The Growth of
INCARCERATION
in the United States

Exploring Causes and Consequences

Committee on Causes and Consequences of High Rates of Incarceration

Jeremy Travis, Bruce Western, and Steve Redburn, Editors

Committee on Law and Justice

Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education

NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
                          OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS

Washington, D.C.

www.nap.edu



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page R1
The Growth of INCARCERATION in the United States Exploring Causes and Consequences Committee on Causes and Consequences of High Rates of Incarceration Jeremy Travis, Bruce Western, and Steve Redburn, Editors Committee on Law and Justice Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education

OCR for page R1
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS  500 Fifth Street, NW  Washington, DC 20001 NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Govern- ing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineer- ing, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropri- ate balance. This study was supported by Award No. 11-99472-000-USP from the MacArthur Foundation and Award No. 201I-DJ-BX-2029 from the U.S. Department of Jus- tice. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations or agencies that provided support for the project. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data The growth of incarceration in the United States : exploring causes and consequences / Committee on Causes and Consequences of High Rates of Incarceration, Jeremy Travis and Bruce Western, editors, Committee on Law and Justice, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. National Research Council of the National Academies. pages cm Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 978-0-309-29801-8 (pbk.) — ISBN 0-309-29801-6 (pbk.) 1. Imprisonment—United States. 2. Prisoners—United States--Social conditions. 3. Criminal justice, Administration of—United States. I. Travis, Jeremy. II. Western, Bruce, 1964- III. National Research Council (U.S.). Committee on Law and Justice. HV9471.G76 2014 365’.973—dc23 2014007860 Additional copies of this report are available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Keck 360, Washington, DC 20001; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313; http://www.nap.edu. Copyright 2014 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America Suggested citation: National Research Council. (2014). The Growth of Incar- ceration in the United States: Exploring Causes and Consequences. Committee on Causes and Consequences of High Rates of Incarceration, J. Travis, B. Western, and S. Redburn, Editors. Committee on Law and Justice, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

OCR for page R1
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Acad- emy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding en- gineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineer- ing programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., is presi- dent of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Insti- tute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sci- ences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Coun- cil is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. www.national-academies.org

OCR for page R1

OCR for page R1
COMMITTEE ON CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES OF HIGH RATES OF INCARCERATION JEREMY TRAVIS (Chair), John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York BRUCE WESTERN (Vice Chair), Department of Sociology and Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University JEFFREY A. BEARD, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation* ROBERT D. CRUTCHFIELD, Department of Sociology, University of Washington TONY FABELO, Justice Center, Council of State Governments, Lexington, KY MARIE GOTTSCHALK, Department of Political Science, University of Pennsylvania CRAIG W. HANEY, Department of Psychology and Program in Legal Studies, University of California, Santa Cruz RICARDO H. HINOJOSA, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas GLENN C. LOURY, Department of Economics, Brown University SARA S. MCLANAHAN, Center for Research on Child Wellbeing, Princeton University LAWRENCE M. MEAD, Department of Politics, New York University KHALIL GIBRAN MUHAMMAD, Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture, New York City Public Library DANIEL S. NAGIN, Heinz College, Carnegie Mellon University DEVAH PAGER, Department of Sociology and Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University ANNE MORRISON PIEHL, Department of Economics and Program in Criminal Justice, Rutgers University JOSIAH D. RICH, Department of Medicine and Epidemiology, Brown University, and Center for Prisoner Health and Human Rights, The Miriam Hospital, Providence, RI ROBERT J. SAMPSON, Department of Sociology, Harvard University HEATHER ANN THOMPSON, Department of History, Temple University MICHAEL TONRY, School of Law, University of Minnesota AVELARDO VALDEZ, School of Social Work, University of Southern California STEVE REDBURN, Study Director MALAY MAJMUNDAR, Senior Program Officer JULIE ANNE SCHUCK, Senior Program Associate BARBARA BOYD, Administrative Coordinator *Resigned fall 2013. v

OCR for page R1

OCR for page R1
COMMITTEE ON LAW AND JUSTICE 2013-2014 JEREMY TRAVIS (Chair), John Jay College of Criminal Justice, New York RUTH D. PETERSON (Vice Chair), Department of Sociology, Ohio State University CARL C. BELL, Community Mental Health Council, Inc. JOHN J. DONOHUE, III, Stanford Law School, Stanford University MINDY FULLILOVE, New York State Psychiatric Institute and Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University MARK A.R. KLEIMAN, Department of Public Policy, University of California, Los Angeles GARY LAFREE, Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of Maryland, College Park JANET L. LAURITSEN, Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of Missouri GLENN LOURY, Department of Economics, Brown University JAMES P. LYNCH, Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of Maryland, College Park CHARLES F. MANSKI, Department of Economics, Northwestern University DANIEL S. NAGIN, Heinz College, Carnegie Mellon University ANNE MORRISON PIEHL, Department of Economics and Program in Criminal Justice, Rutgers University DANIEL B. PRIETO, Cybersecurity and Technology, U.S. Department of Defense SUSAN B. SORENSON, School of Social Policy & Practice, University of Pennsylvania DAVID WEISBURD, Center for Evidence Based Crime Policy, George Mason University CATHY SPATZ WIDOM, Psychology Department, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York PAUL K. WORMELI, Integrated Justice Information Systems, Ashburn, VA ARLENE LEE, Director vii

OCR for page R1

OCR for page R1
Preface T he growth of incarceration rates in the United States for more than four decades has spawned commentary and a growing body of sci- entific knowledge about its causes and the consequences for those imprisoned, their families and communities, and U.S. society. Recognizing the importance of summarizing what is known (and not known) about the many questions this phenomenon has raised, the National Institute of Jus- tice (NIJ) of the U.S. Department of Justice and the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation requested a study by the National Research Council (NRC). We are grateful for support throughout the study from the current and former NIJ directors, John Laub and Greg Ridgeway, and from our program officers at the MacArthur Foundation, Laurie Garduque and Craig Wacker. This report is the product of that 2-year effort, conducted by an ad hoc committee created by the National Research Council to as- sess the evidence and draw out its implications for public policy. I and the other members of the study committee hope it will inform an extensive and thoughtful public debate about and reconsideration of the policies that led to the current situation. Special thanks are owed to the late James Q. Wilson who chaired the Committee on Law and Justice (CLAJ) at the time the study was conceived more than 5 years ago. Recognizing the importance of this issue, he orga- nized a subcommittee of Phil Cook, Duke University; Glenn Loury, Brown University; Tracey Meares, Yale Law School; and myself to develop a study idea for CLAJ’s approval. At a meeting held at John Jay College of Crimi- nal Justice in January 2009, led by former CLAJ director Carol Petrie, a group of scholars helped develop parameters for a study of high rates of ix

OCR for page R1
x PREFACE incarceration. NIJ and the MacArthur Foundation subsequently recognized that such a study would come at an important moment in the nation’s his- tory and could make a significant contribution to public understanding and to improving the justice system. On the committee’s behalf, I thank the many individuals and organi- zations who assisted us in our work and without whom this study could not have been completed. Several scholars conducted original analyses and working papers for the committee. Alfred Blumstein, Carnegie Mellon Uni- versity, and Alan Beck, Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Jus- tice, updated their classic analysis of changes in incarceration levels. Other contributors included Doris MacKenzie, Penn State University; Richard Rosenfeld, University of Missouri, St. Louis; Susan Turner, University of California, Irvine; Sara Wakefield, University of California, Irvine; and Christopher Wildeman, Yale University, who provided detailed analyses on various topics of interest to the committee ranging from crime rates to prison programs to research needed to address knowledge gaps identified in the report. Bettina Muenster, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, was a valuable consultant to the committee, most especially in her reviews of sev- eral important parts of the literature. Peter Reuter, University of Maryland, College Park, and Jonathan Caulkins, Carnegie Mellon University, provided insights from their work on drug crime. Eric Cadora and Charles Swartz of the Justice Mapping Center, Rutgers University School of Criminal Justice, provided community maps of incarceration. Steven Raphael, University of California, Berkeley, and Michael Stoll, University of California, Los Ange- les, generously shared advanced text of their now-published book on why so many people are in prison. In addition, a number of colleagues reviewed the research literature for specific chapters: Scott Allen, University of Cali- fornia, Riverside; Dora Dumont, Miriam Hospital, Providence, RI; Wade Jacobsen, Princeton University; and Jessica Simes, Harvard University. Sixteen individuals participated in a December 2012 public workshop on health and incarceration, organized by committee member Josiah Rich, which informed that element of the committee’s work. Other participants were committee members Craig Haney, Bruce Western, and Scott Allen, University of California, Riverside; Redonna Chandler, National Institute on Drug Abuse; Jennifer Clarke, Brown University Medical Center; Jamie Fellner, Human Rights Watch; Robert B. Greifinger, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, CUNY; Newton Kendig, Federal Bureau of Prisons; Marc Mauer, The Sentencing Project; Fred Osher, Council of State Governments; Steven Rosenberg, Community Oriented Correctional Health Services; Faye S. Taxman, George Mason University; Emily Wang, Yale University; Christopher Wildeman, Yale University; and Brie Williams, University of California, San Francisco. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation pro- vided support for the preparation and publication of a summary of that

OCR for page R1
PREFACE xi workshop (available through the National Academies Press, http://www. nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=18372). All of us recognize that the study would not be what it is—in the depth of analysis, quality of writing, or force of its conclusions—without the ef- forts of the committee’s vice chair, Bruce Western. I thank him not only for his innumerable substantive contributions to the report, but also for his thoughtful leadership at critical times during the committee’s deliberations. One member of the study committee, Jeffrey Beard, resigned in late 2013. He concluded that his obligations as secretary of the California De- partment of Corrections and Rehabilitation, a position he assumed after having been appointed to the committee, precluded him from participating in the final stages of the committee’s deliberations. We are indebted to him for his contributions to the committee’s early work. Committee member Ricardo H. Hinojosa has written a supplementary statement, which is Appendix A. In it he expresses concerns about the re- port’s discussion and certain conclusions related to the causes of high rates of incarceration and their effect on crime prevention, based on his judicial experience. However, he does support the panel’s recommendations and the importance of their consideration by the public and policy makers. This study and report have benefited from the valuable assistance of many NRC staff within CLAJ. Steve Redburn, scholar and study director, oversaw meeting agendas and schedules for the production of this report. In the assembly of the report, he was assisted by Malay Majmundar, senior program officer, and Julie Schuck, senior program associate, to work col- laboratively with the committee members to integrate their ideas, analyses, writings, and conclusions into a sound report. Barbara Boyd, administrative coordinator, made sure the committee’s study and meetings ran smoothly, gathered data and created several figures in this report, as well as provided bibliographic assistance. The former CLAJ director, Jane Ross, offered wise guidance at the start of the committee’s deliberations. The current CLAJ director, Arlene Lee, provided leadership and intellectual rigor in the final phases of production of this report to ensure that its complex messages were well-grounded. Conversations with Robert Hauser, executive direc- tor, and Mary Ellen O’Connell, deputy executive director, of the Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education helped the committee strengthen the presentation of its conclusions and the articulation of norma- tive principles for the use of incarceration. We also thank the many other NRC staff members who assisted the committee in its work. Anthony Mann provided administrative support as needed. Kirsten Sampson Snyder shepherded the report through the NRC review process; Eugenia Grohman helped edit the draft report; Yvonne Wise processed the report through final production; and Patty Morison offered guidance on communication of the study results. The staff of the NRC

OCR for page R1
xii PREFACE library and research center, Daniel Bearss, Colleen Willis, Ellen Kimmel, and Rebecca Morgan, provided valuable assistance on the report bibliog- raphy. We also appreciate the efforts of Rona Briere and Alisa Decatur in their editing of the final text. This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with pro- cedures approved by the NRC’s Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making its published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. I thank the following individuals for their review of this report: Anthony A. Braga, Program in Criminal Justice Policy and Management at Harvard Kennedy School, Harvard University, and School of Criminal Justice, Rutgers University; Shawn Bushway, Program on the Economics of Crime and Justice Policy, School of Criminal Justice, University at Albany, State University of New York; Michael Flamm, Department of History, Ohio Wesleyan University, Delaware, Ohio; Michael Gottfredson, Uni- versity of Oregon; Peter Greenwood, Advancing EBP, Agoura, California; Martin F. Horn, John Jay College, City University of New York, and New York State Sentencing Commission; Randall L. Kennedy, School of Law, Harvard University; Kenneth C. Land, Department of Sociology, Duke University; Marc Mauer, The Sentencing Project, Washington, DC; Theda Skocpol, Scholars Strategy Network and Department of Government and Sociology, Harvard University; Cassia Spohn, School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Arizona State University; Christopher Uggen, Department of Sociology, University of Minnesota; Lester N. Wright, School of Popu- lation Health, University of Adelaide, and  School of Medicine, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia; Mark H. Moore, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University; and Sara Rosenbaum, Depart- ment of Health Policy, School of Public Health and Health Services, George Washington University. Although the reviewers listed above provided many constructive com- ments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions and recommendations nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Mark Moore, Harvard University, and Sara Rosenbaum, George Washington University. Appointed by the NRC, they were responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with institu- tional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered.

OCR for page R1
PREFACE xiii Responsibility for the final content of this report, however, rests entirely with the authoring committee and the institution. More than 5 years ago, CLAJ recognized that the time had come to marshal the best science and gain insight into how incarceration had reached exceptional levels and with what consequences. To that end, we on the study committee committed ourselves to reaching the consensus pre- sented in this report through open-hearted deliberation and collaborative spirit. Our work will be judged a contribution to the extent that it informs a robust public discourse on these matters with scientific evidence and thoughtful reflection on the purposes and proper limits of incarceration. Jeremy Travis, Chair Committee on Causes and Consequences of High Rates of Incarceration in the United States

OCR for page R1

OCR for page R1
Contents Summary 1 1 Introduction 13 The Committee’s Charge, 14 Meanings and Uses of Incarceration, 19 Study Approach, 22 Guiding Principles, 23 Understanding Causes, 24 Assessing Consequences, 26 Weighing the Evidence, 29 Applying the Evidence to Policy, 31 Organization of the Report, 32 2 Rising Incarceration Rates 33 U.S. Incarceration in Historical and Comparative Perspective, 34 Trends in Prison and Jail Populations, 37 The Increasing Scope of Correctional Supervision, 40 Variation in Incarceration Rates Among States, 42 Crime and the Dynamics of the Growth of the Penal Population, 44 Trends in Crime, 45 Linking Crime to the Trend in Imprisonment, 47 Racial Disparity in Imprisonment, 56 Violent Crimes, 59 Drug Crimes, 60 Incarceration of Hispanics, 61 xv

OCR for page R1
xvi CONTENTS Concentration of Incarceration by Age, Sex, Race/Ethnicity, and Education, 64 Conclusion, 68 3 Policies and Practices Contributing to High Rates of Incarceration 70 Changes in U.S. Sentencing Laws, 71 Phase I: Changes Aimed at Increased Consistency and Fairness, 74 Phase II: Changes Aimed at Increased Certainty and Severity, 78 Principles of Justice, 85 Evidence and Policy, 89 Racial Disparities, 91 Disparities in Imprisonment Rates Relative to Population, 94 Disparities in Imprisonment Rates Relative to Offending, 94 Disparities in Sentencing and Case Processing, 97 Conclusion, 101 4 The Underlying Causes of Rising Incarceration: Crime, Politics, and Social Change 104 The Politics of Crime and Criminal Justice from the 1940s to the Early 1960s¸106 The Johnson Administration and the War on Crime, 109 Law and Order and the Rising Crime Rate, 111 Political and Electoral Realignment, 113 Other Political Factors, 117 The War on Drugs, 118 Crime, Punishment, Race, and Public Opinion, 121 Political Institutions and Culture, 123 Urban Economic Distress, 127 Conclusion, 128 5 The Crime Prevention Effects of Incarceration 130 Deterrence: Theory and Empirical Findings, 132 Theory, 132 Empirical Findings, 134 Incapacitation, 140 Constancy of λ Across the Population, 141 Constancy of λ Over the Criminal Career, 143 Other Considerations, 145 Estimating the Total Effect of Incarceration on Crime, 146 The Criminal Involvement of the Formerly Incarcerated, 150 Effects of Incarceration for Drug Offenses on Drug Prices and Drug Use, 152

OCR for page R1
CONTENTS xvii Knowledge Gaps, 154 Deterrence and Sentence Length, 154 Sentencing Data by State, 154 Conclusion, 155 6 The Experience of Imprisonment 157 Variations in Prison Environments, 158 Trends Affecting the Nature of Prison Life, 159 Prison Data, 164 Lack of National and Standardized Data, 164 Few Quality-of-Life Indicators, 165 Conditions of Confinement, 167 Imprisonment of Women, 170 Imprisonment of Youth, 172 General Psychological Observations, 174 Extreme Conditions of Imprisonment, 178 Idleness and Programming, 188 Potential Postprison Criminogenic Effects, 193 What Works in Prison Rehabilitation and Reentry, 195 Knowledge Gaps, 198 Data Improvement and Standardization, 198 Mechanisms for Observed Consequences, 199 Diversion Programs, 199 Conclusion, 200 7 Consequences for Health and Mental Health 202 Health Profile of Inmates, 204 Mental Health, 204 Substance Abuse, 206 Infectious Diseases, 208 Chronic Conditions and Special Populations, 210 Health Care in Correctional Facilities, 213 Legal Basis, 213 Costs, 214 Standards, 215 Screening, 215 Correctional Health Care Providers, 216 Drug Treatment, 217 Health Disparities, 219 Impact of Incarceration on Health, 221 Conditions of Incarceration and Health, 221 Violence and Health, 224

OCR for page R1
xviii CONTENTS Health Following Release, 226 Access to Health Care After Release, 227 Community Health, 228 Knowledge Gaps, 229 Public Health Opportunities, 229 Data Standardization and Quality Improvement, 230 Conclusion, 230 8 Consequences for Employment and Earnings 233 Mechanisms, 234 Selection, 234 Transformation, 235 Labeling, 235 Approaches to Studying Employment Effects, 236 Surveys of Employer Attitudes, 237 Ethnographic and Other Qualitative Studies, 238 Experimental Approaches to Studying Criminal Stigma, 239 Analysis of Survey Data, 241 Use of Administrative Data, 242 Discussion, 247 Aggregate Studies, 248 Programs and Policies for Improving Employment Outcomes, 250 Employment Reentry Programs, 250 Limits on Access to Criminal Records, 255 Knowledge Gaps, 256 Directions for Future Research, 256 Labor Market Context, 257 Programs to Improve Employment and Other Outcomes, 257 Conclusion, 258 9 Consequences for Families and Children 260 Incarceration of Partners and Fathers, 263 Male-Female Relationships, 264 Economic Well-Being, 267 Parenting, 268 Child Well-Being, 270 Incarceration of Mothers, 273 Methodological Limitations, 275 Knowledge Gaps, 277 Understanding Variations, 278 Aggregate Effects, 278 Conclusion, 278

OCR for page R1
CONTENTS xix 10 Consequences for Communities 281 Spatial Concentration of High Rates of Incarceration, 283 Competing Views on the Community-Level Effects of Incarceration, 288 Assessing the Evidence, 289 Methodological Challenges to Causal Inference, 292 Is High Incarceration Different?, 296 Additional Perspectives, 297 Knowledge Gaps, 298 Comparative Qualitative Studies, 299 Natural Experiments, 299 Life-Course Perspectives, 300 Neighborhood-Level Relationships, 300 Conclusion, 301 11 Wider Consequences for U.S. Society 303 New Gradations of Citizenship, 304 Probationers and Parolees, 305 Extensions of Punishment, 305 Political Disenfranchisement, 307 The U.S. Census and Political Representation, 309 Invisible Inequality, 310 The U.S. Census, 311 Other Databases, 312 Voter Turnout, 313 Public Costs and Fiscal Pressures, 314 Conclusion, 317 12 The Prison in Society: Values and Principles 320 Historical Development, 321 Desert and Proportionality, 324 Parsimony, 326 Citizenship, 327 Social Justice, 330 Conclusion, 332 13 Findings, Conclusions, and Implications 334 Findings and Conclusions, 334 History, 334 Consequences, 336 Implications, 340 Role of Policy, 342 Sentencing Policy, 344

OCR for page R1
xx CONTENTS Prison Policy, 349 Social Policy, 351 Recommended Research, 353 Understanding the Experience of Incarceration and Its Effects, 354 Understanding Alternative Sentencing Policies, 354 Understanding the Impact of Incarceration on Communities, 355 Concluding Thoughts, 356 References 358 Appendixes A Supplementary Statement by Ricardo H. Hinojosa 419 B Data Sources 421 C Incarceration in the United States: A Research Agenda 424 D Biographical Sketches of Committee Members 435