Early 21st century penal reform: A comparative analysis of four states' responses to the problems of mass incarceration

This manuscript uses data drawn from case studies of New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Illinois, and Michigan from 2000 to 2006 in order to examine how different states responded to mounting problems caused by mass incarceration. Lawmakers and penal administrators inherited correctional systems that had at least doubled in size over the previous decade and faced budgetary problems, overcrowded conditions, and federal litigation. When economic pressures and the 2001 recession destabilized state budgets, state officials responded differently to these crises. While legislators remained committed to the carceral ethos that had driven prison expansion, some governors and penal administrators charged with managing state corrections systems began to consider new responses that moved away from prison expansion. As we show, executives and penal administrators in some states successfully implemented reforms by making changes to back-end correctional processes. Their successes highlight the importance of autonomy from external pressures that allowed some administrators to respond to mounting problems in ways that reduced their state's reliance on imprisonment. These administrators deployed their correctional expertise to pursue policies that minimized political backlash. States lacking the necessary institutional structures and sufficient external pressures largely sustained the penal status quo.