Social Work
147 Alternative Justice Policies for Nonviolent Drug Offenses: A Policy Analysis
Brock Smith and Monique Alires
Faculty Mentor: Jason Castillo (Social Work, University of Utah)
Issue Statement
The US incarcerates the most people globally, resulting in approximately 2,000,000 incarcerated people annually (Sawyer & Wagner, 2022; Vera Institute on Justice, n.d.). Of the 2,000,000 incarcerated people, 373,500 (19%) are incarcerated for drug offenses (Sawyer & Wagner, 2022). A drug offense is a nonviolent offense that includes substance possession, driving under the influence, minor trafficking, sales, and manufacturing (Sawyer & Wagner, 2022; Mauer & King, 2007). In 2020, there were 1,155,610 drug arrests, the vast majority of which (87.7%) were for drug possession or use rather than sale or manufacturing (Sawyer & Wagner, 2022). Thus, many drug offenders become incarcerated for possessing and using substances. The cost of incarcerating drug offenders is 56.6 billion dollars annually, and the effectiveness of incarceration is minimal (The Sentencing Project, 2021). The cost to incarcerate drug offenders is three times greater than the benefit to public safety, with every 1$ spent on incarceration yielding a $0.35 safety benefit (Henrichson, 2013). Additionally, incarcerating drug offenders is an ineffective intervention because drug offenders have a 57.7% recidivism rate for drug offenses alone over ten years post-release, resulting in nearly three of five drug offenders becoming reincarcerated for drug offenses (Antenangeli et al., 2021).
Moreover, significant drug offender populations exist at all US correctional levels, including juvenile detention centers, jails, state prisons, federal prisons, military prisons, and immigration detention centers (Sawyer & Wagner, 2022). The correctional facilities with the highest concentration of convicted drug offenders are state prisons (146,000) and federal prisons (67,000) (Sawyer & Wagner, 2022). Drug offenders in state prisons compose 14% of the inmate population (Carson, 2021). The demographics of state prison drug offenders are female (26%), male (13.1%), White (16.6%), Black (12.2%), Hispanic (11.7%), Asian (11%), and American Indian/Alaskan Native (10.9%) (Carson, 2021). The state inmate groups with the most significant drug offender population are aged 30-39 (Mississippi Department of Corrections, 2021; Edwards & Le Blanc, 2022). In contrast, drug offenders in federal prisons compose 46.7% of the inmate population (Carson, 2021). The demographics of federal prison drug offenders are female (61.6%), male (45.6%), Hispanic (62%), Asian (45.7%), Black (42.1%), White (39.2%), and American Indian/Alaska Native (16.3%) (Carson, 2021). The federal inmate groups with the most significant drug offender populations are aged 30-39 (Taxy et al., 2015).
Root Cause of the Issue
The 1980s War on Drugs was the US government’s initiative to “crackdown” on drug crimes and criminalize drug use that had reached an apex in the 1970s counterculture and Vietnam War, which continued to grow with the rise of cocaine and crack cocaine during the 1980s (Mauer & King, 2007). The War on Drugs set the precedence for the criminal justice system (CJS) to punish and incarcerate low-level drug offenders, and the effects of the war are still apparent in the US prison system (Mauer & King, 2022; Sawyer & Wagner, 2022). The War on Drugs increased police enforcement and prosecution of drug-related offenses, which disproportionately affected low-income communities and people of color (Mauer & King, 2007). Although marginalized communities were impacted the most, the US government stigmatized illicit substance use among all groups during this period (Orsini, 2017). The CJS targeted people who were addicted to substances or used substances recreationally. Once nonviolent drug offenders were arrested, exiting the CJS became increasingly challenging due to additional systemic barriers to employment, housing, and education (Chandler et al., 2009). Thus, many drug offenders became stuck in a justice-involved cycle.
Moreover, the War on Drugs contributed to the Anti-Drug Abuse Acts of 1986 and 1988 (Mauer & King, 2007). These laws enacted mandatory minimum sentencing for drug offenses and impacted the federal sentencing guidelines for drug offenders (Mauer & King, 2007). According to Mauer and King (2007), these policies removed judges’ discretion in drug cases. The policies automatically sent drug offenders to prison to serve their entire sentence if their offense met the mandatory minimum criteria (Mauer & King, 2007). Mandatory minimum sentencing would increase drug offender incarceration rates in the prison system from 79% to 94% between 1988 to 2004 (Mauer & King, 2007). By 2004, drug offenders with mandatory minimum sentences would serve three times longer incarceration sentences than in 1988 (Mauer & King, 2007). The CJS was determined to arrest more drug offenders and incarcerate them for longer. The CJS prerogative caused a 500% increase in incarceration rates over 25 years leading into the early 2000s when previous drug policies fell under public scrutiny and began to shift toward alternatives (Mauer & King, 2007; National Centers for Drug Abuse Statistics [NCDAS], n.d.).
Implications
Mass incarceration affects individuals, families, and communities (Wilderman & Wang, 2017). Research has shown that criminalizing people for lower-level offenses is a widespread issue that impacts many groups within society (Mauer & King, 2007; Wilderman & Wang, 2017). As society continues to confine people inside US jails and prisons, we see several issues arise, such as increased government spending, overpopulated prisons, and employment obstacles. Especially for people of color, the research shows African Americans are overrepresented in prison populations by nearly “5 times the rate of white Americans” (Nellis, 2021, p. 6). Mass imprisonment causes damage to the individual’s social networks, disrupts established social norms, and distorts social norms (Roberts, 2004, p. 1281).
Due to overpopulated prisons, an increased amount of government spending directly goes to our prison and jail systems. About 7.7 million Americans have been imprisoned, 12.1 million have been sentenced to a felony, and nearly 45 million have been charged with at least one misdemeanor (Craigie et al., 2020). To manage mass incarceration, our government has increased the amount of government spending. In fact, about $80 billion is spent in the US to manage 1.7 million prisoners and supervise approximately 4 million people on probation and parole (Eisen & Stroud, 2022). The federal government continues to spend billions of dollars on highly disciplinary practices concentrated on prisons that are yet to be proven effective. In fact, within three years of a release date, “…two out of three former prisoners are rearrested, and more than 50% are incarcerated again” (Benecchi, 2021).
The overwhelming majority of prisoners are returning. Thus the government spends more on the CJS when the funds would be more effective for organizations, agencies, or communities to reduce mass incarceration. Employment for formerly incarcerated individuals is also a problematic barrier that impairs individuals’ social reintegration and post-release success. Formerly incarcerated people lose about half their earning potential resulting in a $100,000 difference compared to a non-incarcerated person (Eisen & Stroud, 2022). Additionally, many lost opportunities, insufficient reentry services, and social stigma can contribute to this connection between imprisonment and employment.
Policy Solutions Decriminalization of Illicit Substances
The policy recommendation is to remove the legal penalties for illicit substance possession and use (Drug Policy Alliance, 2017). Under this policy, the CJS will not arrest, charge, or fine people for illicit substance use or possessing personal amounts (small amounts) of illicit substances (Drug Policy Alliance, 2017). Instead, the CJS will connect people caught using or possessing illicit substances to social services like SUD treatment agencies and harm reduction organizations for substance misuse support and education (Drug Policy Alliance, 2017). The premise is that substance misuse is a health issue and requires a medical response.
Substance decriminalization would allow the US to reduce arrests, incarceration, recidivism rates, and ethnic disparities in the CJS (Goncalves et al., 2015; Sawyer & Wagner, 2022; Drug Policy Alliance, 2017). Moreover, reduce public expenditure on drug-related incarceration and justice courts (Goncalves et al., 2015). Thus, society could spend more public money on alternatives to incarceration, like prevention, SUD treatment, education, public health, and harm reduction (Drug Policy Alliance, 2017).
Pretrial Diversion
Pretrial diversion is one of our solutions to address underlying problems by involving legal professionals to reduce contact in jails and prisons. The pretrial diversion services are intended to divert offenders from the traditional criminal justice system to a supervised program with services operated by the US Probation Services. Typically, participants who complete the program are not charged, and if charged, participants will have charges dismissed. Participants who do not successfully complete the program usually return for prosecution. (US Department of Justice Manual, 2020). Furthermore, there are countless statistics revealing the success rate of pretrial diversion programs. The Eastern District of New York’s Pretrial Opportunity Program reported a 76% success rate (American College of Trail Lawyers, 2021). The “Conviction and Sentence Alternatives” program reported an 86% of successful graduates from their program (American College of Trail Lawyers, 2021). The list of successful completion of pretrial diversion programs continues, confirming that pretrial diversion works in our society.
Community Service Restitution Program
The policy recommendation is to use community service instead of incarceration for drug offenders. Community service is a restorative justice intervention where the justice court mandates drug offenders to volunteer time at nonprofit and community organizations. The justice court determines how many community service hours offenders must complete based on the drug offense’s severity and impact. Community service is a safe intervention and sentencing option when accompanied by a condition of court supervision or probation (Patchin & Keveles, 2004). Community service is a solution that enables drug offenders to comply with the courts while learning valuable skills and improving their community, self-esteem, and SUD recovery (Bouffard & Muftic, 2007). According to Picard et al. (2019), justice courts can use community service to intervene in 76% of low-level drug cases, supporting the intervention’s widespread utility. At the same time, research studies have found that incorporating a community-based program as part of treatment has resulted in a 10% reduction in low-level drug offender incarceration rates (Patchin & Keveles, 2004). Furthermore, a common approach in assessing whether implementing community service will reduce the impact of drug offender incarceration is known as the SARA Model (Patchin & Keveles, 2004). The model will be beneficial in evaluating the policy recommendation.
Part II: Issue Description
The United States incarcerates two million people; of the two million people, about 20 percent of those incarcerated are charged with drug-related offenses (Sawyer & Wagner, 2022). The issue of mass incarceration for lower-level offenses impacts individuals, families, and communities. The solutions suggested to solve the issue of mass incarceration include: decriminalizing illicit substances, pretrial diversion, and community service instead of incarceration.
Alternative Solutions
Solution 1: Decriminalize Illicit Substances
The first solution is to decriminalize illicit substances. This option would discontinue fines, incarceration, probation, or other criminal penalties for persons using or possessing illicit substances.
Solution 2: Pretrial Diversion
The second solution is pretrial diversion. These programs include legal professionals and involve programs people can turn to rather than incarceration.
Solution 3: Community Service Restitution Program
Is a restorative justice intervention where the offender is sanctioned to repay the community for the harm they caused by volunteering at nonprofit organizations and may involve paying fines.
Criteria
We have chosen effectiveness, cost-efficiency, and social acceptability as criteria for our issue. Outcome effectiveness looks at how much the option will decrease or reduce the incarceration of drug offenders. For cost-efficiency, we will analyze how much money the policy will save the United States government. Lastly, social acceptability will examine how much society, communities, and the general population will accept, agree, and/or support the policy. From our criteria, we weighted effectiveness as the highest (.4), with cost-efficiency (.3) and social acceptability (.3) with the same weight. The criteria will be used to rate different solutions by analyzing data from different resources.
Policy Analysis Solution 1: Decriminalize Illicit Substances Outcome Effectiveness
According to Drug Policy Alliance (2015), Portugal has reduced drug arrest rates by 60% and drug-related incarceration rates by 20%. Other locations around the globe exhibit data supporting decriminalization policies and programs. Germany reported a 30% decrease in criminal drug offense cases and 7% in criminal drug trials two years after implementing decriminalization (Fischer, 1995). In the U.S., Seattle, WA reported a 88% decrease in prison incarceration sentences after implementing Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion, a decriminalization policing program (Collins et al., 2019). Furthermore, a year after Oregon passed decriminalization legislation, it reduced 9,000 drug arrests and decreased drug offender incarceration rates (Sutton, 2021). By the US implementing a policy like Portugal, estimated annual drug arrests can decrease from 1.1 million to 462,244 and reduce the 373,500 incarcerated drug offender population to approximately 298,800, if not more (Drug Policy Alliance, 2015; Goncalves et al., 2015, Sawyer & Wagner, 2022). Moreover, the policy could decrease drug offender recidivism because 57.7% of drug offenders become reincarcerated due to drug offenses like substance use and possession (Antenangeli et al., 2021; Drug Policy, 2017). Since the policy can reduce the massive flow of drug offenders entering and reentering incarceration, the policy can effectively reduce drug offender incarceration rates (Drug Policy Alliance, 2015; Drug Policy Alliance, 2017; Goncalves et al., 2015; Collins et al., 2019).
Cost-Efficiency
According to Miron and Waldock (2010), the combined state expenditures for policing substance possession crimes alone is $4.28 billion annually. Moreover, the US spends approximately $56.6 billion annually to incarcerate low-level drug offenders (The Sentencing Project, 2021). Decriminalization would significantly reduce these costs. Oregon policy analysts estimate that Oregon will save between $12 million and $48.6 million by ending drug offender arrests, convictions, and incarceration (Martinez, n.d.). Similarly, Portugal saved $40 million over ten years post-decriminalization and reduced its governmental spending on drug-related costs by 18% (Goncalves et al., 2015). Based on the limited available literature on governmental savings related to decriminalization, by implementing a nationwide policy, the US could save between $600 million and $2.4 billion (Drug Policy Alliance, 2017; Miron & Waldock, 2010; Goncalves et al., 2015).
Social Acceptability
US society supports substance decriminalization now more than ever (Drug Policy Alliance, 2017; Rouhani et al., 2022; Franklin, 2021; Viars, 2016). According to two nationally representative surveys taken in 2021 and 2022, many US citizens support the decriminalization policy (Rouhani et al., 2022; Franklin, 2021). Depending on the survey source, support for the policy ranges from 35% to 66% of the US adult population, which translates to between 116 million to 219 million people (Rouhani et al., 2022; Franklin, 2021). The demographics with the most support for the policy are 18-34 years old (42%), male (38.3%), White, non-Hispanic (38%), college graduates (36.5%), and liberal (47%) (Rouhani et al., 2022). In 2020, Oregon decriminalized all substances (Sutton, 2021). Following the enactment of Oregon’s policy, other states like Washington, Massachusetts, Vermont, Maine, New York, Rhode Island, Maryland, Kansas, the District of Columbia, and even the United States Congress have introduced bills or started campaigns to remove the legal penalties for drug possession and increase SUD treatment access (Sutton, 2021). Two components that contribute to the policy’s social acceptability are the racial disparities of people of color in drug arrests and incarceration rates and the growing support for harm reduction and treatment to reduce substance misuse, addiction, and overdose rates (Drug Policy Alliance, 2017; Rouhani et al., 2022; Franklin, 2021).
Solution 2: Pretrial Diversion
Outcome Effectiveness
The 2018 natural experiments in Harris County, Texas, revealed diversion programs decrease the likelihood of future incarceration by 48%, and the overall total of future conviction rates declined by 66% (Mueller-Smith & Schnepel, 2018). With the decline of incarceration rates, employment rates rise, and earnings increase. The research shows “Quarterly employment rates improve by 53 percent and total earnings by 64 percent” (Mueller-Smith & Schnepel, 2018, p. 2). The implementation of pretrial diversion programs positively impacts recidivism and the labor market. In addition, “diversion permanently changes an individual’s lifetime trajectory” (Mueller-Smith & Schnepel, 2018, p. 2). The implementation of pretrial diversion programs has proven to reduce incarceration rates (Rempel et al., 2018).
Cost Efficiency
The United States Criminal Justice System would save $4.8 billion if only 10% of eligible offenders were sent to diversion programs rather than prison (Kubic & Pendergrass, 2017). Specifically, San Francisco expects $3 million in savings per year projected from “a cost- benefit analysis of expanding pretrial diversion” (Pretrial Justice Institute, 2017). Broward County, Florida, estimates over $125 million in savings by diverting 20% from jail and employing existing programs such as pretrial diversion programs (Piquero, 2010). Research also shows in Santa Clara County, California, a validated pretrial risk assessment tool saved $33 million by keeping 1,400 defendants out of jail within six months (Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Clara, 2012). Overall, the United States could save $78 billion from “systematically fine-tuning pretrial detention decisions through [a] cost-benefit analysis…” (Baughman, 2017).
Social Acceptability
Society has shown interest in pretrial diversion programs, partially driven by the mass incarceration crisis, an increase in funding, an emphasis on community prosecution, and reliable research results (Lowry & Kerodal, 2019). Pretrial diversion programs have been authorized in 48 states and the District of Columbia (NCSL, 2017). The programs are becoming more attractive as our societies, communities, and the general population understands the potential of reduced recidivism rates and savings resulting from pretrial diversion programs (Lowry & Kerodal, 2019). In addition, 43 out of the 48 states with authorized pretrial diversion programs have population-specific diversion programs, which include programs serving: substance abuse, mental illness, domestic relations, first-time violators, defendants of property offenses, victims of human trafficking, and homeless defendants (NCSL, 2017). The information suggests that societies, communities, and the general population accept the implementation of Pretrial Diversion Programs.
Solution 3: Community Service Restitution Program
Outcome Effectiveness
There is little research on how community service restitution programs decrease or reduce incarceration rates. One study concluded with no evidence of reducing crime after completing community service restitution programs (McDonald, 1988). However, in the same study, research suggests community service sentences positively affect juveniles (McDonald, 1988). In another study, research revealed that offenders who participate in community services sentences are less likely to encounter post-program recidivism (Bouffard & Muftic, 2007). The results of this study were captured by a sample of 200 offenders sentenced to community service, compared to 222 offenders sentenced to pay a monetary fine. The study then compared the samples to examine the effectiveness of community service sentences, revealing a decrease in recidivism rates.
Cost-Efficiency
According to Cooper and West (1981), it costs $524,000 annually to fund a community service restitution program (CSRP) for 300 offenders. The CSRP costs approximately $5,500 annually per offender (Cooper & West, 1981; Marion, 2002). In contrast, the national average annual cost to incarcerate an offender in jails is approximately $47,000 (Henrichson et al., 2015). Therefore, the CSRP can save government funding approximately $41,500 annually per offender compared to incarceration. Moreover, US jails have 113,000 non-convicted low-level drug offenders, approximately 99,101 (87.7%) of which would be eligible for a CSRP because of illicit substance use or possession violations (Cooper & West, 1981; Marion, 2002; Sawyer & Wagner, 2022). For the US to serve 99,101 drug offenders, it must create 331 CSRPs costing 173.4 million dollars annually. In contrast, the annual cost to incarcerate 99,101 drug offenders is
$4.6 billion. The US could save $4.48 billion by eliminating low-level drug offender incarceration and implementing a CSRP policy (Sawyer & Wagner, 2022, Marion, 2002; Cooper & West, 1981, Henrichson et al., 2015).
Social Acceptability
According to Families Against Mandatory Minimums (n.d.), 77% of Americans believe that alternatives to incarceration like CSRPS, probation, and rehabilitative services are the most appropriate sentence for nonviolent, non-serious offenders. Many communities, institutions, and states support CSRPs for minor, nonviolent offenses and view the programs as a positive paradigm shift away from punitive justice practices like incarceration (Wood, 2013; Karp et al., 2004; Dzur, 2011). CSRPs typically include low-level drug offenses and are available to adults and youth offenders who commonly accept CSRPs instead of incarceration (Karp et al., 2004; Wood, 2013). Justice courts throughout the US have used CSRPs as intermediate sanctions since the 1980s (Wood, 2013; Dzur, 2011). Moreover, nonprofit organizations all over the US support CSRPS and are the primary providers and facilitators of offender community service hours (Wood, 2013). These organizations benefit by receiving free labor while supporting local community members in resolving their sanctions. Some states endorse CSRPs more than others. According to Dzur (2011), the Vermont Department of Corrections incorporated 77 volunteer- based community boards throughout Vermont to facilitate CSRPS. Plus, CSRPs have significant buy-in from victims and offenders, highlighting the support for these programs from parties on both sides of the offense (Karp et al., 2004; Dzur, 2011). According to Karp et al. (2004), 92% of victims want these programs to continue, and 72% are satisfied with the CRSP results. In contrast, offender buy-in is exhibited by an 81% program completion rate and offender participation when given the option of a CRSP or incarceration (Karp et al., 2004).
| Criteria | ||||
| Alternative Options | Effectiveness (.4) | Cost-efficiency (.3) | Social Acceptability (.3) | Total (1.0) |
| Decriminalize Illicit Substances | 7.5 (.4) = 3 | 7.5 (.3) = 2.25 | 7 (.3) = 2.1 | 7.35 |
| Pretrial Diversion | 7 (.4) = 2.8 | 7.5 (.3) = 2.25 | 7.5 (.3) = 2.25 | 7.3 |
| Community Service Restitution Program | 5 (.4) = 2 | 6 (.3) = 1.8 | 7 (.3) = 2.1 | 5.9 |
Recommendation
The US incarcerates approximately 400,000 nonviolent drug offenders and arrests 1.15 million for nonviolent drug offenses annually (Sawyer & Wagner, 2021). Arresting and incarcerating nonviolent drug offenders is costly and ineffective (Sawyer & Wagner, 2021; The Sentencing Project, 2021; Henrichson, 2013; Antenangeli et al., 2021). There are several solutions to this issue. For the purpose of this policy analysis, analysts selected decriminalization of illicit substances, pretrial diversion, and community service restitution programs as viable solutions for nonviolent drug offender mass incarceration. Analysts applied criteria that included outcome effectiveness, cost-efficiency, and social acceptability in rating the viability of these solutions. The final analysis rating was the decriminalization of illicit substances (7.35), pre-trail diversion (7.3), and community service restitution programs (5.8). The recommendation based on the policy analysis was decriminalizing illicit substances.
Of the three options decriminalization of illicit substances was the highest rated option.
Decriminalization is outcome effective because it significantly reduces drug arrests, drug offender incarceration, and drug-related recidivism rates. The solution will eliminate more than a million people with nonviolent minor drug offenses from criminal justice system involvement. It will help jails and prisons run more efficiently and allow justice courts and probation agencies to exert more resources on violent offenders who pose a greater risk to society than nonviolent drug offenders. Decriminalization is cost-efficient by eliminating nonviolent drug offender policing, incarceration, and court costs, which expend government agencies’ funding with no notable public safety benefit. The US can expect to save billions of dollars by implementing this solution. Moreover, citizen support for decriminalization is widespread, and multiple state governments support this solution.
References American College of Trail Lawyers. (2021). The effective use of pretrial diversion in criminal cases. https://www.actl.com/docs/default-source/default-document-library/position- statements-and-whitepapers/effective_use_of_pretrial_diversion_in_criminal_cases.pdf?sfvrsn=afc18679_4
Antenangeli, L., & Durose, M. R. (2021, September). Recidivism of prisoners released in 24 states in 2008: A 10-Year follow-Up period (2008-2018). US Department of Justice. https://bjs.ojp.gov/BJS_PUB/rpr24s0810yfup0818/Web%20content/508%20compliant%20PDFs
Baughman, S. B. (2016). Costs of pretrial detention. Boston University Law Review, 97(1), 1-30. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2757251
Benecchi, L. (2021, August 8). Recidivism imprisons American progress. Harvard Political Review. https://harvardpolitics.com/recidivism-american-progress/
Bouffard, J. A., & Muftić, L. R. (2007). The effectiveness of community service sentences compared to traditional fines for low-level offenders. The Prison Journal, 87(2), 171–194. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885507303741
Carson, E. A. (2021, December). Prisoners in 2020 – Statistical tables. US Department of Justice. https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/p20st.pdf
Chandler, R. K., Fletcher, B. W., & Volkow, N. D. (2009). Treating drug abuse and addiction in the criminal justice system: Improving public health and safety. Jama, 301(2), 183-190. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2008.976
Collins, S. E., Lonczak, H. S., & Clifasefi, S. L. (2019). Seattle’s law enforcement assisted diversion (lead): Program effects on criminal justice and legal system utilization and
costs. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 15(2), 201-211. https://doi:10.1007/s11292-019-09352-7
Craigie, T., Grawert, A., Stiglitz, J., & Kimble, C. (2022, September 16). Conviction, imprisonment, and lost earnings: How involvement with the criminal justice system deepens inequality. Brennan Center for Justice. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/conviction-imprisonment-and-lost-earnings-how-involvement-criminal
Drug Policy Alliance. (2015, February). Drug decriminalization in Portugal: A health-Centered approach. We are the Drug Policy Alliance. https://drugpolicy.org/sites/default/files/DPA_Fact_Sheet_Portugal_Decriminalization_Feb2015.pdf#:~:text=The%20number%20of%20people%20arrested%20and%20sent%20to,commissions%20are%20deemed%20non-problematic%20and%20dismissed%20without%20sanction.12
Drug Policy Alliance. (2017, July). It’s time for the US to decriminalize drug use and possession. We are the Drug Policy Alliance. https://drugpolicy.org/sites/default/files/documents/Drug_Policy_Alliance_Time_to_Decriminalize_Report_July_2017.pdf
Dzur, A. W. (2011). Restorative justice and democracy: Fostering public accountability for criminal justice. Contemporary Justice Review, 14(4), 367-381. https://doi.org/10.1080/10282580.2011.616367
Edwards, J. B., & Le Blanc, J. M. (2022, July). Briefing book. Louisiana Public Safety & Corrections. https://s32082.pcdn.co/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/0m-Full-Briefing-Book-July-2022-Website.pdf
Eisen, L., & Stroud, H. (2022, August 5). Securing public safety without mass incarceration or deepening racial injustice. The Hill. https://thehill.com/opinion/criminal-
justice/3590085-securing-public-safety-without-mass-incarceration-or-deepening-racial-injustice/
Families Against Mandatory Minimums. (n.d.). Alternatives to incarceration in a nutshell. FAMM. https://famm.org/wp-content/uploads/FS-Alternatives-in-a-Nutshell.pdf
Fischer, B. (1995). Drugs, communities, and “harm reduction” in Germany: The new relevance of “public health” principles in local responses. Journal of Public Health Policy, 16(4), 389-411. https://doi.org/10.2307/3342618
Franklin, D. (2021, June 9). Poll results on American attitudes toward War on Drugs. ACLU. https://www.aclu.org/other/poll-results-american-attitudes-toward-war-drugs
Goncalves, R., Lourenco, A., & Nogueira da Silva, S. (2015). A social cost perspective in the wake of Portuguese strategy for the fight against drugs. International Journal of Drug Policy, 26(2), 199-209. https://doi-org.ezproxy.lib.utah.edu/10.1016/j.drugpo.2014.08.017
Henrichson, C., Rinaldi, J., & Delaney, R. (2015, May). The price of jails: Measuring the taxpayer cost of local incarceration. Vera. https://www.vera.org/publications/the-price-of-jails-measuring-the-taxpayer-cost-of-local-incarceration
Johnson, A., Ali-Smith, M., & McCann, S. (2022). Diversion programs are a smart, sustainable investment in public. Vera Institute of Justice. https://www.vera.org/news/diversion-programs-are-a-smart-sustainable-investment-in-public-safety
Karp, D. R., Bazemore, G., & Chesire, J. D. (2004). The role and attitudes of restorative board members: A case study of volunteers in community justice. Crime & Delinquency, 50(4), 487-515. https://doi-org.ezproxy.lib.utah.edu/10.1177/0011128703260262
Kubic, M. W., & Pendergrass, T. (2022, August 29). Diversion programs are cheaper and more effective than incarceration. Prosecutors should embrace them. ACLU. https://www.aclu.org/news/smart-justice/diversion-programs-are-cheaper-and-more-effective-incarceration-prosecutors
Lowry, M., & Kerodal, A. (2019). Prosecutor-led diversion. Center for Court Innovation. https://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/media/document/2019/prosecutor-led_diversion.pdf
Luciano, A., Belstock, J., Per Malmberg, G.A., McHugo, G. J., Drake, R. E., Xie, H., Essock, S. M., & Covell, N. H. (2014). Predictors of incarceration among urban adults with co- occurring severe mental illness and a substance use disorder. Psychiatric Services, 65(11), 1335-1331. https://doi-org.ezproxy.lib.utah.edu/10.1176/appi.ps.201300408
Marion, N. A. (2002, December 4). Community saving in Ohio cost savings and program effectiveness. Justice Policy Institute. https://www.prisonpolicy.org/scans/jpi/cc_ohio.pdf
Martinez, R. (n.d.). Exploring Oregon’s measure 110 and the future of drug reform policy reform. Psychedelics Today. https://www.psychedelicstoday.com/2021/05/12/exploring-oregons-measure-110-and-the-future-of-drug-policy-reform/#:~:text=According%20to%20analysts%2C%20Measure%20110%20is%20slated%20to%3A,%2448.6%20million%20from%20ending%20arrests%2C%20jailings%2C%20and%20convictions.
Mauer, M. (2009, April). The changing racial dynamic of the War on Drugs. The Sentencing Project. https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep27341
Mauer, M., & King, R. S. (2007). A 25-Year quagmire: The War on Drugs and its impact on American society. The Sentencing Project. https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/a-25-year-quagmire-the-war-on-drugs-and-its-impact-on-american-society/
McDonald, D. C. (1988). Restitution and community service. Office of Justice Programs. https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/restitution-and-community-
Miron, J. A., & Waldock, K. (2010). The budgetary impact of ending drug prohibition. Cato Institute. https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/DrugProhibitionWP.pdf
Mississippi Department of Corrections. (2021). Annual report 2021. https://www.mdoc.ms.gov/Admin-Finance/Documents/2021%20Annual%20Report.pdf
Mueller-Smith, M., & Schnepel, K. (2018). Diversion in the criminal justice system. https://sites.lsa.umich.edu/mgms/wp-content/uploads/sites/283/2018/08/Diversion.pdf
National Center for Drug Abuse Statistics. (n.d.). Drug related crime statistics. NCDAS. https://drugabusestatistics.org/drug-related-crime-statistics/
NCSL. (2017). Pretrial diversion. National Conference of State Legislators. https://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/pretrial-diversion.aspx
Nelis, A. (2021). The color of justice: Racial and ethnic disparity in state prisons. The Sentencing Project. p. 6 https://www.sentencingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/The-Color-of-Justice-Racial-and-Ethnic-Disparity-in-State-Prisons.pdf
Orsini, M. M. (2017). Frame analysis of drug narratives in network news coverage. Contemporary Drug Problems, 44(3), 189-211. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091450917722817
Patchin, J. W., & Keveles, G. N. (2015, June 4). Alternatives to incarceration: An evidence- Based research review [Summary of findings]. Northwest Wisconsin Criminal Justice Management Conference, Cable, Wisconsin. https://people.uwec.edu/patchinj/crmj103/Alternatives%20to%20Jails%20Research%20Review%20-%20Executive%20Summary.pdf
Picard, S., Tallon, J. A., Lowry, M., & Kralstein, D. (2019, July). Court-Ordered community service: A national perspective. Center for Court Innovation. https://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/media/document/2019/community_ser vice_report_11052019_0.pdf
Piquero, A. (2010, October 6). Cost-Benefit analysis for jail alternatives and jail. Social Value UK. https://socialvalueuk.org/
Pretrial Justice Institute. (2017). Pretrial justice: How much does it cost? Reimagining Justice. https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/Malloy-Archive/Reimagining-Justice/Reimagining-Justice—
Pretrial-justice-at-what-cost-PJI-2017.pdf?sc_lang=en&hash=2D9ACDE29DDD4EE58364277140A64B8F
Rempel, M., Labriola, M., Hunt, P., Davis, R., Reich, W., & Cherney, S. (2018). NIJ’s multisite evaluation of prosecutor-Led diversion programs. Office of Justice Programs. https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/251665.pdf
Roberts, D. E. (2004). The social and moral cost of mass incarceration in African American communities. Stanford Law Review, 65(5), 1271-1305. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40040178
Rouhani, S., McGinty, E. E., Weicker, N. P., White, R. H., LaSalle, L., Barry, C. L., & Sherman,
S. G. (2022). Racial resentment and support for decriminalization of drug possession in the United States. Preventive Medicine, 163(107189), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2022.107189
Sawyer, W., & Wagner, P. (2022, March 14). Mass incarceration: The whole pie 2022. Prison Policy Initiative. https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2022.html#lf-fnref:14
Sutton, M. (2021, November 3). Drug decriminalization in Oregon, one year later: Thousands of lives not ruined by possession arrests, $300 million+ in funding for services. We are the Drug Policy Alliance. https://drugpolicy.org/press-release/2021/11/drug-decriminalization-oregon-one-year-later-thousands-lives-not-ruined
Taxy, S., Samuels, J., & Adams, W. (2015, October). Drug offenders in federal prison: Estimates of characteristics based on linked data. US Department of Justice. https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/dofp12.pdf
The Sentencing Project. (2018, April 19). Report to the United Nations on racial disparities in the US criminal justice system. https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/un-report-
The Sentencing Project. (2021, May 17). Trends in US corrections. https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/trends-in-u-s-corrections/
US Department of Justice. (2020, January 29). 9-22.000 – Pretrial diversion program. https://www.justice.gov/jm/jm-9-22000-pretrial-diversion-program#:~:text=Pretrial%20diversion%20(PTD)%20is%20an,at%20the%20pre%2Dcharge%20stage
Vera Institute on Justice. (n.d.). Ending mass incarceration. Vera. https://www.vera.org/ending-mass-incarceration
Viars, S. (2016). Economic implications of decriminalization (Publication No. 10249060). [Master’s thesis, University of North Carolina at Charlotte]. ProQuest Dissertation Publishing.
Wilderman, C., & Wang, E. A. (2017). Mass incarceration, public health, and widening inequality in the USA. The Lancet, 389(10077), 1464-1474. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)30259-3
Wood, W. R. (2013). Soliciting community involvement and support for restorative justice through community service. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 26(2), 135-155. https://doi-