This report will provide a historical and current narrative of the prison system in the Baltimore City/Greater Govans regions over the past 20-30 years. The purpose of this report is to craft a comprehensive account of the assets and deficits of both the prison system and the local community in reducing crime rates and recidivism among marginalized populations. Our report begins by laying out the city’s socioeconomic history for context, and then examining the connection between incarceration and crime rates, both historically and in modernity. Next, it will investigate the incarceration-based trauma, subsequent psychosocial damage, and community-based recovery for inmates upon release.

To target our research, we answer the following primary questions:

1. Is mass incarceration effective in reducing crime and recidivism rates? If not, why?

2. What factors contribute to disproportionately POC prisoner populations in the Baltimore City/Govans region?

We start by examining the relationship between incarceration and crime in Baltimore City:

1. Why does incarceration appear to have no effect on crime?

2. What community organizations in Govans, Baltimore can effectively reduce crime?

Next, we investigated the trauma of becoming a prisoner, how that process burdens an inmate’s psychosocial wellbeing and eventual reentry into society, and what local assets are available to help. We sought to answer the following:

1. How does the trauma of incarceration manifest and echo from inmates to families and communities? To what extent does that trauma contribute to recidivism?

2. How do community initiatives keep former inmates and residents of color struggling with mental illnesses out of the prison system?

This report focuses on the causes and impacts of mass incarceration within communities.

To conduct our research, we used secondary sources, such as scholarly books, articles, and official city reports, in addition to our primary sources, such as interviews with Govans residents. These sources are further explained in the Methods section. In the Results section, we detail the specifics of our findings. The Discussion section connects our findings to our research questions, and we discuss how these findings apply to Govans on a larger scale in our Conclusion Section.

Using primary and secondary research, we investigate the following primary research questions using an asset-based approach:

1. Is mass incarceration effective in reducing crime and recidivism rates? If not, why?

2. What factors contribute to disproportionately POC prisoner populations in the Baltimore City/Govans region?

To effectively answer this question, we will review the relationship between the city’s criminal justice system and crime rates:

1. How does mass incarceration affect crime rates?

2. What community organizations can effectively reduce crime?

After this historical review, we explain the psychological impact of incarceration on low-income communities as well as the local initiatives aimed at minimizing crime and recidivism.

Secondary Research

Incarceration Data: A clear documentation of the incarceration rate was critical to our report. Although our initial questions centered around incarceration in Govans, Baltimore, we were unable to find data that specified incarceration in Govans. As a result, we widened the scope of our research to include Baltimore City in its entirety. A dataset from the Vera Institute of Justice provided data on prison and jail populations in Baltimore City from 1983 to 2015. We combined the total prison population with the total jail population to find the number of incarcerated individuals for each year.

Crime Data: To understand the way incarceration affected crime, we needed to examine how crime rates changed over time. Although data on crime in Govans neighborhood was available, we opted to use data on Baltimore City to better compare it to the incarceration trends. Our dataset, entitled “Violent Crime and Property Crime by County: 1975 to Present,” comes from the Open Data Portal on the Maryland Government Website.

Scholarly Books: Todd Clear’s Imprisoning Communities: How Mass Incarceration Makes Disadvantaged Neighborhoods Worse was useful in understanding the theory behind incarceration.

Peer-Reviewed Articles: Peer reviewed articles helped us to explain the results of our data on crime and incarceration. Jennifer Copp’s “The Impact of Incarceration on the Risk of Violent Recidivism” was important in understanding the effect of incarceration on crime rates. We also found studies on crime and incarceration in specific regions of the United States to be helpful in understanding the trends we observed.

Local Reports and Statistics: To highlight the restorative component to our inmate experience investigation, we referred to the 2018 Maryland Reentry Resource Guide, which lists over 200 reentry-based institutions for former inmates to seek legal, socioeconomic, educational and health-based aid in Baltimore City.

Peer-Reviewed Articles: Recognized for his work surrounding prison conditions, solitary confinement and prisonization, we referred to social psychologist Dr. Haney’s “The Psychological Impact of Incarceration: Implications for Post-Prison Adjustment.”

Primary Research

Interview with GEDCO/CARES volunteer: On November 16, 2020, we spoke with a volunteer at GEDCO/CARES Career Center. As a formerly incarcerated individual and a resident of Govans, he is well-informed on the issues facing Govans neighborhood, caused by drug abuse and high incarceration rates. His work at GEDCO/CARES and experience within church communities and Bible study groups has given him insight on effective ways to reduce crime and drug abuse without relying heavily on mass incarceration. His perspective on the problems facing Govans and community organizations that could effectively respond were an invaluable part of this report.

Interview with A Step Forward: On December 3, 2020, we conducted a phone interview with Lela Campbell, the founder and director of A Step Forward, one of Baltimore City’s 200 community reentry resources. The organization offers transitional housing as well as clinical treatment for mental and substance abuse disorders. Situated in Sandtown-Winchester and Harlem Park neighborhoods, A Step Forward works with former inmates to combat homelessness, drug abuse, and, subsequently, recidivism rates.

We investigated the link between crime and incarceration rates in Govans, then the trauma of incarceration in disadvantaged communities. We found intrinsic problems with mass incarceration, both in its ineffectiveness with reducing crime and the prolonged socioeconomic and psychological burden on incarcerated and general populations. In response, community organizations like GEDCO/CARES Career Connection, Marian House, and A Step Forward provide basic housing, healthcare and employment aid, which can reduce crime and recidivism rates more effectively than mass incarceration.

Correlation Between Incarceration and Crime: We examined the correlation between incarceration and crime trends using data provided from the Vera Institute of Justice and the Maryland Open Data Portal.

Why Is Incarceration Ineffective?: Two theories—incapacitation and deterrence—have been used to justify mass incarceration. However, research by the criminologist Todd Clear and the criminal justice professor Jennifer E. Copp suggests that both these theories have serious flaws and neither accurately depicts the complex relationship between individuals, society, and the prison system.

“Revolving Door” of Incarceration: In Govans, incarceration fails to deter crime because it ignores the root causes. Theories like incapacitation and deterrence do not recognize offenders as complex individuals that act according to societal influences. Incarceration punishes the offender, but it does not fix the societal influences that led the individual to break the law.

“One Down, We All Down”

The GEDCO/CARES volunteer we interviewed emphasized the role of the community in reducing criminal activity in Govans. A successful community, he argued, must operate like a family, where family members pick each other up and work for each others’ success. He described the importance of creating spaces in Govans that replicate this dynamic, like forming a grassroots group of people from Govans that want to find solutions to drug and crime problems in their neighborhood. As the group grows, more and more individuals would be able to contribute to the common good.

Trauma in the Institutionalization Process: Armour’s “Mental Health in Prison: A Trauma Perspective on Importation and Deprivation” investigates the link between mental illness and the prison experience with a fundamental question: do prisoners carry mental illness with them when they are imprisoned, or do factors associated with being imprisoned cause mental illness to develop? She argues that the prevalence and accumulation of traumas--both before and during imprisonment--contribute to mental illness.

Reentry and Recidivism: “Understanding the Impact of Incarceration on Health” illustrates the impact of institutional barriers on community wellbeing using evidence-based frameworks called reinforcing loops, which represent an action that influences a result, which creates more of that action and exponential growth (Becker & Alexander, 5).

In the following section, we answer our initial questions. Mass incarceration proves ineffective at reducing crime and recidivism because it neglects and exacerbates the socioeconomic burden that low-income communities and formerly incarcerated individuals face. Local initiatives work to fill in these socioeconomic gaps and defend communities against the prison cycle.

Incarceration and Crime: Our first primary question asked is mass incarceration effective in reducing crime and recidivism rates? If not, why? Our research allowed us to determine that in Baltimore City, incarceration is not effective in reducing crime rates. Data collected from Baltimore city and the Vera Institute of Justice demonstrate no significant correlation between incarceration rates and crime rates, indicating that incarceration does not accomplish what it is intended to do. Furthermore, the weak correlation between crime and incarceration in Baltimore is consistent with researchers’ findings across the nation. This implies that higher incarceration rates are unable to reduce crime rates, and crime rates can fall without increasing incarceration rate.

Breaking the Cycle: In response to our secondary research question -- "how does the trauma of incarceration manifest and echo from inmates to families and communities? To what extent does that trauma contribute to recidivism?" -- we found that a cyclic relationship exists between incarceration, individual and community health, and socioeconomic limitations.

Our report sought to understand how incarceration affects the Govans neighborhood, examining its impact on crime, socioeconomic status, and mental health. Our research led us to draw three important conclusions about incarceration:

• Incarceration does not reduce crime rates in Govans, despite crime reduction being the primary intention of jails and prisons.

• Incarceration is a traumatic experience which damages the community ties, financial stability, and general wellness of incarcerated people and their families.

• Incarceration poses devastating and regressive effects on neighborhoods like Govans rather than contributing towards community safety.

The leading notion that incarceration reduces crime dismisses the socioeconomic factors perpetuating criminal activity. Homelessness, unemployment, untreated mental illness and substance abuse make individuals more vulnerable to incarceration, and the pains of imprisonment exacerbate these problems. Indeed, incarceration cannot effectively decrease crime because the poor living conditions contributing to imprisonment worsen upon release. As a result, low-income communities suffer from the counterproductive and cyclical nature of incarceration, called the “revolving door.”

Fortunately, the Govans neighborhood comprises many community organizations to address the root causes of crime and the trauma caused by incarceration. GEDCO/CARES, Marian House, and ASF, as well as a myriad of churches provide support for individuals struggling with unemployment, homelessness, or substance abuse. These initiatives pose a tremendous benefit for Govans residents because they ensure one’s basic needs are met. When these living standards are satisfied, there is significantly less reason to commit crime. These organizations, therefore, reflect an invaluable community tool for not only disrupting the “revolving door,” but also rebuilding the Govans community.

Armour, C. (2012). Mental Health in Prison: A Trauma Perspective on Importation and Deprivation. International Journal of Criminology and Sociological Theory, 5(2), 886–894.

Baltimore Neighborhood Indicators Alliance. (2019). Vital Signs: Crime and Safety.

Becker, S., & Alexander, L. (2016). Understanding the Impacts of Incarceration on Health. Rethink Health Institute.

Campbell, L. (2020). An Interview with A Step Forward.

Clear, T. (2009). Imprisoning Communities: How Mass Incarceration Makes Disadvantaged Neighborhoods Worse. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Copp, J. E. (2020). The Impact of Incarceration on the Risk of Violent Recidivism. Marquette Law Review 103(3), 775-792.

Fischer, P. J. (1988). Criminal Activity Among the Homeless: A Study of Arrests in Baltimore. Hospital and Community Psychiatry 39(1), 46-51.

Haney, C. (2002). From Prison to Home: The Effect of Incarceration and Reentry on Children, Families, and Communities. In the U.S Department of Health & Human Services.

Health Care for the Homeless, Inc. (October 2011.) Still serving time: struggling with homelessness, incarceration & re-entry in Baltimore. Baltimore, MD. Available at: www.hchmd.org

Justice Policy Institute & Prison Policy Initiative. (2015). The Right Investment? Corrections Spending in Baltimore City.

Maryland Statistical Analysis Center (2020). Violent Crime & Property Crime by County: 1975 to Present [data set]. Maryland.gov.

Meehan, K. (2019). Recidivism. Salem Press Encyclopedia. Salem Press.

National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty. (2014). No Safe Place: The Criminalization of Homelessness in U.S. Cities.

Nelson, R. K., Winling, L., Marciano, R., & Connelly, N. (2020, October 28). Mapping Inequality: Redlining in New Deal America. Retrieved 2020, from: https://reviews.americanarchivist.org/2020/10/28/mapping-inequality-redlining-in-new-deal-america/

Pieszko, G. (2016). The Influence of Socio-Economic Factors on Crime. IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences 21(9), 18-21.

Prison Policy Initiative. (2018). Out of Prison and Out of Work: Unemployment Among Formerly Incarcerated Individuals.

Reentry Resource Guide by County. The United States Department of Justice. (2018).

Stahlkopf, C., Males, M., & Macallair, D. (2010). Testing Incapacitation Theory: Youth Crime and Incarceration in California. Crime and Delinquency 56 (2), 253-268.

Vera Institute of Justice (2020). Incarceration Trends Dataset and Documentation [data set].