Retiring Arizona Prison Watch...


This site was originally started in July 2009 as an independent endeavor to monitor conditions in Arizona's criminal justice system, as well as offer some critical analysis of the prison industrial complex from a prison abolitionist/anarchist's perspective. It was begun in the aftermath of the death of Marcia Powell, a 48 year old AZ state prisoner who was left in an outdoor cage in the desert sun for over four hours while on a 10-minute suicide watch. That was at ASPC-Perryville, in Goodyear, AZ, in May 2009.

Marcia, a seriously mentally ill woman with a meth habit sentenced to the minimum mandatory 27 months in prison for prostitution was already deemed by society as disposable. She was therefore easily ignored by numerous prison officers as she pleaded for water and relief from the sun for four hours. She was ultimately found collapsed in her own feces, with second degree burns on her body, her organs failing, and her body exceeding the 108 degrees the thermometer would record. 16 officers and staff were disciplined for her death, but no one was ever prosecuted for her homicide. Her story is here.

Marcia's death and this blog compelled me to work for the next 5 1/2 years to document and challenge the prison industrial complex in AZ, most specifically as manifested in the Arizona Department of Corrections. I corresponded with over 1,000 prisoners in that time, as well as many of their loved ones, offering all what resources I could find for fighting the AZ DOC themselves - most regarding their health or matters of personal safety.

I also began to work with the survivors of prison violence, as I often heard from the loved ones of the dead, and learned their stories. During that time I memorialized the Ghosts of Jan Brewer - state prisoners under her regime who were lost to neglect, suicide or violence - across the city's sidewalks in large chalk murals. Some of that art is here.

In November 2014 I left Phoenix abruptly to care for my family. By early 2015 I was no longer keeping up this blog site, save occasional posts about a young prisoner in solitary confinement in Arpaio's jail. I'm deeply grateful to the prisoners who educated, confided in, and encouraged me throughout the years I did this work. My life has been made all the more rich and meaningful by their engagement.

I've linked to some posts about advocating for state prisoner health and safety to the right, as well as other resources for families and friends.

until all are free -

MARGARET J PLEWS (June 1, 2015)
arizonaprisonwatch@gmail.com



INDIGENOUS ACTION MEDIA

INDIGENOUS ACTION MEDIA
ANTICOLONIAL zines, stickers, actions, power

Taala Hooghan Infoshop

Kinlani/Flagstaff Mutual AID

MASS LIBERATION AZ

MASS LIBERATION AZ
The group for direct action against the prison state!

Black Lives Matter PHOENIX METRO

Black Lives Matter PHOENIX METRO
(accept no substitutions)

BLACK PHX ORGANIZING COLLECTIVE

BLACK PEOPLE's JUSTICE FUND

PHOENIX: Trans Queer Pueblo

COVID Mutual AID PHOENIX

AZ Prison Watch BLOG POSTS:


Showing posts with label justice policy institute. Show all posts
Showing posts with label justice policy institute. Show all posts

Wednesday, August 24, 2011

Justice Policy, Data and Veterans




"Remember our buddies in prison"
Veterans' Day, 2010
Phoenix, AZ




----------from the Justice Policy Institute--------

Is Data Doing Justice to our Veterans?

Following my own military service, I experienced homelessness and plenty of justice contact. In addition, I watched far too many other veterans live shattered lives, in many cases dying at far too young of an age. I had hoped to not see this happen again, but I am afraid, unless things change rapidly, it will be so. And while there are many fronts that need to be worked on, until we have accurate data on the scope of the problems our vets are currently facing, we cannot begin to come up with solutions.

In spring 2008, I was part of a group of veterans’ advocates, criminal justice professionals, federal employees and researchers gathered to brainstorm around what had become, by then, an issue of note: the large numbers of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans who were experiencing some level of contact with our criminal justice systems. The product that resulted from this meeting was a policy brief entitled, “Responding to the Needs of Justice-Involved Combat Veterans with Service-Related Trauma and Mental Health Conditions.” The brief noted that on any given day, nine out of 100 men in jail or prison is a veteran; this figure, it stated, was in line with the percentage of the general population that are veterans – that is, veterans were not over-represented in the justice system.

Coming up with an accurate statistical picture of what is really taking place should be one of the first tasks undertaken by any stakeholder confronting an issue. As an advocate for the many veterans who have ended up in prison or jail, it was difficult to believe that “by the numbers,” there was no reason to be concerned. This led me to ask, what do we really know about veterans’ justice system involvement? Rather than my being mistaken about what seemed to me to be a significant problem of veterans behind bars, could it be that the “facts” were wrong?

As I came to find out through my own digging, in this country we had very little in terms of a reliable national body of statistics in this area prior to 1981. It was in that year that the Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics published a report on veterans in prison in the form of a six-page bulletin. The bulletin noted no difference between incarceration rates for veterans versus members of the general population. The observation was later echoed in the press release issued prior to the release of the second DOJ report in 2000.

I began looking to see if this data contained methodological flaws and/or possible oversights. The first consideration would be whether the Veterans population could be considered equivalent to the general population. One salient difference that struck me was that people in the military were “pre-screened” prior to military service at point of enlistment or draft. For instance, someone with a diagnosed serious mental illness – which we know to be correlated with more justice involvement in the general population – would have most likely not been eligible to serve. And someone with serious prior justice involvement – another characteristic that makes a person statistically higher risk for future arrest or incarceration – also wouldn’t be accepted into the military. Given these significant differences in the two populations, incarceration rates between veterans and the general population should be expected to be different: veterans should be expected to have lower rates of incarceration. That they reportedly have similar rates should have been of note.

Regarding the data itself, people are not required to declare whether they are veterans when they are arrested or become incarcerated. We therefore have to date relied on surveys. The DOJ-BJS 2000 and 2004 (released in 2007) surveys, done in conjunction with the U.S. Census Bureau, were based upon contact with one percent of all state and federal prison inmates. Of our more than 12,000 state and federal prison facilities, the surveys were conducted in a mere 254 facilities, the identify of which has not been released. This is a problem when one considers that in many states there may be facilities which take higher numbers of inmates who are veterans – for example, around military bases. It is critically important to know in which prisons the surveys were conducted if we are to state with any degree of certainty a difference or similitude in incarceration rates between veterans and general population members.

A further set of concerns arises when we stop to consider what we mean by justice contact for veterans. Are we referring to federal and state prison inmates alone, or do we also include those locally incarcerated and those on probation and parole? What about arrests? The next DOJ-BJS survey is not slated to be conducted until the year 2013 and, based on the prior surveys, will probably not be publicly released until the year 2015. Needless to say, obtaining even a marginal understanding of the emerging picture for veterans in justice will come too late for far too many. Aside from the DOJ and BJS, the Veterans Administration is another possible source of information. However, to date there has been a level of resistance toward the release of any data-sets at all.

Finally, another array of concerns and questions arises around the issue of ethnic and racial statistics. During the Vietnam era, the percentage of “minority” service members within the totality of our Armed Forces was at 15%. In today’s Armed Forces, however, over 40% are soldiers of color. Despite a number of longitudinal studies conducted in the wake of Vietnam, which noted distinctive characteristics for minority population veterans – particularly with regard to such germane topical areas as a culturally-specific resistance to mental health care treatment and diagnosis – very little action has been undertaken to address the concerns raised. In terms of the statistical picture necessary to fully understand possible disparate justice involvement by veterans of color, in the DOJ-BJS Bulletin from 1981 it was noted that nine States did not distinguish between Hispanic-Latino and Caucasian veterans. In the latter surveys, it was noted that Latino veterans were incarcerated at a higher rate than Latino non-veterans, but failed to clarify whether the previously omitted data-sets from the aforementioned nine states were then included.

In addition, given the abiding racial disparities in our justice system, it is surprising that statistics indicate that Black veterans are incarcerated at lower rates than non-veterans. Yet no one is looking to see whether, for example, there is under-reporting of veteran status by African Americans (or whether, as noted earlier, those prisons surveyed may not have been representative).

In order to obtain answers to questions such as why better statistics aren’t available and who will look into what appear to be jarringly unexpected numbers, federal agencies need to be held accountable; and we can start with the Department of Justice.

Those within the upper echelons of DOD or the VA tend to downplay the numbers and the problem in general, often implying it’s just a few “bad apples.” More than 200,000 homeless veterans is not a minor difficulty. Nearly a quarter million veterans in our prisons is not a small problem. As is so often the case in contemporary America, those who are impacted by problems within a given focal area are very often in the least advantageous position to advocate on their own behalf; and not having the facts needed to push for better change is unconscionable. For the hundreds of veterans’ families that have tried to help when their sons or daughters come home only to end up in a jail cell, these are not esoteric concerns or a far-removed research topic. These men and women live the realities of lives that were put on the line at the nation’s behest and were subsequently forgotten. Of the perhaps 75 people calling the shots on addressing veterans in justice across a variety of organizations, two served in the military. None of them, to my knowledge, was ever justice-involved.

The incarceration rates for Iraq and Afghanistan veterans will exceed those of the Vietnam era easily. By 2015, without swift action, we can expect to see an influx of young veterans behind bars. Right now, a complex bureaucratic research and policy system is failing to deliver even the basic information needed to address these problems. We can do better.

Guy Gambill, a veteran of the armed services, will spend his 18-month fellowship advocating for alternatives to arrest and incarceration for veterans. Gambill most recently held positions as the Research and Policy Director at the Veterans Initiatives Center & Research Institute and as the Advocacy Coordinator for the Council on Crime and Justice, both in Minneapolis, Minnesota. An Army vet, Gambill did a tour of duty in Germany and received an Honorable Discharge in 1988. For his service, he received the Army Achievement Medal, Primary Leadership Development Ribbon, Overseas Service Ribbon, Good Conduct Medal, and Presidential Unit Citation.


Criminalizing America to profit the few...

is it any wonder? The more these private prison companies take hold in Arizona, the more we'll be seeing crime perpetuated (what incentive do they have to help bring it down?), and the more laws we'll pass sending vulnerable people (homeless, mentally ill, developmentally disabled, addicts) to prison who could be rehabilitated in the community, by their communities.

Anyway, this is a report well worth checking out and forwarding to legislators - especially those from districts where prisons are being proposed.



--------from the Justice Policy Institute---------

Gaming the System: How the Political Strategies of Private Prison Companies Promote Ineffective Incarceration Policies


At a time when many policymakers are looking at criminal and juvenile justice reforms that would safely shrink the size of our prison population, the existence of private prison companies creates a countervailing interest in preserving the current approach to criminal justice and increasing the use of incarceration.

While private prison companies may try to present themselves as just meeting existing demand for prison beds and responding to current market conditions, in fact they have worked hard over the past decade to create markets for their product. As revenues of private prison companies have grown over the past decade, the companies have had more resources with which to build political power, and they have used this power to promote policies that lead to higher rates of incarceration.

For-profit private prison companies primarily use three strategies to influence policy: lobbying, direct campaign contributions, and building relationships, networks, and associations.

As policymakers and the public are increasingly coming to understand that incarceration is not only breaking the bank, but it’s also not making us safer, will this shrink the influence of private prison companies? Or will they use their growing financial muscle to consolidate and expand into even more areas of the justice system? Much will depend on the extent that people understand the role for-profit private prison companies have already played in raising incarceration rates and harming people and communities, and take steps to ensure that in the future, community safety and well-being, and not profits, drive our justice policies. One thing is certain: in this political game, the private prison industry will look out for their own interests.

Download

(PDF)Full Report
Press Release

Other Resources

Lobbying and campaign contribution figures: Center for Responsive Politics
Money in state politics: National Institute for Money in State Politics

Friday, June 18, 2010

Justice Policy Institute: Baltimore Behind Bars.

from the Justice Policy Institute, thanks to a tip from the Real Cost of Prisons Project blog...

---------------

New Report Examines Factors Driving Overcrowding
of the Baltimore Jail

Research highlights the factors and policies that lead to over-incarceration, makes recommendations on how the justice system can be improved.


WASHINGTON DC - The number of people in Baltimore’s overcrowded jail can be reduced – saving millions of state dollars – by changing policing practices, reforming court processes and improving jail and post-jail services, according to a research report released today by the Justice Policy Institute (JPI).


Baltimore Behind Bars: How to Reduce the Jail Population, Save Money and Improve Public Safety details Baltimore’s complex system of city policing practices and court and bail processes that contribute to a high percentage of city residents being detained in the jail, often unnecessarily. The report also finds that the courts are clogged with too many cases, which further contributes to people being held pre-trial for extended periods of time.


“We chose to focus on the Baltimore jail because jails are ripe for reforms that until recently have focused on prisons,” said Tracy Velázquez, executive director of JPI. “The Baltimore jail holds the distinction of being among the largest and oldest jails in the country, and it incarcerates the highest percentage of the City’s population when compared to other large jails. In many ways jails are like the canary in the coal mine, with bloated populations being symptomatic of larger systemic problems.”


Baltimore Behind Bars details how more than half of people arrested in Baltimore are locked up in the jail to await trial, with more than half of those in jail not being offered bail. In all, nine out of 10 people in the jail are awaiting trial and have not been found guilty of the current offense – far higher than the national average of two-thirds. Most people are being charged with nonviolent offenses such as drug and property offenses and violations of probation. Additionally, African Americans are overrepresented at the jail, comprising about 66 percent of the general population of Baltimore, but 94 percent of the people in the jail.


The State of Maryland, which owns and operates the jail complex, is currently planning two new jail facilities in Baltimore -- one for youth being tried as adults and another for women-- at an estimated cost of $280 million. The report notes that while these facilities will be an improvement over aging facilities, they may needlessly increase the number of people incarcerated in the jail. Increasing the number of jail beds, and improving facilities, may create a disincentive to finding effective alternatives to pretrial detention, leading to more people in jail instead of less.


“The idea that arresting and incarcerating more people means less crime is a myth,” noted Nastassia Walsh, research associate at JPI and author of the report. “The last thing Baltimore needs is more jail beds. It is vital to the well-being of the city that the current jail population be reduced and that effective alternatives be considered.”


The report recommends that by implementing effective solutions to reduce the number of people in the current jail, money could be re-directed toward services like education, employment support and treatment. These services should be available for people before they come into contact with the justice system as well as for those re-entering their communities after being released from the jail.


“The need for change is clear,” added Velázquez. “Communities can’t solve social problems by locking up more of their residents. It’s time for all stakeholders to collaborate on solutions.”


"The decision to build more jails in this city without first taking steps to reduce the current jail population is wrong-headed,” added Monique Dixon, Director of the Criminal and Juvenile Justice Program of the Open Society Institute–Baltimore, a private foundation which supported the research that led to the report. “Creating policies to release people appropriately while they are awaiting their trials would not only save money, but also allow Baltimore residents to continue working and supporting their families while their legal matters are resolved. Other states have taken this approach, and Baltimore should too.”


The Justice Policy Institute recommends the following changes, among many recommendations, to improve the pre-trial detention process and reduce the Baltimore jail population:

  • Reform arrest, enforcement, diversion and probation practices: Baltimore police can reduce arrests by giving people citations for minor offenses, and the courts can divert people with mental health and drug treatment needs to public and community-based providers. Changes to the probation system that send fewer people to jail on technical violations would further reduce the number of people in the jail.

  • Expand pretrial release and reform bail practices: The booking process can be streamlined, and a system should be in place for the courts to screen low-risk individuals for pre-trial release. The courts should explore methods of releasing people other than money bail and expand use of the Pretrial Release Supervision Program.

  • Update court processes: Baltimore’s courts should set up a reminder system, currently used successfully in many cities across the country, which remind people of court dates. They should also reduce the time between arrests and court dates and expand their operating hours. Violation of probation cases can be moved faster, with better data collected between the courts and the police, to reduce the number of people being held for this violation.

  • Provide more, and better, re-entry and “no-entry” services: Instead of spending millions of dollars to build more jails, Maryland and Baltimore policy makers should instead focus on saving money by doing what they can to reduce the jail population. The money saved, as well as funding earmarked to build new jails, should be used to fund more front-end services, such as education, employment, treatment and housing, which can help reduce crime and incarceration. Improved re-entry services for those being released can also have a positive impact, including returning of property, timely releases and medications and services.

To read the Executive Summary and the full report of Baltimore Behind Bars CLICK HERE. For additional information, please contact Adam Ratliff at (202) 558-7974 x306 or aratliff@justicepolicy.org. For a more JPI reports on the Baltimore and Maryland criminal justice systems, please visit our website at www.justicepolicy.org.


The Justice Policy Institute (JPI) is a Washington, D.C.-based organization dedicated to reducing society’s use of incarceration and promoting just and effective social policies.