• Home
• About the Project
• Facts and Trends
• The Strategy
• National Summit & Report
• Work in the States
• Federal Legislation
• Press Room
• Resources

Facts and Trends

Nationwide, state spending on corrections has risen faster in the 20 years from 1988 to 2008 than spending on nearly any other state budget item—increasing from about $12 billion to $52 billion a year. ¹

Most states are taking an expensive, unsuccessful, and unsustainable approach to prison and corrections policies. Any real effort to contain spending on corrections must have as its centerpiece a plan to limit the growth of, or reduce, the prison population. Unless policymakers act, state spending on corrections is projected to continue to increase.²

Despite mounting corrections spending, rates of reincarceration remain high and, by some measures, have actually worsened.

Policymakers are questioning whether simply building more prisons will yield the best possible investment of public safety dollars. In 2008, more than 683,000 people were released from state prisons.³ Based on a prior Bureau of Justice Statistics’ study, it is estimated that half would be reincarcerated within three years. Even more would be rearrested.⁴

The fastest growing category of prison admissions is people already under some form of community supervision.⁵ To increase public safety and manage the growth of prison populations, policymakers must work toward the safe and successful return to the community of individuals released from prison.

Research points to practices and programs that can effectively reduce crime and rates of recidivism.

When states began to expand their prison systems three decades ago, little was known about how to stop the revolving door of the criminal justice system. But, over time, the volume of research documenting what does and does not reduce criminal behavior and recidivism has grown dramatically. One key finding: interventions, treatment programs, and intensive supervision should identify and focus on those individuals at greatest risk for committing crimes.

Often, policymakers do not have information about what factors are driving crime, re-offense rates, and the growth of correctional populations. They also lack geographic analyses about which benefits and services are being invested and coordinated in neighborhoods where many people under criminal justice supervision live.

Most state policymakers are forced to make decisions about prison and public safety policies without comprehensive, independent analyses of their criminal justice data. State agencies also often lack the capacity to conduct regular evaluations and audits of programs and systems to determine if they are reducing crime and the numbers of people returning to prison.