The author is grateful to Steven Raphael and Steven Levitt for providing data, to the Policy Research Institute at the University of Texas for its financial support, and to Philip Cook, Michael Murray, and four anonymous reviewers for their valuable suggestions on modeling and analysis. Any remaining errors are the fault of mischievous gremlins. Direct correspondence to William Spelman, LBJ School of Public Affairs, University of Texas at Austin, P.O. Box Y, Austin, TX 78713-8925 (e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org).
Crime, cash, and limited options: Explaining the prison boom†
Article first published online: 8 APR 2009
© 2009 by the American Society of Criminology
Criminology & Public Policy
Volume 8, Issue 1, pages 29–77, February 2009
How to Cite
Spelman, W. (2009), Crime, cash, and limited options: Explaining the prison boom. Criminology & Public Policy, 8: 29–77. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-9133.2009.00546.x
- Issue published online: 8 APR 2009
- Article first published online: 8 APR 2009
- prison population;
- correctional spending;
- sentencing policy
An analysis of a state panel of prison populations from 1977 to 2005 shows that the best predictors of prison populations are crime, sentencing policy, prison crowding, and state spending. Prison populations grew at roughly the same rate and during the same periods as spending on education, welfare, health and hospitals, highways, parks, and natural resources. Current and lagged values of state spending on prison construction also accounted for a substantial amount of variation in subsequent prison populations. Public opinion, partisan politics, the electoral cycle, and social threats seem to have had little effect on the number of prisoners.
The availability of publicly acceptable alternatives to incarceration may not be sufficient to reverse course. Federal funding of alternatives—but not prisons—would provide states with the financial incentive to reduce prison populations.