Million Dollar Blocks Illinois spending on incarceration is ineffective & costly to all. There are better ways to invest public dollars. With roughly $8 billion in unpaid bills, the State of Illinois is facing a fiscal crisis. Meanwhile, in 2015, Illinois committed $1.4 billion dollars to the Department of Corrections, and that number is on the rise despite declining crime levels. A war on neighborhoods We hand out harsh sentences for all types of offenses. We give these sentences, overwhelmingly, to Chicagoans who live in our segregated, low-income neighborhoods on the west and south sides. This amounts to a war on neighborhoods. Community Areas with the Highest Spending Millions Committed to Incarceration, 2005-2009

To see how incarceration spending is highly concentrated in a small number of community areas, zoom out on the map. Millions allocated to incarcerate residents on individual city blocks In Chicago, over a 5 year period from 2005-2009, there were: 851 blocks with over $1 million committed to prison sentences 121 blocks with over $1 million committed to prison sentences for non-violent drug offenses 851 blocks with over $1 million committed to prison sentences 121 blocks with over $1 million committed to prison sentences for non-violent drug offenses

Explore map of spending by block This is wasteful spending at its worst, especially given that research has shown that incarceration does not necessarily reduce crime in neighborhoods. The good news is that there are many innovative, common-sense, and creative approaches being used elsewhere in the United States to expand the menu of options for public safety.

Alternatives to Incarceration Reinvesting tax dollars to address root causes, not just symptoms Justice Reinvestment is an approach that identifies key drivers of state incarceration rates, and develops practical solutions to reduce or altogether eliminate those drivers. At its core, the approach is committed to shifting government dollars from the unproductive use of mass incarceration to more effective and uplifting investments. The Justice Reinvestment approach has been successfully launched in many states, including : Alabama, Arizona, Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Michigan, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas, Washington, West Virginia, and Vermont. For more background on the successes and challenges of each of these projects, see the Justice Center at the Council on State Government. Justice Reinvestment is realized differently in the various states that have adopted the approach. Meanwhile, there are many interventions that have shown promise in reducing crime, reducing government expenditures and improving cities, neighborhoods, and human lives. Effective approaches For example, the following interventions are more cost-effective than incarceration, and have all been shown to produce successful results: Workforce Development

Addiction Treatment

Mental Health Diversions Beyond low-hanging fruit While addiction treatment and mental health diversion programs are absolutely essential, they do not actively rebuild healthy economies in high-incarceration areas. As demonstrated by organizations like the Delancey Street Foundation, rebuilding local economies requires a more fundamental approach to criminal justice reform. True justice system reform must go beyond common-sense, low-hanging fruit options such as reductions in sentences for low-level drug offenders. Although this is an important component of reform, drug reforms alone will not go far enough to reverse the effects that incarceration has had on urban neighborhoods. A more successful reform agenda will include deeper reforms for all types of offenses, and stronger reinvestment into solutions that will actually improve communities.

Research and Evidence Incarceration has had a devastating impact on low-income African-American neighborhoods Starting with the identification of "million-dollar blocks" in the early 2000s, researchers have been identifying “hot spots” for mass incarceration. From this analysis, an emerging consensus has developed: incarceration has had a devastating impact on low-income African-American neighborhoods. Meanwhile, more affluent and white areas have gone largely unscathed. Nowhere is this national trend more clear than in Chicago Not only are the highest incarceration rates concentrated on the city’s west and south sides, but this spatial unevenness has held constant for more than two decades. 1 As a result, most urban residents with felony convictions come from and return to a small number of neighborhoods. The impact on residents is dramatic. In parts of Chicago’s West Side, nearly 70 percent of men between ages 18 and 54 are likely to have been subject to the criminal justice system. 2 We are unjustly punishing people for their circumstances, not just their actions Though mass incarceration definitely targets specific places, it is driven by much more than the behavior of people within any given locale. Research has made clear that local crime levels are not purely responsible for incarceration rates. 3 In other words, we are not simply punishing people for the crimes they commit. We are also punishing them for the places where they live, the schools that failed them and the employers that rejected them. And, without question, we are punishing them for the darkness of their skin. These factors work together to shape who gets portrayed as a criminal, and who escapes such portrayals. Incarceration has been shown to be an ineffective solution to reducing crime, and now more so than ever In Illinois, more than 50% of prisoners eventually return to prison within three years. 4 What’s more, recent research shows that prison cycling — the constant cycling of people in and out of prison in neighborhoods like Chicago’s west and south sides — may actually lead to more crime. 5 Another recent study indicates that incarceration, at best, likely had zero effect on crime between the years of 2000-2013. At worst it may have increased crime. 6 Thus, reducing incarceration and reinvesting in improving communities holds the best promise for improving neighborhoods.