewer high-quality public and private services such
as health care providers, child care centers, and community centers.cxxxii These characteristics
can have significant negative consequences “for the cognitive functioning, socialization, physical
health, emotional functioning, and academic achievement of children and adolescents.”cxxxiii
“The cumulative effect of socioeconomic status on families, neighborhoods, schools, and health
care guarantees that poor and low-income adolescents arrive at young adulthood in worse health,

draft advance copy- Not to be distributed

27

engaging in riskier and more dangerous behaviors, and with lower educational attainment and
more limited career prospects than their more affluent counterparts.”cxxxiv
Unemployment is a significant community factor that impacts the likelihood that a person
will become criminally involved,cxxxv as well as the likelihood that crime will occur in a
particular neighborhood or community. People who are incarcerated report extended periods of
unemployment and of earning low wages more often than the general population.cxxxvi
Researchers have found links between employment status, wages, and crime rates, and also
between the economic health of a community and incarceration rates.cxxxvii “Poverty,
unemployment, and income inequality have all consistently been found to render areas crimeprone.”cxxxviii
Inadequate living conditions, such as poor housing and unstable living situations, also impact
the likelihood of criminal behavior occurring.cxxxix Substandard housing has been linked with
higher rates of violent crime, “particularly where exposure to lead hazards is more likely to
occur.”cxl The sequence of events by which substandard housing has become the norm in highpoverty areas is predictable. Rents tend to outpace the relatively low incomes of people who live
in high poverty areas. cxli Although high for the residents, rental prices are inadequate to cover
the maintenance and operating costs landlords must pay on their properties.cxlii Unable to pay for
maintenance and repair costs, the rental properties deteriorate, frequently into near-uninhabitable
conditions, further discouraging others from investing in bringing services to the area or in
neighborhood improvements.cxliii The result is a vicious cycle in which tenants skimp on food,
clothing, healthcare, and other expenditures in order to pay a significant portion of their meager
incomes to live in neglected buildings in destabilized areas. cxliv
Inadequate living conditions also include homelessness. “According to survey research on
the correctional population, approximately 26 percent of people in jail reported that they were
homeless in the year prior to their incarceration, and 19.5 percent of state prisoners reported
being homeless.”cxlv “[W]ith an estimated 3 million people living without a home every year,
[the United States] continues to struggle with the policy challenges of chronic homelessness, the
lack of affordable housing, and the exclusion of certain people from federal housing
subsidies.”cxlvi
Exposure to certain chemicals has also been linked to criminal behavior. It has long been
known that exposure to even low levels of lead can cause brain damage that decreases

draft advance copy- Not to be distributed

28

intelligence and can increase impulsive and aggressive behavior.cxlvii Recently, attention has
focused on the extent to which the rise and fall of lead-exposure rates due to the use of leaded
gasoline in cars through the late 1970s and early 1980s (the main source of lead in the air and
water) may be linked to violent crime rates in the 1980s and 1990s.cxlviii Recent studies have also
shown that “exposure to lead, associated with older, deteriorated, and lower-quality housing, can
result in increased delinquency, violence, and crime.”cxlix
The Cascading Effect of Disordered Neighborhoods on Other Risk Factors
The various community risk factors described above are indicative of what has been called
“neighborhood disorder,” that is, “the presence of community-level stressors such as poverty,
unemployment or underemployment, signs of neighborhood decay, limited resources, abandoned
buildings, substandard housing, and high crime rates.”cl Neighborhood disorder is something
that can be seen (e.g., public drinking, prostitution, or illegal drug traffic), that can be
experienced by residents (e.g., crime against a person), and that can induce a person living in the
neighborhood to join or participate in delinquent or criminal behavior.cli
The factors that lead to disordered neighborhoods are, in fact, the same factors that may lead
to delinquent behavior.clii It is theorized that adolescents exposed to disordered neighborhoods
are at increased risk of themselves becoming involved in criminal or delinquent behavior
because they have an increased opportunity to interact with and be influenced by negative role
models and peers involved in delinquent conduct. It is further theorized that disordered
neighborhoods have weakened social controls that decrease the ability of residents to come
together for common goals, and that simply overwhelm potential mediating variables.
Unfortunately, as is evident from Chapter 2’s discussion of concentrated poverty, disordered
neighborhoods limit access to social and economic opportunities. They also limit access to and
the effectiveness of critical social and human services that could help to address individual,
family, and school risk factors – services such as mental health clinics, substance abuse treatment
programs, high-quality health care services, community centers, and educational support
services. One person interviewed for this project observed that many community health
programs have shut down, and that existing mental health and substance abuse clinics lack the
resources to respond to the full scale of need that exists. The resulting high demand for bed
space pressures such programs to institute “one strike and you’re out” policies which are not

draft advance copy- Not to be distributed

29

realistic for the population utilizing the services. Lack of resources, coupled with neighborhood
disorder that discourages new investments in areas of concentrated poverty, combine to diminish
the effectiveness and availability of social service interventions.
In the end, a vicious cycle is created in which disordered neighborhoods and other risk
factors mutually and negatively reinforce risk factors at all levels. Disordered neighborhoods
reinforce individual, family, and school risk factors that increase the likelihood of criminal or
delinquent conduct, which in turn reinforce disordered neighborhoods. Moreover, the disordered
neighborhoods in which human and social services are most needed discourage the investment of
resources and are themselves a barrier to effectively addressing the individual, family, and
school risk factors described in this chapter.
The cascading effect of disordered neighborhoods on other risk factors seems to be
overwhelming. Indeed, many interviewed for this project shared the sentiment of one advocate
who said, “Yes, we need to be talking about this, but it’s a massive undertaking. Where do you
even begin to put these pieces together?” As another person interviewed put it, “What is it,
exactly, that we’re trying to do? And how do we define something that can be done that is real
and practical and achievable?”

lxiii

“Crime and Justice Bulletin,” NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research. No. 54 (February 2001).
Id.
lxv
Id.
lxvi
See, e.g., Shader, Michael. “Risk Factors for Delinquency: An Overview,” U.S. Department of Justice Office
of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (describing a “recent movement” toward
a public health model, “the basic idea of which is to ‘identify the key risk factors for offending and tool prevention
methods designed to counteract them.’”).
lxvii
“Crime and Justice Bulletin,” supra note 63.
lxviii
Id.
lxix
See, e.g., Sampson, Robert J., and John H. Laub. “Life-Course Desisters? Trajectories of Crime Among
Delinquent Boys Followed to Age 70,” Criminology, Vol. 41, No. 3 (2003) (describing shifts in the field of
criminology from “individual correlates of crime,” to the “career criminal debate,” to “typological accounts of
crime,” to the “age-invariance thesis”).
lxx
“Crime and Justice Bulletin,” supra note 63 See also Shader, “Risk Factors for Delinquency: An Overview,”
supra note 66 (“the presence of several risk factors often increases a youth’s chance of offending”). See also,
“Community Guide to Helping America’s Youth: Introduction to Risk Factors and Protective Factors.” Available
on-line at http://guide.helpingamericasyouth.gov/programtool-factors.cfm (“Exposure to risk factors in the relative
absence of protective factors dramatically increases the likelihood that a young person will engage in problem
behaviors,” and “the greater the number of risk factors, the greater the likelihood that youth will engage in
delinquent or other risky behavior.”). See also, Wasserman, et. al. “Risk and Protective Factors of Child
Delinquency.” U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention. (April 2003). (“Most professionals agree that no single risk factor leads a young child to delinquency.
lxiv

draft advance copy- Not to be distributed

30

Rather, the likelihood of early juvenile offending increases as the number of risk factors and risk factor domains
increases.”).
lxxi
“Community Guide to Helping America’s Youth,” supra note 70.
lxxii
“Crime and Justice Bulletin,” supra note 63. See also Shader, “Risk Factors for Delinquency,” supra note
66 (noting a “multiplicative effect when several risk factors are present”).
lxxiii
See, e.g., Shader, “Risk Factors for Delinquency,” supra note 66 (“The study of risk factors, therefore, is
critical to the enhancement of prevention programs that frequently have limited staffing and funding. Identifying
which risk factors may cause delinquency for particular sets of youth at specific stages of their development may
help programs target their efforts in a more efficient and cost-effective manner.”).
lxxiv
“Background Information on Crime Prevention Through Social Development and Population Health Approach:
Crime Prevention through Social Development,” available on-line at
http://www.upei.ca/SI/BackgroundInformation_Resource_Section.pdf. See also “Criminal Offenders Statistics,”
Bureau of Justice Statistics available online at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm#lifetime (“an estimated
57% of inmates were under age 35 in 2001”).
lxxv
Wasserman, et. al. “Risk and Protective Factors of Child Delinquency,” supra note 70.
lxxvi
“Crime and Justice Bulletin,” supra note 63.
lxxvii
Wasserman, et. al. “Risk and Protective Factors of Child Delinquency,” supra note 70. (noting, however,
that “more studies are needed to determine whether emotional characteristics in childhood are causes of or simply
correlates of later antisocial behavior”).
lxxviii
OJJDP, Blueprint for Violence Prevention, supra note 2 at page 15. See also, Shader, “Risk Factors for
Delinquency,” supra note 66 (quoting Tremblay and LeMarquand “the best social behavior characteristic to predict
delinquent behavior before age 13 appears to be aggression”).
lxxix
“Background Information on Crime Prevention,” supra note 74.
lxxx
Juvenile Justice Educational Enhancement Program, 2005 Annual Report to the Florida Department of
Education, at p. 100. See also, Shader, “Risk Factors for Delinquency,” supra note 66 (“Low verbal IQ and delayed
language development have both been linked to delinquency; these links remain even after controlling for race and
class.”), and Wasserman, et. al. “Risk and Protective Factors of Child Delinquency,” supra note 70.
lxxxi
Wasserman, et. al. “Risk and Protective Factors of Child Delinquency,” supra note 70.
lxxxii
2005 Annual Report to the Florida Department of Education, supra note 80, at p. 101. See also,
Wasserman, et. al. “Risk and Protective Factors of Child Delinquency,” supra note 70, and “Risk and Protective
Factors for Youth Violence.” National Youth Violence Prevention Resource Center. Available online at
http://www.safeyouth.org/scripts/facts/risk.asp (“Poor academic achievement and school failure are other individuallevel factors that contribute to risk for violence.”).
lxxxiii
See, e.g., Nisbett, Richard E., “All Brains Are the Same Color,” New York Times, (December 9, 2007).
lxxxiv
James, Doris J., and Laren E. Glaze, “Mental Health Problems of Prison and Jail Inmates,” Bureau of Justice
Statistics Special Report (Revised 2006).
lxxxv
Id.
lxxxvi
“Drug Treatment in the Criminal Justice System,” ONDCP Drug Policy Information Clearinghouse Fact
Sheet (March 2001).
lxxxvii
Mumola, Christopher J., and Jennifer C. Karberg, “Drug Use and Dependence, State and Federal Prisoners,
2004,” Bureau of Justice Statistics (revised January, 2007).
lxxxviii
“Crime and Justice Bulletin,” supra note 63.
lxxxix
Shader, “Risk Factors for Delinquency,” supra note 66.
xc
Id.
xci
Id. See also, OJJDP Blueprint for Violence Prevention, supra note 2, at p. 16.
xcii
OJJDP Blueprint for Violence Prevention, supra note 2, at p. 16.
xciii
Wasserman, et. al. “Risk and Protective Factors of Child Delinquency,” supra note 70.
xciv
OJJDP Blueprint for Violence Prevention, supra note 2, at page 15.
xcv
Wasserman, et. al. “Risk and Protective Factors of Child Delinquency,” supra note 70 (noting that these
inadequate parenting practices “are among the most powerful predictors of early antisocial behavior.”)

draft advance copy- Not to be distributed

31

xcvi

“Risk and Protective Factors for Youth Violence,” supra note 83.
Id.
xcviii
Wasserman, et. al. “Risk and Protective Factors of Child Delinquency,” supra note 70. See also, “Criminal
Offenders Statistics,” supra note 74 (“thirty-one percent of jail inmates had grown up with a parent or guardian who
abused alcohol or drugs”).
xcix
Wasserman, et. al. “Risk and Protective Factors of Child Delinquency,” supra note 70.
c
Id.
ci
Harper, Cynthia, and Sara S. McLanahan. “Father Absence and Youth Incarceration.” Journal of Research on
Adolescence, 14(3), 369 – 397 (2004) (noting that father-absence frequently co-occurs with other socioeconomic
difficulties such as teen motherhood, low education, racial disparities, and frequent residential moves, and that these
other difficulties contribute to but do not fully explain the higher risks of incarceration).
cii
See, e.g., Parke, Ross D., and K. Alison Clarke-Stewart, “Effects of Parental Incarceration on Young Children”
(December 2001), and Travis, Jeremy, Elizabeth Cincotta McBride, and Amy L. Solomon, “Families Left Behind:
The Hidden Costs of Incarceration and Reentry,” Urban Institute Justice Policy Center (October 2003, revised June
2005).
ciii
Parke and Clarke-Stewart, “Effects of Parental Incarceration on Young Children,” supra note 102.
civ
Travis, et al, “Families Left Behind,” supra note 102.
cv
“Criminal Offenders Statistics,” supra note 74.
cvi
Wasserman, et. al. “Risk and Protective Factors of Child Delinquency,” supra note 70.
cvii
Id.
cviii
OJJDP Blueprint for Violence Prevention, supra note 2, at p. 16.
cix
Wasserman, et. al. “Risk and Protective Factors of Child Delinquency,” supra note 70.
cx
Widom, Cathy Spatz. “Understanding Child Maltreatment and Juvenile Delinquency: The Research.”
cxi
Id.
cxii
Wasserman, et. al. “Risk and Protective Factors of Child Delinquency,” supra note 70.
cxiii
Id.
cxiv
See also, Background information on Crime prevention, supra note 74 (listing “truancy, deficient school
environments, and exclusionary policies” as risk factors for crime).
cxv
Levin, et. al, The Public Returns to Public Educational Investments in African American Males, April 2007, at
p. 2.
cxvi
“Crime and Justice Bulletin,” supra note 63.
cxvii
Wasserman, et. al. “Risk and Protective Factors of Child Delinquency,” supra note 70.
cxviii
“Crime and Justice Bulletin,” supra note 63
cxix
Education and Public Safety, Justice Policy Institute (2007).
cxx
Id. citing Harlow, Caroline W. Education and Correctional Populations Bureau of Justice Statistics (2003).
cxxi
Adult Illiteracy: Its Cost to Us All, Arkansas Literacy Councils (2005) at p. 2.
cxxii
Snyder and Sickmund, Juvenile Offenders and Victims, supra note 36, at p. 14.
cxxiii
Weissman, Marsha, et. al., School Yard or Prison Yard: Improving Outcomes for Marginalized Youth,
(2005) at p. ii.
cxxiv
Id. at p. 1.
cxxv
Id. at p. ii. See also, Shader, “Risk Factors for Delinquency,” supra note 66 (school policies regarding grade
retention, suspension and expulsion, and school tracking of juvenile delinquency “disproportionately affect
minorities” and “have negative consequences for at-risk youth”).
cxxvi
Mauer, Schools and Prisons, supra note 26, at p. 5. (“According to the Department of Education, 35% o
African American children in grades 7-12 had been suspended or expelled at some point in their school careers,
compared to rates of 20% for Hispanics and 15% for whites.”)
cxxvii
Snyder and Sickmund, Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report., supra note 36, at p. 14.
cxxviii
Shader, “Risk Factors for Delinquency,” supra note 66.
xcvii

draft advance copy- Not to be distributed

32

cxxix

Id.
“Katrina’s Window,” supra note 43.
cxxxi
Escarce, Jose J. “Socioeconomic Status and the Fates of Adolescents.” Health Services Research (2003).
cxxxii
Id.
cxxxiii
Id.
cxxxiv
Id.
cxxxv
See, e.g., Raphael, Making the Links, supra note 2, at p. 3. See also, Background information on Crime
prevention, supra note 74.
cxxxvi
“Employment, Wages and Public Safety,” Justice Policy Institute (2007).
cxxxvii
Id.
cxxxviii
“Crime and Justice Bulletin,” supra note 63.
cxxxix
“Background information on Crime prevention,” supra note 74.
cxl
“Housing and Public Safety,” Justice Policy Institute (2007).
cxli
Drew, “The Truth About Concentrated Poverty,” supra note 41.
cxlii
Id.
cxliii
Id. (“From a housing perspective, high poverty areas are more likely to have deteriorating and/or abandoned
properties, which discourage investment in the area. This leads to a downward spiral for the neighborhood, from
which it is costly and difficult to recover.”).
cxliv
Id.
cxlv
“Housing and Public Safety,” supra note 140.
cxlvi
Id.
cxlvii
See, e.g., OJJDP Blueprint for Violence Prevention, supra note 2, at p. 16. (listing exposure to lead and
resulting high lead blood levels as a risk factor for crime), and Hoffman, Jascha. “Criminal Element.” The New
York Times, Oct. 21, 2007.
cxlviii
Hoffman, “Criminal Element,” supra note 147.
cxlix
“Housing and Public Safety,” supra note 140.
cl
Calvert, Wilma J. “Neighborhood disorder, individual protective factors, and the risk of adolescent
delinquency,” available online at http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0MJT/is_6_13/ai_95915532.
cli
See, e.g., id.
clii
Id..
cxxx

draft advance copy- Not to be distributed

33

IV. DECREASING THE RISK OF DELINQUENT BEHAVIOR &
CRIMINAL CONDUCT: INTERVENING EARLY TO PROMOTE
PROTECTIVE FACTORS AND BUILD RESILIENCE
Understanding the risk factors for criminal or delinquent behavior is only half the story.
Research has made clear that criminal or delinquent conduct, and violent behavior in particular,
is the result of multiple risk factors operating across multiple domains in the absence of
protective factors.cliii Just as the individual, family, school, and community factors discussed in
Chapter 3 increase the risk that a person will engage in risky or criminal behavior, the existence
of certain key protective factors promotes resilience and decreases the likelihood that a person
will engage in criminal or delinquent conduct. Intervening early and addressing the multiple
sources of risk in a person’s life are key steps in preventing delinquent and criminal conduct.
After discussing protective factors that may help to break the cycle of incarceration and
specific interventions that have been shown to promote protective factors, this chapter briefly
describes various conceptual models for approaching justice reform issues, such as the youth
development, social development, and health promotion approaches. This chapter then
describes strategies and messages that have been utilized successfully to persuade policymakers
to re-think their “tough on crime” approach to criminal justice issues. The resulting
understanding of protective factors, policy approaches, successful strategies, and persuasive
messages provides additional insight to inform the development of an integrative approach to
justice reform – an approach that utilizes multi-disciplinary collaboration to promote public
investments in effective intervention strategies to advance public safety by decreasing the
likelihood that a person will engage in risky or criminal behavior, instead of building more
prisons and jails.
The Impact of Protective Factors on the Risk Factor Paradigm: The Other Half of the
Equation
As discussed more fully in Chapter 3, considerable work has been done to identify the
circumstances that may increase a young person’s likelihood of engaging in risky behaviors
(“risk factors”). Studies also suggest the existence of certain “protective factors” that may create
resiliency, promote healthy behaviors, and decrease the chance that a person will engage in risky

34

behaviors.cliv While fewer studies have been done on this aspect of the risk factor paradigm,
researchers believe protective factors operate in three ways: as a buffer to risk factors,
cushioning against negative effects; as an interruption of the process through which risk factors
operate; and/or as a prevention of an initial occurrence of a risk factor.clv “Many of the risk
factors that make it likely that youth will engage in risky behaviors are the opposite of the
protective factors that make it likely that a teen will not engage in such behaviors.”clvi
In order to be successful, interventions intended to promote protective factors and build
resilience need to account for co-occurring risk factors and address the multiple sources of risk a
child or young adult may have in his or her life.clvii Interventions should also occur as early as
possible: critical emotional and behavioral developments occur in the very early years of a
person’s life, and “[b]y intervening early, young children will be less likely to succumb to the
accumulating risks that arise later in childhood and adolescence and less likely to incur the
negative social and personal consequences of several years of disruptive and delinquent
behaviors.”clviii “[T]he focus on risk factors that appear at a young age is the key to preventing
child delinquency and its escalation into chronic criminality.”clix
Individual-Level Protective Factors
At the level of the individual person, research suggests three types of protective factors that
can promote resilience in the face of adversity and buffer a child from risk and stress: positive
individual attributes, such as easy temperaments, high self-esteem, intelligence, and
independence; a supportive family environment, such as a supportive parent who can help to
buffer the adverse effects of poverty, divorce, or incarceration; and supportive people outside the
family, such as from the school system, peer groups, or churches.clx Research also suggests
additional individual-level traits and characteristics that are protective factors: a sense of
purpose and belief in a positive future; a commitment to education and learning; the ability to
feel a sense of control over one’s environment; the ability to be adaptable and flexible; the
ability to have empathy and caring for others; the ability to solve problems, plan for the future,
and be resourceful in seeking sources of support; and conflict resolution and critical thinking
skills.clxi
Based on this understanding, effective interventions at the individual level should attempt to
instill or reinforce these individual attributes, and to provide a supportive person in the life of a

35

person at increased risk for criminal or delinquent conduct. “One of the most powerful protective
factors emerging from resiliency studies is the presence of caring, supportive relationships.”clxii
With regard to mental health and substance abuse, evidence–based practices such as multisystemic therapy, which requires site readiness, highly trained professionals, and strict fidelity to
program design, show significant positive outcomes. Research suggests that because the impulse
control needed to avoid trouble is learned very early in life (during the preschool years), “it is
more important to focus on the preschool years, when clearly much of the development of
impulse control is taking place.”clxiii
Family-Level Protective Factors & Interventions
At the family level, factors that protect youth against delinquency include good relationships
with parents; bonding or attachment to one’s family; opportunities and reward for prosocial
family involvement; having a stable family; and high family expectations.clxiv “Family members,
especially parents or primary caregivers, can play a significant role in helping protect youth from
violence by emphasizing the importance of education and offering support and affection.”clxv
Positive communication and in-depth conversations between parents and children build
resilience.clxvi “[T]he existence of a non-kin support network which offers access to a variety of
adult viewpoints and experiences” similarly helps to build resilience.clxvii
Parenting practices that include the setting of clear boundaries for behavior, the enforcement
of structure and rules within the household, and the imposition of reasonable discipline when
rules are violated are important protective factors.clxviii Some research has found that home visits
by nurses to unmarried pregnant women living in households with low socioeconomic status
from pregnancy through the second year after a child’s birth can have a positive effect with
regard to child abuse and neglect, and future delinquent or criminal conduct by the child.clxix
Additionally, “focused, family-based approaches … have helped reduce the risk of poor family
management practices and physically abusive behavior, which can contribute to antisocial
behaviors in children.”clxx As one expert for this project noted, “One of the most powerful ways
to reduce crime and incarceration is to have effective child abuse detection, prevention, and
intervention efforts in place.”

36

School-Level Protective Factors & Interventions
In the education arena, important protective factors include school motivation; positive
attitude toward school; student bonding and connectedness (attachment to teachers, belief,
commitment); academic achievement, particularly reading ability and mathematics skills;
opportunities and rewards for prosocial school involvement; high-quality schools; clear standards
and rules; high expectations of students; and the presence and involvement of caring, supportive
adults.clxxi Ample evidence suggests a number of interventions that can engage at-risk youth in
schools and help to prevent drop outs, key strategies for protecting against risk and building
resilience in young people. These interventions include such things as high quality early
education, small classrooms and individualized learning, strengthened curricula, recruiting
qualified teachers to high-need areas, strong leadership at the principal level, effective youth
development activities, and providing training and support for teachers to appropriately respond
to children who present challenging behaviors. With regard to reducing aggressive behavior in
the classroom, research has found that several types of school programs show promise.clxxii
Additionally, schools have developed a number of efforts to “promote norms against aggressive,
violent, and other antisocial behaviors,” including the development of social competence
curriculums, conflict resolution and violence prevention curriculums, bullying prevention
programs, multicomponent classroom programs to improve academic achievement and reduce
antisocial behaviors, after-school recreation programs, and mentoring programs.clxxiii
There is evidence that “increased investments in quality education can have a positive public
safety benefit.”clxxiv Specifically, increasing graduation rates can produce significant public
safety benefits. One report has documented that increasing average years of schooling
completed by one year reduces violent crime by almost 30%, motor vehicle theft by 20%, arson
by 13%, and burglary and larceny by about 6%; and that increasing high school completion rates
by 1% for all men ages 20 – 60 would save as much as $1.4 billion per year in reduced costs
from crime incurred by victims and society at-large.clxxv Another more recent report documented
that increasing male high school graduation rates by 5% would produce an annual savings of $5
billion in crime-related expenses; and when coupled with annual earnings of those who
graduated, the United States would receive $7.7 billion in benefits.clxxvi Research has also
documented links between higher graduation rates and lower violent crime rates, and bigger
decreases in violent crime rates when states make bigger investments in higher education.clxxvii

37

In the school to prison pipeline context, each of the recommendationsclxxviii to prevent the use
of out-of-school suspensions listed below was echoed by education researchers and civil rights
advocates interviewed for this project: curtailment of the use of out-of-school suspensions;
better training of staff on issues that form the context of the lives of urban youth; behavioral
management techniques that more effectively address negative behaviors that arise as a result of
dire family and community conditions; and developing a deeper understanding of the
consequences of school suspensions, particularly for African American young men. One
advocate noted that progress is being made by pulling together local stakeholders from
corrections, the courts, families, school districts, the juvenile justice system, and other youth and
family-serving agencies, to discuss the issues and identify best practices and action steps they
can take.
Community-Level Protective Factors and Interventions
Protective factors at the community level include economically sustainable and stable
communities; a safe and health-promoting environment; supportive law enforcement presence;
positive social norms; the availability of neighborhood resources; opportunities and rewards for
prosocial community involvement; high community expectations; and neighborhood and social
cohesion.clxxix In addition, “a strong community infrastructure has been identified as a protective
factor against youth violence in the resiliency literature.”clxxx Strong neighborhoods and
communities open doors to opportunity for young people “to participate in activities where they
have choices, decision-making power, and shared responsibility,” experiences which “help them
to develop new skills, increase self-confidence, and offer a chance to make a difference.”clxxxi
Housing and employment are important aspects of building strong, stable, and economically
sustainable communities. The provision of supportive or affordable housing has been shown to
be a cost-effective public investment, lowering corrections and jail expenditures and freeing up
other funds for other public safety investments.clxxxii “States that spent more on housing
experienced lower incarceration rates than states that spent less.”clxxxiii A number of approaches
are being evaluated to address this issue. One approach provides means and opportunities for
people to improve their housing and neighborhood conditions by relocating to less povertyconcentrated areas, while another works within the community to interrupt the cycle of
abandonment and neglect by reinvesting in the community in ways that will improve the housing

38

stock and create jobs. Both increased employment and increased wages are also associated with
public safety benefits.clxxxiv
Challenges to Effective Intervention
A number of significant challenges exist to implementing effective interventions that
promote protective factors and build resilience. A number of advocates interviewed for this
project observed, “We lack any identifiable systemic urban policy, which means that we are
perpetually wedded to small programs that work, but we don’t have enough resources to respond
to the full scale of need and demand.” Because many policymakers prefer “tough on crime”
approaches to crime that prioritize incarceration after a crime has occurred, limited public
resources are available to fund the kinds of social service interventions which, over time, would
prevent crime. Advocates and researchers interviewed for this project noted that insufficient
money to fund interventions to scale is only one aspect of the resource issues: all too often, there
are not enough skilled and trained professionals to meet the demand that exists. Supporting this
contention, one researcher has noted, “The study of risk factors, therefore, is critical to the
enhancement of prevention programs that frequently have limited staffing and funding.
Identifying which risk factors may cause delinquency for particular sets of youth at specific
stages of their development may help programs target their efforts in a more efficient and costeffective manner.”clxxxv
Several interventions also require significant “buy-in” from local stakeholders, which can be
challenging to secure. In the mental health arena, advocates noted that community mental health
clinics have shut down, leaving few alternatives in their wake; existing treatment programs are
all-too-often inadequate and ineffective, and few of them will accept Medicaid. And one of the
biggest challenges in the education context remains: at the front end, there is an utter failure of
those working in the educational system to identify learning deficits in students; and even when a
deficit is identified, there are inadequate resources to provide appropriate services for that
student. Still another challenge articulated by those interviewed for this project is poor
communication and collaboration between child-protection, juvenile justice, and family and
youth-serving agencies.
One question to keep in mind when thinking about potential interventions is whether a risk
factor can be easily changed. For instance, while socioeconomic status is associated with

39

increased levels of delinquency and may be very hard to change, other risk factors may be more
amenable to change, such as poor parenting, which may be addressed by teaching parenting
skills and providing family support services.clxxxvi
Shifting the ‘Tough on Crime’ Paradigm
Overall, “a variety of research demonstrates that investment in drug treatment, interventions
with at-risk families, and school completion programs are more cost-effective than expanded
incarceration as crime control measures.”clxxxvii Indeed, “the combined approach of prevention
for juveniles and treatment for adults continues to exhibit the most significant cost savings and
remains a viable alternative to incarceration for many adults.”clxxxviii Despite this, as discussed
more extensively in Chapter 2, policymakers continue to invest a significant portion of limited
public resources in expanding incarceration and corrections costs, instead of interventions that
would prevent initial entry into the criminal justice system.
Significant challenges hinder efforts to shift the policy-making paradigm from short-term
“tough on crime” strategies to long-term investments in public and community safety. The most
obvious challenge is the fear of many policymakers that they will be viewed by their voting
constituencies as “soft on crime.” Another challenge, articulated by one advocate interviewed
for this project, is that “we’ve so expanded the criminalization of behavior that we are asking the
criminal justice system to do things for which it isn’t well suited.”
Furthermore, it has been suggested that policymakers lack sufficient data to guide their
decisions regarding where to invest public resources to prevent delinquency, a common point of
initial entry into the cycle of incarceration, because there are too few adequately designed and
evaluated experimental interventions.clxxxix One report by the U.S. Department of Justice’s
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention noted that “the lack of interventions
targeting antisocial behaviors in young children is particularly conspicuous,” and that “focusing
on children’s early years is essential to better understand the socialization failures that lead to
juvenile delinquency and, eventually, criminal behavior in adulthood.”cxc Understanding which
programs work requires adequate evaluation, a need that “evidence-based practices” and other
research-driven policy analyses are attempting to address.

40

Conceptual Models and Strategies for Approaching Crime Reduction and Justice Reform
The links between social policy issues extend far beyond questions of causation to broader
questions about how we conceptualize issues and social conditions, and our strategies for and
relative success in addressing them. Research for this report revealed different conceptual
models for understanding crime and achieving justice – related approaches that provide the
building blocks for developing an interdisciplinary campaign to persuade policymakers to
prioritize human service interventions to address the underlying risk factors for crime over socalled “tough-on-crime” expansions of incarceration. These approaches include the following:
Positive Youth Development Approach
Positive youth development is a policy approach that focuses on providing the services and
opportunities young people need to develop a sense of competence, usefulness, belonging, and
empowerment.cxci This approach promotes “the social, emotional, physical, moral, cognitive,
and spiritual development of young people through meeting their needs for safety, love,
belonging, respect, identity, power, challenge, mastery, and meaning.”cxcii The youth
development approach emphasizes the preparation of young people to succeed and contribute as
adolescents and as adults – an emphasis that sometimes involves risk reduction and problem
avoidance while not focusing solely on preventing risky behavior.cxciii Studies across multiple
disciplines have identified caring relationships, high expectation messages, and opportunities for
participation and contribution as three critical components of efforts to develop resilience in
youth, “broadly defined as the ability to rebound from adversity and achieve healthy
development and successful learning.”cxciv This approach advocates that “[p]ositive youth
development in the face of environmental threat, stress, and risk … should be available in all
environments in a young person’s world: home, school, community, and peer groups.”cxcv
The “First Focus” campaign of the America’s Promise Alliance provides an example of how
the youth development approach can be utilized. The America’s Promise Alliance is a national
multi-sector collaborative dedicated to the well-being of children and youth, and uses the youth
development approach in framing its efforts to improve outcomes for at risk-children and
youth.cxcvi The campaign seeks to ensure that more young people experience “The Five
Promises” – those developmental resources and wrap-around supports that young people need
for success in life.cxcvii The America’s Promise Alliance defines the Five Promises as caring

41

adults (ongoing, secure relationships with parents as well as formal and informal relationships
with other caring adults); safe places (families, schools, neighborhoods, and communities that
are physically and emotionally safe, and in which young people are actively and constructively
engaged); a healthy start (healthy bodies, minds, and habits, with access to health care, good
nutrition and exercise, healthy skills and knowledge, and role models of physical and
psychological health); an effective education (quality learning environments, challenging
expectations, and consistent guidance and mentoring to stimulate the intellectual development,
motivation, and skills that equip young people for successful work and lifelong learning); and
opportunities to help others (providing young people with the chance to make a difference in
their families, at schools, and in communities, thereby instilling in them a sense of responsibility
and a sense of possibility).cxcviii Noting that young people who receive at least four of the Five
Promises are more likely to succeed academically, socially, and civically, and are more likely to
avoid violence, contribute to their communities, and achieve high grades in school, the
America’s Promise Alliance utilizes an array of action strategies in their efforts to deliver the
Five Promises and to improve outcomes for at-risk youth.
Health Promotion Approachcxcix
The health promotion approach recognizes there is a broad range of social, economic and
physical environment factors that interact and contribute to overall health, many of which fall
outside the health care sector. These “determinants of health” include income, education and
literacy, social support networks, employment and working conditions, social environments,
physical, personal health practices and coping, biology and genetics, gender, culture, healthy
child development, health services. This approach advocates that “[t]he way to proceed is to
develop communication between various sectors concerned with community health and crime
prevention and educate citizens about the consequences of policy decisions and poverty upon
community health and safety.”cc
In 2005, the Dellums Commission utilized this approach when it focused on the social
determinants of health to analyze and address life options and health issues facing young men of
color in America. The Commission explained that the social determinants of health for young
men of color and their communities are “poverty, exclusion and discrimination, poor housing
and inferior schools, disparate treatment by the justice system, environmental toxicity, and

42

inadequate access to health care” that citizens living in communities of color experience.cci The
Commission’s report specifically noted the cumulative, detrimental impact of criminal justice
policies in limiting life options for young men of color. Applying a health promotion approach
allowed the Commission to more fully understand the wide array of issues facing young men of
color, and to formulate policy recommendations for education, child welfare, economic, justice,
and health care systems – the underlying social conditions which interact to diminish life options
and outcomes for young men of color.ccii
Social Development Approach
The social development approach is a proactive approach that aims to prevent crime by
addressing the social and economic risk factors that lead to crime, such as: family stress,
neglect, poverty, physical and sexual abuse, alcohol and drug abuse, poor living conditions, early
childhood experiences, unemployment, and low education/illiteracy. cciii This approach provides
a comprehensive approach to crime prevention, working with, but also making connections
beyond, the traditional criminal justice sector (police, courts, and corrections). It recognizes the
important role that policies, programs and services such as social housing, education, health,
income security and social services play in preventing crime. This approach works with
individuals, families and communities to provide them with the tools, knowledge and support
they need to deal with root causes of crime at a local level.
The Government of Canada utilizes a “Crime Prevention through Social Development
(CPSD)” approach in its National Crime Prevention Strategy.cciv While still utilizing “situational
crime prevention” strategies that seek to reduce the availability and attractiveness of
opportunities for criminal activity, the Canadian government also utilizes CPSD to address the
root causes of crime and victimization that are amenable to change.ccv CPSD seeks to “foster
protective factors,” and to “make connections beyond the traditional criminal justice sphere, by
recognizing the important role that policies programs, and services such as housing, education,
health, income security, and social services play in preventing crime.”ccvi Between 1998 and
2004, Canada’s National Crime Prevention Strategy supported over 4,000 projects in over 800
communities. The 2004 “Mid-Term Evaluation” of the National Crime Prevention Strategy
indicated that although there were some implementation and coordination challenges, most
involved in the project believed the Strategy would achieve its objectives.ccvii

43

There is considerable overlap between the health promotion and social development
approaches, each of which illuminates the connections between criminal justice, public health,
and other socioeconomic issues. As one commentator discussing the linkages between illness,
crime, and unhealthy communities has observed, “all share similar determinants, reflect a failure
of some kind or another, are subject to different interpretations and approaches as to cause and
intervention, and are subject to public policy decisions that determine the quality of various
social determinants of health and wellbeing. Finally, the quality of these determinants does not
appear to be improving.”ccviii This same commentator notes that while the healthcare field is
focused on disease, and criminology focuses on crime, certain factors are the same: “society
fails in one way or another to support human and social development.”ccix Such observations
about health and crime could just as easily be made about education, housing, employment,
mental health, substance abuse, and economic development.
“Justice Reinvestment”
“The goal of Justice Reinvestment is to redirect some portion of the [billions of dollars]
America now spends on prisons to rebuilding the human resources and physical infrastructure –
the schools, healthcare facilities, parks, and public spaces – of neighborhoods devastated by high
levels of incarceration.”ccx A fundamental premise of justice reinvestment is that millions of
dollars are spent each year to incarcerate a relatively small number of people from certain
communities and neighborhood, almost of all of whom will return after a period of incarceration.
“When they return – disproportionately to low-income neighborhoods of color – they will find
neighborhoods weakened by their absence and burdened by their return.”ccxi The “justice
reinvestment” approach questions whether the millions of dollars spent on prisons actually create
safer neighborhoods. This approach advocates that reallocating some portion of the dollars
currently spent on corrections and the justice system to refinance education, housing, healthcare,
and jobs is a more effective strategy for increasing community safety.
The Council of State Governments has applied the “justice reinvestment” concept in an
initiative aimed at increasing public safety, reducing spending on corrections, and improving
conditions in the neighborhoods to which most people released from prison return.ccxii The
project seeks to quantify and reinvest savings in “high-stakes” communities to which most
people released from prison return, and where taxpayer-funded programs are disproportionately

44

focused.ccxiii Working closely with state policymakers, the project “advance[s] fiscally-sound,
data driven criminal justice policies to break the cycle of recidivism, avert prison expenditures
and make communities safer.” Specifically, the project provides technical assistance to analyze
prison population and spending; to provide policy options to generate savings and increased
public safety; to quantify savings and reinvest in select high-stakes communities; and to measure
the impact and enhance accountability. The project is currently working with eight states to
implement justice reinvestment strategies.
Framing the Issue as an Opportunity Issueccxiv
One advocate noted, “With all the poverty issues, lack of options and lack of opportunities is
a really basic part of the problem.” Framing issues in terms of opportunity is an approach
utilized by The Opportunity Agenda, which “works to ensure that the United States lives up to its
promise as the land of opportunity for every person who lives here.” The Opportunity Agenda
defines and measures opportunity along six dimensions of opportunity: mobility (the opportunity
to advance and participate fully in the economic, political, and cultural life of the nation),
equality (full access to the benefits, responsibilities and burdens of society regardless of race,
gender, national origin or socioeconomic status), voice (the ability of all to participate, debate,
and have real ownership in the public dialogue), redemption (the chance for rehabilitation and
redemption), security (access to the level of education, economic well being, health care, and
other protections necessary to human dignity), and community (shared responsibility for each
other). The organization utilizes an integrated strategy of communications, research, and
advocacy to work with social justice organizations and leaders to connect with core American
values and build support for greater opportunity in America.
Decreasing Costs and Increasing Fiscal Accountability
Some are beginning to utilize economic assessments to evaluate whether specific programs
produce a cost savings to taxpayers by comparing the costs of particular interventions aimed at
reducing crime with the estimated costs of crime. For example, in 2006, the Washington State
Institute for Public Policy was called upon by the Washington State Legislature to identify
alternative “evidence-based” options that could reduce the future need for prison beds, save
money for state and local taxpayers, and contribute to lower crime rates.ccxv In its evaluation, the

45

Institute found that some evidence-based programs can reduce crime, but others cannot, and that
several of the successful programs produce favorable returns on investment. Similarly, in 2004,
the Institute researched whether there is credible scientific evidence that for each dollar a
legislature spends on “research-based” prevention or early intervention programs for youth, more
than a dollar’s worth of benefits will be generated, and if so, what policy options offer taxpayers
the best return on their dollar?ccxvi There, again, the Institute found that some programs could
provide taxpayers a good return on their investment, providing policymakers with practical
guidance on how to invest limited public resources in order to have the greatest impact on crime.
In the education context, a strong argument can now be advanced that increasing investments
in education for black males at risk of dropping out of high school not only saves taxpayer
dollars, but generates them as well. “Although they constitute less than 20% of the overall
population, dropouts make up over 50% of the state inmate population . . . [and] disadvantaged
groups – particularly black males – are disproportionately represented in the prison system.”ccxvii
We know that higher educational attainment reduces crime by juveniles and adults – either
because behaviorally, it influences criminal predispositions, or because financially, it reduces the
pressure to commit crime and raises the opportunity cost.ccxviii We also know that greater
educational attainment raises income levels, improves health status, lowers rates of morality, and
reduces reliance on public assistance payments and subsidies.ccxix In evaluating educational
investments to raise high school graduation rates, one recent study evaluated the costs and
effectiveness of five leading interventions that have been shown to increase high school
graduation rates. By comparing the costs of these interventions with the economic benefits of
high school graduation (higher tax revenues, and lower government spending on health, crime,
and welfare), researchers found that each new high school graduate would yield a public benefit
of $209,000 in higher government revenues and lower government spending, for an overall
investment of $82,000 per new graduate. The net economic benefit to the public purse is
therefore $127,000 per student, and the benefits are 2.5 times greater than the costs.ccxx
In a separate report, these same researchers note that African American males experience the
poorest educational outcomes, in terms of test scores, high school graduation, post-secondary
attendance, and college graduation.ccxxi Focusing in on this demographic group, the researchers
undertook a comprehensive assessment of the public returns of investments for improving the
educational attainments of black males, specifically, educational interventions which would

46

increase high school graduation rates. As in their previous report, the researchers found that “for
each additional black male high school graduate the net public benefit in present value at age 20
is between $136,400 and $197,600. Taking the median intervention, the net present value is
$166,000 which is over ten times the cost of delivering the intervention to one single student …
[and] the net public benefit would range from $3.27 billion to $4.74 billion.”ccxxii Such results
“suggest that increased investments in education for black males at risk of dropping out of high
school should be an economic priority.”ccxxiii The authors of this report note that the high public
returns for financing educational improvements pose a quandary: “Over half the public benefits
accrue to the federal government, but it pays less than 10% of the cost of K-12 schooling. Thus,
the incentive structure for reaping the benefits is not well-aligned with the tax system.”ccxxiv
Another approach to the economic argument, suggested during interviews for this project, is
that the criminal justice system hurts shareholder returns and American economic
competitiveness. Such an argument would require one to make economic connections between a
criminal conviction and access to employment and financing to purchase goods. Some data
already exists that could be helpful: research suggests that poverty can negatively affect
economic growth;ccxxv in addition, a recent report by the Center for American Progress suggest
that the costs to the U.S. associated with childhood poverty total about $500 billion per year, or
the equivalent of nearly 4 % of GDP.ccxxvi However, additional data is needed to support such an
argument.
Promoting Public Safety
A close correlate of the economic arguments described above is the public safety argument.
In order to address policymaker concerns about being viewed as “soft on crime,” many
advocates who are concerned about the impact of criminal justice policies on the poor and
communities of color focus their communications efforts on persuading policymakers that
human service programs and interventions promote public safety. As one advocate participating
in the interdisciplinary discussion session noted, “the only way to sell the message is to frame it
as public safety and crime prevention. We can easily make the argument that 30 years of mass
imprisonment hasn’t worked. Multiple factors contribute to the decreases that have been seen in
crime rates. But when we ‘warehouse’ people, they come out worse than they went in.
Warehousing doesn’t protect the public. Prisons aren’t working, and there’s evidence to support

47

the argument that the current criminal justice system is a failure, and to ‘sell’ investments in
social services, housing, and education as a crime prevention strategy.”
Many organizations frame their criminal justice research and advocacy in terms of increasing
public safety and fighting crime. For example, the Justice Policy Institute recently released a
series of reports on employment, housing, and education, which linked improvements in each of
these social policy areas with positive public safety outcomes.ccxxvii Fight Crime: Invest in Kids
takes this approach a step further by using its network of 3,000 police chiefs, sheriffs,
prosecutors, and victims of violence to advocate for investments in children to prevent them
from becoming involved in the criminal justice system. The specific programs they support as
proven to decrease the likelihood of criminal involvement include Head Start, Early Head Start,
quality child care, home visitation to support at-risk mothers, after-school programs to keep kids
off the streets in the prime time for juvenile crime, and programs to help troubled teens get back
on track.ccxxviii

cliii

See, e.g., “Risk and Protective Factors for Youth Violence,” supra note 83, and Parke and Clarke-Stewart,
“Effects of Parental Incarceration on Young Children,” supra note 102 (risk and resilience theory recognizes that
successful adaptation in the face of stressful life events is “a function of two things: the form and frequency of the
risks and the protective or resilience factors that buffer the child from adverse events”).
cliv
“Risk and Protective Factors for Youth Violence,” supra note 83.
clv
“Community Guide to Helping America’s Youth,” supra note 70.
clvi
Id.
clvii
Wasserman, et. al. “Risk and Protective Factors of Child Delinquency,” supra note 70.
clviii
Id.
clix
Id.
clx
See, e.g., Parke and Clarke-Stewart, “Effects of Parental Incarceration on Young Children,” supra note 102.
clxi
“Risk and Protective Factors for Youth Violence,” supra note 83.
clxii
Id.
clxiii
Wasserman, et. al. “Risk and Protective Factors of Child Delinquency,” supra note 70.
clxiv
“Community Guide to Helping America’s Youth,” supra note 70.
clxv
“Risk and Protective Factors for Youth Violence,” supra note 83..
clxvi
Id.
clxvii
Id..
clxviii
Id.
clxix
Wasserman, et. al. “Risk and Protective Factors of Child Delinquency,” supra note 70.
clxx
Id.
clxxi
“Community Guide to Helping America’s Youth,” supra note 70.
clxxii
Wasserman, et. al. “Risk and Protective Factors of Child Delinquency,” supra note 70 (specifically noting
the “Good Behavior Game,” and the Seattle Social Development Project).
clxxiii
Id.

48

clxxiv
clxxv

“Education and Public Safety,” supra note 119, at p. 1.

Id., citing Lochner, Lance, and Enrico Moretti “The effect of education on crime: Evidence from prison
inmates, arrests, and self-reports,” American Economic Review vol. 94(1) (2004).
clxxvi
Id., citing Lochner and Moretti “The effect of education on crime,” supra note 175, and Alliance for
Excellent Education, “Saving Futures, Saving Dollars: The Impact of Education on Crime Reduction and
Earnings,” Washington, DC (2006).
clxxvii
Id. at p. 5 – 8.
clxxviii
Weissman, Marsha, et. al., “School Yard or Prison Yard,” supra note 123, at p. iii.
clxxix
“Community Guide to Helping America’s Youth,” supra note 70.
clxxx
“Risk and Protective Factors for Youth Violence,” supra note 83.
clxxxi
Id.
clxxxii
“Housing and Public Safety,” supra note 140.
clxxxiii
Id.
clxxxiv
“Employment, Wages and Public Safety,” Justice Policy Institute (2007).
clxxxv
Shader, “Risk Factors for Delinquency,” supra note 66.
clxxxvi
Id.
clxxxvii
Mauer, Incarceration and Crime, supra note 9, at p. 8.
clxxxviii
Id. at p. 8.
clxxxix
Wasserman, et. al. “Risk and Protective Factors of Child Delinquency,” supra note 70.
cxc
Id.
cxci
“Positive Youth Development: What is Positive Youth Development?” National Clearinghouse on Families &
Youth, available online at http://ncfy.acf.hhs.gov/publications/ydfactsh.htm.
cxcii
“Resilience & Youth Development,” WestEd Healthy Kids Survey, available online at
http://www.wested.org/cs.chks/print/docs/hks_res_matter.html.
cxciii
“Positive Youth Development,” supra note 191.
cxciv
“Resilience & Youth Development,” supra note 192.
cxcv
Id.
cxcvi
See generally, information available online at http://www.americaspromise.org.
cxcvii
Id.
cxcviii
Id.
cxcix
“Background information on Crime prevention,” supra note 74.
cc
Raphael, Making the Links, supra note 2, at p. 6.
cci
Dellums Commission, A Way Out, supra note 27, at p. 2.
ccii
Id..
cciii
“Background information on Crime prevention,” supra note 74.
cciv
“Factsheet: Crime Prevention Through Social Development” available online at http://ww4.pssp.gc.ca/en/library/publications/fact_sheets/cpsd/index.html.
ccv
Id.
ccvi
Id.
ccvii
See, “Executive Summary National Strategy on Community Safety and Crime Prevention: Report on the
Mid-Term Evaluation,” available online at http://justice-canada.ca/en/ps/eval/reports/96/strategy/p_00.html. .
ccviii
Raphael, Making the Links, supra note 2, at p. 1.
ccix
Id. at p. 3.
ccx
Tucker, Susan B. and Eric Cadora, “Ideas for an Open Society: Justice Reinvestment,” (November 2003) at p.
2.
ccxi
Id.
ccxii
See information available online at http://www.justicereinvestment.org.

49

ccxiii

Id.
See information available online at http://www.opportunityagenda.org.
ccxv
Aos, Steve, et. al. “Evidence-Based Public Policy Options to Reduce Future Prison Construction, Criminal
Justice Costs, and Crime Rates” 2006. Washington State Institute for Public Policy.
ccxvi
Aos, Steve, et. al. “Benefits and Costs of Prevention and Early Intervention Programs for Youth,”
Washington State Institute for Public Policy (2004).
ccxvii
Levin, Henry, et. al. “The Costs and Benefits of an Excellent Education for All of America’s Children,”
January 2007, at p. 13.
ccxviii
Levin, et. al, “Costs and Benefits of an Excellent Education,” supra note 217, at p. 13.
ccxix
Id. at pp. 6. 9, and 14.
ccxx
Id. at p. 1.
ccxxi
Levin, et. al, “The Public Returns to Public Educational Investments in African American Males,” April
2007, at p. 2.
ccxxii
Id. at p. 13-14.
ccxxiii
Id. at p. 1.
ccxxiv
Id. at p. 15.
ccxxv
GAO, “Poverty in America,” supra note 35.
ccxxvi
Holzer et. al, The Economic Costs of Poverty in the United States: Subsequent Effects of Children Growing
Up Poor, Institute for Research on Poverty (2007).
ccxxvii
Reports available online at http://www.justicepolicy.org.
ccxxviii
See information available online at http://www.fightcrime.org.
ccxiv

50

V.

INTEGRATIVE APPROACHES TO JUSTICE REFORM: THE
OPPORTUNITIES & THE CHALLENGES
Many people interviewed for this project have agreed with the observation of one civil rights

advocate that “there are readily apparent links between criminal justice and other issue areas” –
links that must be explored if we are to make progress on the larger issues of poverty and race
that are inherent in the cycle of incarceration. One capital defense attorney sees these links in the
work she does every day: “Doing death penalty work, looking at the school and court records of
my clients replete with reports of child abuse, parental abandonment, emotional and learning
disabilities, and substance abuse, you get a clear sense of how everything goes wrong. You look
at the lives of my capital clients, and it’s not a shock, it’s so obvious that things would go
horribly wrong in their lives, leading to the capital crime with which they are charged.”
“Behind the Cycle” was intended to create space for conversation across disciplines about
these links – space for people who work in different areas of expertise to think about the issues
that contribute to a person’s initial entry into the criminal justice system, to understand how the
cycle of incarceration begins, and to identify whether there is an integrative approach to justice
reform that could ultimately decrease the number of the poor and people of color (particularly
young men of color) entering into and cycling through America’s criminal justice system. What
we have found in the process is that advocates, researchers, direct service providers, and
academics from across the disciplinary spectrum are hungry for this opportunity. Consider a few
of the many voices we have heard:
“I’ve been working on criminal justice policy issues for years. I want to see a change in how
we approach these issues – not just a piece-meal approach to putting out fires, but a more
integrated, cohesive strategy to these interrelated issues areas”
“Success is dependent upon broadening the conversation. The response to the problems is
always more criminal justice. We need to create a political, public environment that can
generate a broader understanding of what we need to do. I want to know how to get a
winning strategy.”
“Even advocates don’t see all the links. In our own discussion, we’re from different
disciplines and we don’t see all the connections, or we don’t prioritize them as highly as
other fires that are burning. We need to break down our advocacy silos. All of these issues
need translating – people need to understand the impact of incarceration.”

51

“We need a framework. We need to start thinking about a new frame on the issues.”
“By some definitions, insanity means that you keep doing the same thing but expecting a
different result. But to change the outputs, you have to change the inputs. We’ve got to do
things differently.”
Mixed with the overall enthusiasm of those interviewed for this project, there has also been
some skepticism. Many acknowledge that this undertaking is big: “How do you even begin to
get your arms around the topic?” “It sounds so huge!” “Yes, we need to be talking about this,
but it’s a massive undertaking – where do you even begin to put these pieces together?” Other
recurring questions include, “What is it, exactly, that we’re trying to do?” “How do we define
something that can be done that is real and practical and achievable?” and, “It all makes sense –
so why is it so hard?”
Some have noted that there are multiple levels of potential action and collaboration: in
individual cases, in specific communities, and at a national policy level. Some have questioned
whether there could ever be a “master strategy” that neatly sews all the pieces and all the levels
of intervention together. And some have observed that fundamental questions raised by this
project are not new: “This is something society has been struggling with for forty years – trying
to figure out what sorts of things we can do to improve public safety through investing in people
and their circumstances. Part of the difficulty we face now is that federal efforts in the 1960s to
‘ramp up’ and build housing projects turned out not to be effective. Some negativity rolls over
from that.”
Still others expressed concern about some of the challenges to working from an
interdisciplinary perspective. One juvenile justice advocate noted that some past efforts to bring
youth development and child welfare advocates into juvenile justice reform campaigns were not
successful, and commented, “If you really want to look at prevention and keeping kids out of the
criminal justice system, we must figure out a way to get people from the various issue areas to sit
at the table and see they have a common cause.” One child welfare advocate noted that a
cultural history of isolation and mistrust among various youth and family-serving agencies
sometimes interferes with his organization’s efforts to integrate systems in a jurisdiction to share
information and identify all the treatment and service needs of the child. One criminal justice
advocate who regularly collaborates with law enforcement representatives on juvenile justice

52

issues noted, “With rare exception, criminal justice isn’t at the table with others on children’s
issues.”
In a completely unrelated context, a civil rights advocate echoed these sentiments, noting that
efforts to bring local stakeholders together around “school to prison pipeline” issues involved
changing cultural norms and expectations. Building trust across disciplines and changing
cultural norms and expectations is, simply put, hard work. This is made all the more difficult
because all-too-often, our agencies and organizations are forced to compete with each other for
the limited funding that is available to support our work. Limited resources also inhibit our
ability to implement effective strategies, either collaboratively or separately.
Despite the expressed concerns, there appears to be widespread consensus that collectively,
“we have to change the inputs.” If we are ever to move beyond “band-aid” approaches to deeplyentrenched, frequently unaddressed, and interrelated policy issues, we must come out of our
“silos” to share information, discuss the problems that we see, and move toward a more
integrative approach to justice reform.
The Integrative Approach: Collaborating Across Disciplines to Break the Cycle of
Incarceration
As envisioned at the start of this program, an “integrative approach to justice reform” means
drawing together advocates, researchers, direct service providers, and academics from a wide
range of disciplines and social policy areas to share varied perspectives on the issues that fuel
America’s cycle of incarceration, and to identify potential collaborative strategies to abate the
disproportionate numbers of the poor and people of color entering into and cycling through the
criminal justice system. The discussion of the interdisciplinary group that gathered on July 30,
2007, added much to this initial vision. Through the group’s discussion, it became clear that this
kind of approach is integrative on multiple levels, with regard to:
•

who is involved in the conversation,

•

how issues are described and understood,

•

how policy decisions are made,

•

what impact policies and programs have across multiple domains and disciplines,

•

how the effectiveness of policies and programs is measured,

53

•

what social policy research is undertaken and how it can be used to advocate for
particular policies and programs,

•

which policy arguments and communications strategies are used to support advocacy
efforts, and

•

how funding is provided to support pre-entry initiatives.

The interdisciplinary discussion also suggested that there are specific needs that must be
addressed if we are to turn this vision of an integrative approach to justice reform into reality.
These needs include:
Overcoming “piecemeal” approaches.
Many efforts to address criminal justice issues have been described as “piecemeal,” with
issues addressed one step at a time within the confines of a particular discipline. By virtue of our
academic training and expertise in particular issue areas, different disciplines (law, public health,
housing, psychology, education, etc.) have different ways of talking about and understanding
otherwise related issues, and organizations have developed programmatic, policy, and research
agendas that are in line with their respective training and expertise. The “siloed” nature of our
disciplines inhibits interdisciplinary communication about issues for which a common cause
actually exists.
Further reinforcing the piecemeal approach is that, all too often, we must compete with
each other for a larger share of a limited pool of resources to support our work. The rapid
increase in state corrections spending that is expected to continue exacerbates this tension, as the
pool of public dollars available to support our work shrinks in direct proportion to the increases
in corrections spending. Moreover, with few exceptions, the public and private funding that
supports justice reform efforts reinforces the piecemeal approach: rather than supporting
integrative approaches, foundations and government funders tend to support specific, singleissue projects and initiatives. The fragmented jurisdiction that results from the local-state-federal
construction of government in the United States also contributes to this piecemeal approach.
On the other hand, addressing justice reform issues requires expertise from several
disciplines – expertise that has been developed precisely because advocates, researchers, service

54

providers, and academics focus almost single-mindedly on particular issues. The key to
overcoming the negative aspects of the piecemeal approach is to pull together experts from the
various disciplines to share their expertise and more fully inform the collective understanding of
what fuels the cycle of incarceration. This integrative understanding of the issues will enable
more creative, holistic problem-solving and advocacy. Such an understanding also has the
potential to inform how we deploy our limited resources, enabling us to utilize the strengths of
our disciplines in intentionally complementary ways to achieve particular policy objectives as we
address the issues that fuel the cycle of incarceration.
Getting our colleagues on board.
Throughout this project, it has been clear that for each person interviewed, for each
discipline explored, and for each organization represented, there were many other researchers,
advocates, direct service providers, and academics who could be contacted and drawn into this
effort. The consensus of the interdisciplinary discussion group was that reaching out to these
other colleagues is an important means of broadening not only who is at the discussion table, but
also of expanding our collective understanding of issues and strategies, and of building support
across disciplines for collaboration with unlikely allies.
In reaching out to colleagues, it will be important to clearly articulate the benefits of an
integrative approach to justice reform – to articulate why others from different disciplines
should break down the walls of their disciplinary silos, and what each will get from moving
toward this integrative approach. In discussing this need, one participant noted, “There are a
number of different systems, so talking to those people in the systems means not only getting
those players into the room, but talking to those players as it relates to their system, such as the
interest a children’s organization should have in pre-entry efforts to break the cycle of
incarceration.” This requires that we continue to develop a common language and understanding
of the issues that can be conveyed to others. A convening or symposium as part of a larger
strategy could provide an opportunity for this kind of outreach.
Identifying a theme around which different disciplines can rally.
Another point of consensus among participants in the interdisciplinary discussion was
that this effort needs a “theme” – a statement about the goals of an integrative approach to justice

55

reform, and how we can work towards collective goals without threatening or undermining
existing domains of expertise and individual organizational agendas. Such a theme could help to
persuade others to join our common cause, as well as serve as an organizing principle for
identifying and approaching the specific issues to be addressed by a broad and diverse group. A
number of possible themes emerged from those participating in the interdisciplinary discussion
and interviewed on this project, themes that included the concepts of opportunity, poverty, race,
child wellbeing, and resilience.
There was extensive discussion about what we mean by “justice,” a concept which could
include a range of ideas, such as: eliminating disparities in systems; reaching American ideals;
producing stronger individuals and healthy families; improving access to services; creating safer
communities; providing equal access to opportunity and to a healthy life; creating productive,
competitive communities; and providing access to high quality service. Those participating in
the interdisciplinary strategy session identified most strongly with defining the concept of justice
in terms of “healthy communities.” The consensus of the group appeared to be that such an
approach could entail creating a paradigm for evaluating and measuring communities based upon
their ability to address individual, family, school, and community factors that increase the risk of
criminal behavior. It also could entail defining healthy communities as those that promote
resilience, produce strong individuals, provide access to high quality education and health
services, and ultimately provide an equal opportunity for a healthy life. Defining justice in this
way would have the added benefit of allowing other disciplines to see themselves in this effort.
Participants in the interdisciplinary session also described a service delivery vision for
healthy communities in which needed health and human services are accessible, are provided in
the community, and are adequately resourced to respond to the true scope of need that exists.
They spoke of a vision of thriving, sustainable communities and families over generations, where
the criminal justice system is the system of last resort instead of the system of first resort.
Borrowing language from the “health promotions” approach described in Chapter 4, the
discussion raised questions as to what conditions must exist to create strong, healthy
communities in which resilience becomes the norm; what supports and services would help to
create the conditions to promote healthy communities and resilient individuals; and how we
could encourage communities and policymakers to invest in the creation of these conditions. The
idea of developing a “safer society count” was suggested – something akin to the Annie E. Casey

56

Foundation’s “Kids Count” initiative that would focus instead on incarceration measures or
indices of “thriving, sustainable communities.”
Contextualizing statistics about race, poverty, and incarceration.
Participants in the interdisciplinary session grappled at length with the statistics and
numbers cited in Chapter 2 of this report. While some found the numbers alone to be significant,
others suggested that policymakers and members of the general public “don’t care about the
numbers,” only about the perceptions that flow from the numbers. Observations about the
statistics included: “the numbers don’t affect the public’s feeling of safety,” “people don’t
understand the magnitude of the numbers,” “they need to be translated into layman’s terms,” “we
need to find a way of discussing the numbers so people outside the criminal justice system
understand what they mean,” “people need to understand the economic impact,” and “we need to
tell the stories behind the numbers – we need to do a better job of personalizing them.”
There was strong consensus that in order to be meaningful, the numbers need to be
contextualized. This will certainly require “putting a face to the numbers” by communicating
narratives along with the statistics. This could also include developing tools to make the
numbers more comprehensible, such as creating memorable visual images to demonstrate
disproportionate incarceration rates or the budgetary tradeoffs required by increased corrections
spending. Mapping the incarceration consequences and fiscal implications of under-performing
schools could provide another means of contextualizing the statistics.
Particularly when communicating with policymakers, it is important to think in terms of
multiple systems and building partnerships. As one person interviewed for this project noted,
“we are constantly thinking about multiple systems and their interface, and how to get better
outcomes generally. We always frame things as what saves money and increases public safety.
In the reentry and mental health arenas, we are constantly looking for outcome measures that
span multiple systems, so a policymaker sitting above can see if different systems are working
together, to open up access to health services, employment, etc. We are also looking for to
partner with folks from other disciplines (ie, child welfare, neighborhood/economic
development) who don’t think about criminal justice, and for different points of entry into other
systems.” The clear consensus of the interdisciplinary discussion group was that choosing both

57

the right message and the right messenger are important parts of any potential communications
strategy, and will need further consideration moving forward.
Promoting evidence-based practices and research-based advocacy.
In light of the anticipated surge in corrections spending detailed in Chapter 2 of this
report, participants in the interdisciplinary strategy session shared the perspective that a
significant shift in policy-making paradigms is needed, from one that emphasizes increased
spending on incarceration and corrections costs, to one that emphasizes increased public
investments in pre-entry initiatives. In order to build support for such a shift, there is a
significant need to align research efforts with policy objectives and communications strategies.
This will involve utilizing research to objectively evaluate the success and cost effectiveness of
pre-entry programs and interventions in relation to criminal justice outcomes and incarceration
rates. Such data could then be used to strengthen arguments to persuade policymakers that
investing on the front end to address the needs of people at risk for contact with the criminal
justice system will ultimately save taxpayer dollars, promote community safety, and decrease the
need for increased spending on corrections.
Some of this alignment is already happening. For instance, the education studies
discussed in Chapter 4 demonstrate cost-savings and public safety benefits of increasing
graduation rates. Similarly, the Washington State Institute for Public Policy has examined
“evidence-based” options to decrease the need for future prison beds, and has evaluated which
prevention programs offer the best return on investment. Documenting such “evidence-based
practices” enables policymakers and advocates alike to identify which programs and
interventions are effective in decreasing the risk of criminal conduct, and which programs can be
replicated in other environments. This can also assist in the considerable task which one
participant in the interdisciplinary discussion described as, “persuading a constant majority of
Americans to see their own self-interest in this vision of the community interest.” While
practical questions remain about how to coordinate research and advocacy across disciplines, the
consensus of the participants in the interdisciplinary session was that evidence-based practices
and research-based advocacy were critical to shifting the policymaking paradigm, and ultimately
breaking the cycle of incarceration.

58

Highlighting models of success.
Participants in the interdisciplinary session also agreed with the observation that “we
need to find some way to highlight what works.” Indeed, having models of successful
collaboration, or examples of an integrated approach to justice reform in action, can be critical
for persuading others not only of the need for such an approach, but also that such an approach
can be undertaken at a very practical level. During the course of discussion, participants noted
that initiatives at the local level (i.e., community-based initiatives in mayors’ offices) could be a
good source for identifying a successful transformation of an “at risk” community into a healthy
community.
There are, in fact, a number of ways in which integrative approaches are being utilized –
models that provide some insight and guidance as to the practicality of moving toward a more
integrated approach to justice reform. For instance, part of the success of recent efforts to
support people as they leave prison and reenter communities is that criminal justice advocates
partnered with churches, social service providers, employment counselors, housing experts,
substance abuse programs, and others. This collaboration deepened the understanding of reentry
issues, and the resulting broader perspective enabled all partners to identify more effective
solutions and to develop more effective strategies and support programs. The collaboration also
enabled those working for policy changes to advocate from a broader base of support.
The Council of State Government’s “Reentry Policy Council” exemplifies the multi-systems
thinking and cross-disciplinary partnership building inherent in integrative approaches to justice
reform. The Reentry Policy Council brought together more than 100 stakeholders from varied
disciplines, issue areas, and levels of involvement (from direct service providers to national
policy advocates). This multi-year process culminated in the issuance of a lengthy report in
which the Council published an exhaustive series of policy statements and recommendations for
implementing the policies across a range of systems and organizations.
In the child welfare arena, integrative approaches to issues have taken shape in a number
of ways. For example, one child welfare advocate pointed out that a legislative initiative in
Pennsylvania requires needs based budgeting plans by a mandated set of multi-disciplinary
service agencies – in effect, mandating the integration of needs assessment to eliminate
redundancies and improve the delivery of child welfare services. This same advocate also noted
that Louisiana, California, and Virginia require the involvement of multi-disciplinary teams to

59

work together to identify service and treatment needs of children entering various state systems.
Beyond state legislative initiatives, a variety of county-level projects are underway in such cities
as Seattle and Los Angeles, which attempt to integrate the systems of various youth-serving
agencies in an effort to ensure that the entire spectrum of needs of at risk youth are addressed.
In the educational equity/school to prison pipeline context, the Advancement Project and
the NAACP Legal Defense Fund partnered to host a series of public hearings on increasingly
harsh school discipline policies and practices in Florida’s public schools. According to one
advocate involved in the effort, the project “created an opportunity for local stakeholders in
different communities to identify problems and best practices. They were able to identify for
themselves the gaps that exist, such as why sensible alternatives like truancy prevention, inschool suspension, or peer mediation were not being chosen.” Whereas the child welfare
examples above demonstrate how legislative mandates can be used to integrate services, this
Florida project demonstrates what can happen when local stakeholders are called to the same
table to discuss an issue from a multi-disciplinary perspective.
The National Indigent Defense Collaboration (NIDC) is an example of effective,
collaborative coordination among national organizations to overcome piecemeal approaches in
deploying varied expertise and resources to tackle a public policy issue. Established in 2000, the
NIDC is a group of 10 national organizations, each of which works on some aspect of indigent
defense reform. The NIDC’s mission is to ensure that there is a high quality, well-funded,
indigent defense system in every jurisdiction in the United States, and that these systems are able
to maintain quality and appropriate funding as conditions and needs change. By regularly
sharing information about developments in the field, NIDC organizations have been able to
identify opportunities to deploy their respective litigation, research, communications, training,
and leadership development resources on targeted indigent defense reform efforts. This allows
each organization to maximize the impact of their individual resources and efforts. In part
because of this information sharing and collaboration, the NIDC organizations have achieved
remarkable progress transforming the delivery of public defense services in such states as
Montana, Louisiana, and Virginia.
This list of examples is by no means exhaustive. But each illuminates a different aspect
of what an integrative approach to justice reform could look like in practice – be it a legislative
mandate for integration of services; an opportunity for community-level problem solving across

60

disciplines and service areas; or information-sharing among organizations to identify
opportunities for collaboration on policy initiatives.
Developing a long-term vision and a sustainable strategy.
Another clear point of consensus was that the interdisciplinary discussion group should
continue as an entity moving forward, and in order to move forward effectively, a long-term
vision of where this effort will go and a sustainable strategy for getting there must be developed.
In developing this vision and strategy, the group identified a number of questions that still need
to be answered: What is it we seek to achieve through an integrative approach to justice reform?
If we are to move toward an interdisciplinary approach, what is it that we will do? What is our
goal? How will we do this? What are the mechanisms and strategies we will use? What role
might community-oriented communications play in that strategy? What are the barriers we
expect to encounter? What are the outcomes we seek to achieve? What are the principles or
policies that should guide our efforts? Are there “guiding principles” that can be established to
inform others at different levels (local/state/federal) who wish to move toward a more integrative
approach to justice reform? How will we measure our success? And how will we address the
practical limitations that current funding strategies and organizational priorities may place on our
effort?

61

VI. MOVING FORWARD: RECOMMENDATIONS & CONCLUSION____
In order to make real progress in breaking the cycle of incarceration, advocates,
researchers, service providers, and academics need to break out of their disciplinary silos; share
information and approaches; develop collaborative strategies that support mutually beneficial
agendas; and sometimes, support each other on issues outside their normal field of expertise.
With incarceration rates climbing at alarming rates, and corrections costs eating up larger and
larger shares of limited public resources, we can no longer afford to remain comfortably in our
disciplinary silos, spending limited resources of time, energy, and money “reinventing the
wheel” because we do not know that our colleagues in other disciplines are already working on
the same issues, or because we do not see the connections between our work and the work of our
colleagues in other disciplines. It is more important than ever that we move in the direction
some are already charting towards an integrative approach to justice reform. This direction
marks a significant departure from cultural norms and expectations that only allow access to
human services once a person has gotten into trouble – from cultural norms and expectations that
reinforce reactive systems instead of the proactive, pre-entry initiatives that we know make a
difference in decreasing the risk of criminal behavior.
The vision for an integrative approach to justice reform is not about shifting organizational
agendas to work on the exact same issues, or foregoing the development of expertise in particular
disciplines. Rather, it is about sharing information and perspectives so that we can better
understand various factors that contribute to the cycle of incarceration. It is about utilizing
multi-disciplinary collaboration to promote intervention strategies that advance public safety by
decreasing the likelihood that a person will engage in risky or criminal behavior. It is also about
developing a more integrative, interdisciplinary approach to policymaking and resource
allocation so that the limited pool of available public resources are used most effectively to
address the issues of poverty, race, economic opportunity, education, family, and housing
inherent in the cycle of incarceration.
There is much we can learn from our colleagues in different disciplines. And there are ways
that we can be effective allies – resounding voices on issues that impact the people who are using
our services, and on issues that impact the availability of funding for our programs. Moving
toward a more integrative approach to justice reform offers the opportunity many are seeking to
62

develop the kind of cohesive strategy that seems so elusive in this era of escalating incarceration
and corrections spending at the expense of human service interventions and investments in
people – the kind of strategy that could make a significant difference in breaking the cycle of
incarceration for the disproportionate numbers of the poor and people of color (particularly
young men of color) entering into America’s criminal justice system. The following are
proposed recommendations for moving toward such an approach.
Recommendations
1. Establish an ongoing, interdisciplinary “Behind the Cycle” working group to
further refine the ideas set forth in this report. As detailed above, participants in the
interdisciplinary discussion expressed considerable interest in continuing to explore what it
means to move toward a more integrative approach to justice reform, and how such an approach
could be promoted among their colleagues. In light of the multiple ways in which justice reform
efforts can be viewed as integrative, a significant question remains as to what, concretely, such
an effort might look like. Beane Consulting recommends that the Open Society Institute
establish an ongoing, interdisciplinary working group comprised of advocates, researchers, direct
services providers, and academics from a range of disciplines (law, education, housing,
psychology, public health, mental health, substance abuse, employment, etc.), and host a series
of meetings of this group in 2008. The purpose of these meetings would be to explore these
various issues and questions, and specifically to develop a long-term vision and sustainable
strategy for the working group. The group would also contribute to the implementation of other
recommendations in this report, notably, identifying policy areas for interdisciplinary
collaboration, research, and advocacy; planning a conference multi-disciplinary conference in the
Fall of 2008; developing strategies to promote the integrative approach to justice reform; and
continuing outreach to expand participation in the working group.
2. Continue interdisciplinary outreach to expand participation in the working group.
For each person, discipline, and organization contacted during the research phase of this project,
many more were suggested as potential contributors to this effort. Beane Consulting
recommends continued interdisciplinary outreach to identify additional participants in the

63

working group, and to continue to expand the diversity of voices and disciplines exploring what
it means to move toward a more integrative approach to justice reform. Such outreach will also
be an important means of persuading advocates, researchers, direct service providers, and
academics of the significant impact that an integrative approach to justice reform can have in
breaking the cycle of incarceration.
3. Circulate report and solicit endorsements for the concept of moving toward a more
integrative approach to justice reform from organizations across multiple disciplines. As
was suggested during the interdisciplinary discussion, producing a report that reflects consensus
ideas that all who participated in the discussion support could be a powerful tool for persuading
advocates, researchers, service providers, and academics across a range of disciplines to join the
effort to break the cycle of incarceration by utilizing an integrative approach to justice reform.
Beane Consulting recommends that this report be shared with the participants in the
interdisciplinary discussion, requesting their endorsement of the report, and that they post a link
to the report on their websites. This same endorsement request could be made as part of the
continued interdisciplinary outreach described in Recommendation 2. In addition to promoting
an integrative approach to justice issues, circulation of the report would have the added benefit of
sharing information about the race and poverty dimensions of the cycle of incarceration with
advocates, researchers, service providers, and academics outside of the criminal justice arena,
who may not be familiar with this information; similarly, circulation of the report would deepen
the understanding of those already steeped in criminal justice policy about the economic,
housing, employment, educational, psychological, developmental, and other dimensions that
contribute to the cycle of incarceration.
4. Identify policy issues for interdisciplinary collaboration, research, and advocacy.
Beane Consulting recommends identification of appropriate opportunities for interdisciplinary
collaboration, research, and advocacy.
a. Research. With respect to research, this will entail identification by the working
group of any gaps that may exist in the research, and recommendations regarding
how to fill those gaps. Areas of potential collaborative research may include

64

documenting the cost-effectiveness and/or crime prevention impact of particular
pre-entry programs and interventions; identifying those strategies and
interventions which promote resilience by increasing protective factors; further
developing the concept of a “safer society count” (akin to the Annie E. Casey
Foundation’s “Kids Count,” but instead focusing on incarceration measures or
indices of thriving, sustainable communities); or evaluating programs and
interventions utilizing an “evidence-based practices” approach. Another area ripe
for collaborative research may be examining the impact public policy or direct
service initiatives have across a range of disciplines, linking the outcomes and
demonstrating the connections that exist across the disciplinary spectrum. For
instance, an integrative approach to research may be an effective means of
determining what specific, measurable benefits in public safety, child welfare,
healthcare, housing, neighborhood distress, etc, would be achieved if we increase
spending in early childhood education or on programs that increase graduation
rates. Measuring positive benefits across a range of disciplines (not just within
the criminal justice system) could provide a springboard for broader-based, multidisciplinary policy advocacy.
b. Integrative Advocacy and Integrative Policymaking. An integrative approach
to justice reform implicates, at a minimum, two aspects of advocacy. The first is
promoting an integrative approach to policy advocacy: collaborating across
disciplines to advocate for policies that will invest resources in programs and
strategies that promote protective factors and resilience at individual and
community levels. The second is advocating for an integrative approach to
policymaking itself: urging policymakers to take a new approach to
policymaking, assessing the impact policy and budget decisions will have on
other policies and programs before enacting criminal justice measures. This will
require a shift in the current policymaking paradigm away from its “tough on
crime” focus on incarceration and corrections, to address the “root causes” of
crime described at length in Chapters 3 and 4. In this regard, one potential policy
ripe for interdisciplinary collaboration and advocacy is requiring legislative

65

proposals to include a “community impact statement,” which would articulate the
impact proposed policies will have on incarceration rates and corrections
spending, and the impact increased corrections spending will have on other
human services funded by the state. Both integrative advocacy and integrative
policymaking are critical if we are to break the cycle of incarceration for the
disproportionate numbers of the poor and people of color entering the criminal
justice system.
5. Promote the utilization of integrative approaches to justice reform issues. The
Behind the Cycle” project has created an important opportunity for interdisciplinary dialogue,
information sharing, and problem solving. As several people interviewed for this project pointed
out, many recognize the need for interdisciplinary communication and action, yet few have taken
the initiative to begin such an effort. Beane Consulting recommends that the Open Society
Institute continue to play a lead role in promoting the utilization of integrative approaches to
justice reform issues. In order to accomplish this, Beane Consulting recommends that the Open
Society Institute:
a. Convene a multi-disciplinary gathering in the Fall of 2008 to promote the
integrative approach to justice reform. Such a convening affords a variety of
opportunities to the Open Society Institute, including but not limited to:
i. Drawing together a multidisciplinary group to learn about and advance the
work of the “Behind the Cycle” working group;
ii. Providing a forum for participants to determine how to operationalize
integrative approaches to justice reform in specific jurisdictions; and,
iii. Gaining additional insight as to the issues which are ripe for
interdisciplinary collaboration, research and advocacy.
b. Disseminate information about integrative approaches to policy advocacy
and integrative approaches to policy making. In addition to convening a multidisciplinary gathering, dissemination of information about integrative approaches
could be accomplished by producing integrative advocacy or policymaking

66

“toolkits,” publication of articles, or presentations of this report and the working
group’s efforts at national conferences.
6. Advocate for the appointment of a National Advisor to the President on Poverty and
Justice Issues. As discussed in Chapter 2 of this report, race and poverty play pivotal roles in
America’s cycle of incarceration. In the face of a growing prison industry, the nation can no
longer afford (in terms of economics or of public safety) to ignore the devastating personal and
community effects of concentrated poverty, the entrenched racial disparity of the current system,
or the mass institutionalization of young men of color that is occurring. As several candidates in
the current presidential campaign have noted, poverty is an issue that must be front and center in
domestic policy discussions. And as this report clearly establishes, poverty plays a significant
role in the cycle of incarceration, increasing the risk that a person will engage in delinquent or
criminal conduct.
Beane Consulting recommends the coordination of an interdisciplinary campaign to advocate
for the appointment of a National Advisor to the President on Poverty and Justice Issues – an
advisor to the President on key pre-entry policies that need to be addressed to abate the
disproportionate impact of criminal justice policies on the poor and people of color, particularly
young men of color. Housed within the White House, the National Advisor should model an
integrative approach to justice reform, and should be tasked with coordinating policy and
programmatic efforts across the federal agencies aimed at breaking the cycle of incarceration;
proposing interdisciplinary, cross-agency projects and policies to address the risk factors for
crime; encouraging integrative analysis of and responses to justice issues at policy, research, and
programmatic levels; and decreasing the government’s reliance on incarceration as the primary
response to public safety concerns. The National Advisor would provide critical national
leadership to promote integrative policies and approaches that decrease the likelihood young
people will engage in criminal behavior—leadership that will promote integrative approaches at
all levels of government and policymaking.
7. Convene a National Blue Ribbon Commission on Poverty and the Cycle of
Incarceration. Historically, blue ribbon commissions have played an important role in
investigating issues of national importance, in sounding the alarm regarding the critical nature of

67

the issues, and in setting policy agendas to respond. Beane Consulting recommends the
convening of a National Blue Ribbon Commission on Poverty and the Cycle of Incarceration in
2009. The purpose of this Commission would be to expand upon this report and the work of the
Behind the Cycle working group, and to advise the new, incoming president on key pre-entry
policies that need to be addressed to abate the disproportionate impact of criminal justice policies
on the poor and people of color, particularly young men of color. The work of such a
Commission would also serve to inform the agenda of the proposed National Advisor to the
President on Policy and Justice Issues.
8. Develop funding strategies to support integrative approaches to justice reform. One
of the challenges identified during the interdisciplinary discussion was that current funding
streams for advocates, researchers, service providers, and academics do not always support
integrative approaches – and in some cases, inhibit such approaches. Beane Consulting
recommends the convening of a meeting of federal, state, and private funders to discuss the
potential benefits of integrative approaches to justice reform, and to identify funding strategies
that could better support such approaches.
Conclusion
At this moment in time, there is a unique opportunity to address the issues of poverty, race,
economic opportunity, education, health, family, and housing that fuel America’s cycle of
incarceration. This is a moment of significant challenge – but also a moment of significant
opportunity. The stakes have never been higher, both with regard to the devastating impact that
America’s criminal justice policies have on the poor and communities of color, and with regard
to the budgetary implications of continued utilization of incarceration as our primary means of
addressing crime. The progress policymakers, advocates, and service providers have made
working together to address reentry policy issues suggests an openness to rethinking the
effectiveness of “tough on crime” approaches to public safety that have led to historically high
incarceration rates. And the “Behind the Cycle” project has tapped an energy and interest across
the disciplinary spectrum in moving toward a more integrative approach to justice reform.
Implementation of the recommendations proposed in this report provides a means of seeding and
energizing a new movement to promote more effective approaches to criminal justice issues, to

68

address significant budgetary challenges, and to respond to the significant social policy and
human service needs that exist in communities across America. Ultimately, implementation of
these recommendations provides a means of abating the disproportionate numbers of the poor
and people of color cycling through the criminal justice system.

69

APPENDIX A.

INDIVIDUALS INTERVIEWED

Interviews for the “Behind the Cycle” project were conducted between May 1 and July 23,
2007, with the following people:
Tom Angell
June Beittel
John Bouman
Sarah Bryer
Robin Chaitt
Howard Davidson
Monique Dixon
Terry Flood
Adam Gelb
Kara Gotsch
Mark Greenberg
David Harris
Damon Hewitt
Alan Jenkins
Robert Johnson
Ryan King,
Keyona King-Tsikata
Kirsten Levingston
Marc Mauer
Jesselyn McCurdy
Wayne McKenzie
Rachel McLean,
Charles Ogletree
Amanda Petteruti
Wayne Promisel
Miriam Rollin
Joe Scantlebury
Eric Sterling
Christina Swarns
Mike Thompson
John Tuell
Melissa Wade
Jacqueline Walker
Nastassia Walsh
David Whettstone
Natasha Williams
Judith Winston

Students for Sensible Drug Policy
Jubilee Jobs;
Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law
National Juvenile Justice Network
Center for American Progress
ABA Task Force on Youth at Risk and ABA Center on Children
and the Law
The Advancement Project
Jubilee Jobs
Pew Public Safety Performance Project
The Sentencing Project;
Center for American Progress
Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for Race & Justice
NAACP Legal Defense Fund
The Opportunity Agenda
ABA Criminal Justice Section, and Anoka County (Minnesota)
Attorney
The Sentencing Project
American Psychological Association
Brennan Center for Justice
The Sentencing Project
ACLU Washington Legislative Office;
Vera Institute for Justice
Council of State Governments
Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for Race & Justice
Justice Policy Institute
Child Welfare League of America
Fight Crime: Invest in Kids!
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
Criminal Justice Policy Foundation;
NAACP Legal Defense Fund
Council of State Governments
Child Welfare League of America
National Debate Project and Emory University;
National Prison Project;
Justice Policy Institute
Consultant;
Community Voices
former General Counsel for the U.S. Department of Education, and
Executive Director of the President’s Commission on Race

Howard Wooldridge
Gina Wood
Jason Ziedenberg

Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
Joint Center Health Policy Institute
Justice Policy Institute

71

APPENDIX B.
DISCUSSION

PARTICIPANTS IN JULY 30TH INTERDISCIPLINARY

The following individuals participated in the Interdisciplinary Discussion and Strategy
Session hosted by the Open Society Institute – Washington, D.C., on July 30, 2007:
John Bouman
Robin Chaitt
Therron Cook
Howard Davidson
Monique Dixon
Alexa Eggleston
Terry Flood
Adam Gelb
Brian Gilmore
Kara Gotsch
Jack Hanna
Damon Hewitt
Jake Horowitz
Keyona King-Tsikata
Kirsten Levingston
Marc Mauer
Jesselyn McCurdy
Don Parker
Amanda Petteruti
Wayne Promisel
James Roland
Eric Sterling
Bob Stroup
Nkechi Taifa
John Tuell
Vicki Turetsky
Nastassia Walsh
Gina Wood

Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law
Center for American Progress
Congressional Black Caucus Foundation
ABA Task Force on Youth at Risk and ABA Center on Children
and the Law
The Advancement Project
Legal Action Center
Jubilee Jobs
Pew Public Safety Performance Project
Fair Housing Clinic, Howard University
The Sentencing Project;
ABA Criminal Justice Section
NAACP Legal Defense Fund
Pew Charitable Trusts
American Psychological Association
Brennan Center for Justice
The Sentencing Project
ACLU Washington Legislative Office;
Jubilee Jobs
Justice Policy Institute
Child Welfare League of America
National Debate Project and Emory University
Criminal Justice Policy Foundation;
NAACP Legal Defense Fund
Open Society Institute – Washington, D.C.
Child Welfare League of America
Center for Law and Social Policy
Justice Policy Institute
Joint Center Health Policy Institute

72

APPENDIX C. RISK AND PROTECTIVE FACTORS FOR RISKY OR
DELINQUENT BEHAVIORS BY YOUTH
Information in this chart comes from “Community Guide to Helping America’s Youth:
Introduction to Risk Factors and Protective Factors.” Available on-line at
http://guide.helpingamericasyouth.gov/programtool-factors.cfm.
Category
Individual

Family

Risk Factor
Anti-social behavior and
alienation, delinquent beliefs,
general delinquency involvement,
drug dealing
Gun possession, illegal gun
ownership/carrying
Teen parenthood
Favorable attitudes toward drug
use, early onset of AOD use,
alcohol/drug use
Early onset of aggression/violence
Intellectual and/or development
disabilities
Victimization and exposure to
violence
Poor refusal skills
Life stressors
Early sexual involvement
Mental disorder/mental health
problem
Family history of problem
behavior, parent criminality
Family management problems,
poor parental
supervision/monitoring
Poor family attachment/bonding
Child victimization and
maltreatment
Pattern of high family conflict
Family violence
Having a young mother
Broken home
Sibling antisocial behavior
Family transitions
Parental use of physical

Protective Factor
Positive/resilient temperament

Religiosity, valuing involvement in
organized religious activities
Social competencies and problemsolving skills
Perception of social support from
adults and peers
Healthy sense of self
Positive expectations, optimism for
the future
High expectations

Good relationships with parents,
bonding or attachment to family
Opportunities and reward for
prosocial family involvement
Having a stable family
High family expectations

73

School

punishment, harsh and/or erratic
discipline practices
Low parent education level,
illiteracy
Maternal depression
Low academic achievement
Negative attitude toward school,
low bonding, low school
attachment/commitment to school
Truancy/frequent absences
Suspension
Dropping out of school

Peer

Community

School motivation, positive
attitude toward school
Student bonding and connections
(attachment to teachers, belief,
commitment)
Academic achievement, reading
ability and mathematical skills
Opportunities and rewards for
prosocial school involvement
High-quality schools, clear
standards and rules
High expectations of students

Inadequate school climate, poorly
organized and functioning schools,
negative labeling by teachers
Identified as learning disabled
Presence and involvement of
caring, supportive adults
Frequent school transitions
Gang involvement, membership
Involvement with positive peer
group activities and norms
Peer ATOD use
Good relationship with peers
Association with delinquent,
Parental approval of friends
aggressive peers
Peer rejection
Economically sustainable, stable
Availability/use of alcohol,
communities
tobacco and other drugs in
neighborhood
Availability of firearms
Safe and health-promoting
environment, supportive law
enforcement presence
High-crime neighborhood
Positive social norms
Community instability
Opportunities and rewards for
prosocial community involvement,
availability of neighborhood
resources
Low community attachment
High community expectations
Neighborhood/social cohesion
Economic deprivation, poverty,
residence in a disadvantaged
neighborhood
Neighborhood youth in trouble
Feeling unsafe in the
neighborhood
74

Social and physical disorder,
disorganized neighborhood

75