the city of philadelphia prison system john f. street, esq. mayor leon a. king, ii, esq....

The City of Philadelphia Prison

SystemJohn F. Street, Esq.

Mayor

Leon A. King, II, Esq.Commissioner

Public Safety

There is no longer any debate about what is effective in improving public safety.

Public Safety

There is no longer any debate about what is effective in improving public safety.

There is, however, considerable debate about what is politically acceptable to reduce the risk of

re-offending.

Public Safety

There is no longer any debate about what is effective in improving public

safety.

There is, however, considerable debate about what is politically acceptable to

reduce the risk of re-offending.But, if we know what will improve public

safety, it is an obligation to make it happen.

Misconceptions

• Longer sentences result in reduced criminal activity.

• Being tough-on crime is always effective.• Being soft-on crime is more humane than

being hard on crime.• “Nothing works”, “incarceration deters

crime”, “harsh jail conditions deter crime”, “ex-offenders are responsible for high crime rates” and “our crime laws are perfect.”

• Most inmates are violent and every returning offender is dangerous.

A Snap Shot of 15,000 PPS Inmates’ Most Serious Charges

over 6 months in FY 06

6 7 71 341 626 7551527

2128

34754172

1481

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

ACCID

EN

T IN

VPERSO

NIN

JURY/D

EATH

INVO

LU

NTARY

MAN

SLAU

GH

TER

AU

TO

RELATED

WEAPO

NRELATED

(N

ON

-U

SED

)

SEX R

ELATED

CRIM

E

UN

KN

OW

N

OTH

ER L

EG

AL

VIO

LATIO

N

TH

EFT/P

RO

PERTY

RELATED

VIO

LEN

CE

RELATED

DRU

G R

ELATED

-U

SE O

R D

EALIN

G

Num

ber of

Inm

ates

Why We Can’t Rely on Incarceration

Incarceration has been estimated to be responsible for about a 5-20% reduction in criminal activity at present. Other research found a 10% increase in incarceration yields a 1.6-3.1% reduction in crime; this is short-sighted and clearly not efficient.

However, in the long-term, 95% of all inmates are released, and the risk of offending for ex-offenders is 20-50 times greater than non-offenders.

This occurs for several reasons:

•A criminal record impedes prospects for future employment, housing and educational opportunities; these are risk factors for later criminal activity.•Criminogenic behaviors and attitudes are learned while incarcerated; this is a risk factor for non-serous/violent criminals.•The increased resources on incarceration leads to decreased resources for other, more effective public safety interventions, and publicly funded services.•With increases in persons incarcerated, the deterrent effect of incarceration decreases; for some, incarceration is a right of passage.

Our Inconvenient Truth

Law enforcement and crime prevention are not always the

same.


Law enforcement and crime prevention are not always the

same.

This is the law of unintended consequences.


Law enforcement and crime prevention are not always the same.

This is the law of unintended consequences.

Three such cases: housing, jobs and educational possibilities. Each are affected by current background-

check legislation.

Unintended Consequences

"Soft on Crime" Primary Criminal Behavior

Displaced Criminal Behavior

Num

ber of

Crim

inal O

ffen

ses

Crime Approach

Outcome of Policy / Crime Approach


"Soft on Crime"

"Tough on Crime

Primary Criminal Behavior


Num

ber of

Crim

inal O

ffen

ses

Crime Approach



"Soft on Crime"

"Tough on Crime

"Smart on Crime"

Primary Criminal Behavior


Num

ber of

Crim

inal O

ffen

ses

Crime Approach


The bottom line is that we need to ask…

“What will it take to keep released offenders from committing crime

after incarceration?”

The Outcome of Risk Reduction Interventions

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Recidivism at 6months

Recidivism at 1yr

Recidivism at 2yrs

Recidivism at 3yrs

% R

ecid

ivat

ing

With no intervention


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80


Recidivism at 1yr

Recidivism at 2yrs

Recidivism at 3yrs

% R

ecid

ivat

ing

With housing intervention


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80


Recidivism at 1yr

Recidivism at 2yrs

Recidivism at 3yrs

% R

ecid

ivat

ing

With housing & jobs interventions


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80


Recidivism at 1yr

Recidivism at 2yrs

Recidivism at 3yrs

% R

ecid

ivat

ing

With housing, jobs & criminal mindset interventions


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80


Recidivism at 1yr

Recidivism at 2yrs

Recidivism at 3yrs

% R

ecid

ivat

ing

With housing, jobs & criminal mindset interventions

We will never have 0% recidivism or 0% crime, but we can decrease the

risk of re-offending and improve public safety.

Ex-offender background checks are, at present, one of the “tough-on crime” approaches.

• With respects to housing, ex-offender checks are an approach used to help keep certain offenders away from potential victims.• With respects to employment, ex-offender checks may also be necessary to keep some offenders from harming employees or others from stealing from the employer.• With respects to educational opportunities, ex-offenders are precluded from many sources of funding.

However, this legislation has unintended consequences and it is, therefore, incomplete.

Ex-Offender Background Check


The current ex-offender background check legislation has three primary problems with it:

1. It does not make provisions for reducing subsequent risk of criminal reoffending associated with ex-offenders’ increased impediments finding housing, employment or educational opportunities.

2. It is not supported by the evidence in that lifetime bans for all convictions is not consistent with the fact that desistance in criminal offending occurs overtime.

3. Only about 10% of young offenders actually go onto a lifetime of crime, while 100% have a criminal record.


The evidence supports the notion that legislative provisions can reduce the criminal risks associated with difficulty in finding housing, jobs and education.

This can be accomplished on two levels.


We could improve public safety by reducing the risks of re-offending with,

Two Possibilities: 1. Legislative provisions that assist or require

jobs, housing and educational opportunities for returning offenders upon release.

2. Legislation at the state and local level that seals or expunges the criminal record of some criminals (but excludes some such as the violent or predatory) who have not been involved with any criminal activity for at least seven years from their last offense.


We could improve public safety by reducing the risks of re-offending with,

Two Possibilities: 1. Legislative provisions that assist or require jobs,

housing and educational opportunities for returning offenders upon release.

2. Legislation at the state and local level that seals or expunges the criminal record of some criminals (but excludes some such as the violent or predatory) who have not been involved with any criminal activity for at least seven years from their last offense. This research was done using police arrest data on 13,000 Philadelphians.


Ex-offender background checks are intended to be a public safety tool. However, for offenders,

they are a constant punishment, even after a full sentence has been served. This increases

the risk of reoffending.

For employers concerned about re-offending, because a criminal record offers vanishingly

little relevant information once a critical period has passed, but for the violent and predatory offenders, why keep the additional risk factor

for those who were petty offenders?


A concept already in use:• Many auto insurance companies clear driving records after 3 years.• Credit records are expunged after 7 years of maintaining a clean

record. • A federal statue on background checks for hazmat truckers limits

the use of criminal history records in hiring since 7 years since the time of conviction.

• And! 17 states allow certain convictions, such misdemeanor offenses, to be expunged or sealed, often for first-time offenders.

At the local and state level, by eliminating the barriers to housing, jobs and education, sealing or expunging

the criminal record of some* ex-offenders reduces risk of criminal re-offending.

*Example: the non-violent and non-predatory, and other petty criminals


Provisions that secure housing, jobs education for released offenders decrease

the risk of reoffending by giving former offenders a stake in society.

Provisions that seal or expunge certain types* of former offenders’ record after

seven years decreases the risks of reoffending by making it easier to be a self-

sustaining citizen.*Example: the non-violent and non-predatory, and other petty criminals


At present, existing legislation makes it difficult for offenders to become up-right

citizens.But it need not be this way.

With careful deliberation of unintended consequences and thoughtful crime

policy, legislation can directly reduce the risk of criminal re-offending.

Public Safety

We know what works, we know what doesn’t work, and we know what reduces

crime risks.

There is no debate among the experts about what is effective in improving public

safety.

So, if we knows what will improve public safety, it is an obligation to make it

happen.

the city of philadelphia prison system john f. street, esq. mayor leon a. king, ii, esq....

Documents

commissioner slide

housing intervention

incarceration incarceration

crime prevention

crime laws

committing crime

risk of offending

high crime rates