The High Budgetary Cost 

of Incarceration 

John Schmitt, Kris Warner, and Sarika Gupta 

June 2010 

Center for Economic and Policy Research 

1611 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 400 

Washington, D.C. 20009 

202-293-5380 

www.cepr.net

Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 294-1 filed 06/17/13 USDC Colorado pg 1 of 19
CEPR The High Budgetary Cost of Incarceration  i

Contents 

Executive Summary...........................................................................................................................................1

Introduction........................................................................................................................................................2

Incarceration Nation .........................................................................................................................................3

Crime and Punishment......................................................................................................................................7

The High Cost of Punishment.......................................................................................................................10

Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................................12

Appendix...........................................................................................................................................................13

International Incarceration Rates..............................................................................................................13

Historical Incarceration Rates ...................................................................................................................13

Working-Age Men in Prison or Jail ..........................................................................................................14

Custody vs. Jurisdiction Counts of Inmates............................................................................................14

References.........................................................................................................................................................16

Acknowledgements 

The authors thank Paige Harrison and Heather C. West of the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) for 

assistance with BJS data. CEPR gratefully acknowledges financial support from the Ford Foundation 

and the Public Welfare Foundation. 

About the Authors 

John Schmitt is a Senior Economist, Kris Warner is a Program Assistant, and Sarika Gupta is a 

Research Intern at the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, D.C. 

Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 294-1 filed 06/17/13 USDC Colorado pg 2 of 19
CEPR The High Budgetary Cost of Incarceration  1

Executive Summary 

The United States currently incarcerates a higher share of its population than any other country in 

the world. The U.S. incarceration rate – 753 per 100,000 people in 2008 – is now about 240 percent 

higher than it was in 1980. 

We calculate that a reduction by one-half in the incarceration rate of non-violent offenders would 

lower correctional expenditures by $16.9 billion per year and return the U.S. to about the same 

incarceration rate we had in 1993 (which was already high by historical standards). The large majority

of these savings would accrue to financially squeezed state and local governments, amounting to 

about one-fourth of their annual corrections budgets. As a group, state governments could save $7.6 

billion, while local governments could save $7.2 billion. 

A review of the extensive research on incarceration and crime suggests that these savings could be 

achieved without any appreciable deterioration in public safety. 

Other findings include: 

• In 2008, one of every 48 working-age men (2.1 percent of all working-age men) was in 

prison or jail. 

• In 2008, the U.S. correctional system held over 2.3 million inmates, about two-thirds in 

prison and about one-third in jail. 

• Non-violent offenders make up over 60 percent of the prison and jail population. Nonviolent drug offenders now account for about one-fourth of all offenders behind bars, up 

from less than 10 percent in 1980. 

• The total number of violent crimes was only about three percent higher in 2008 than it was 

in 1980, while the total number of property crimes was about 20 percent lower. Over the 

same period, the U.S. population increased about 33 percent and the prison and jail 

population increased by more than 350 percent. 

• Crime can explain only a small portion of the rise in incarceration between 1980 and the 

early 1990s, and none of the increase in incarceration since then. If incarceration rates had 

tracked violent crime rates, for example, the incarceration rate would have peaked at 317 per 

100,000 in 1992, and fallen to 227 per 100,000 by 2008 – less than one third of the actual 

2008 level and about the same level as in 1980. 

Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 294-1 filed 06/17/13 USDC Colorado pg 3 of 19
CEPR The High Budgetary Cost of Incarceration  2

Introduction 

The United States currently incarcerates a higher percentage of its population than any other country 

in the world. In 2008, over 2.3 million Americans were in prison or jail, and one of every 48 

working-age men was behind bars. These rates are not just far above those of the rest of the world, 

they are also substantially higher than our own long-standing historical experience. The financial 

costs of our corrections policies are staggering. In 2008, federal, state, and local governments spent

about $75 billion on corrections,1 the large majority of which was spent on incarceration. Reducing 

the number of non-violent offenders in our prisons and jails by half would lower this bill by $16.9 

billion per year, with the largest share of these savings accruing to financially squeezed state and 

local governments. Every indication is that these savings could be achieved without any appreciable 

deterioration in public safety. 

This report first documents the high and rising rates of incarceration in the United States, comparing

the U.S. prison and jail population to the rest of the world and to our own historical experience. The

report then reviews the main causes for the rise in incarceration and analyzes the relationship 

between incarceration and national crime rates. The final section of the report quantifies some of the

direct financial costs of incarceration and discusses the scope for budgetary savings, particularly for 

state and local governments. 

 

1 Authors’ projection of 2006 Bureau of Justice Statistics cost data (the most recent available), based on the increase in 

the correctional population from 2006 to 2008 and adjusted to 2008 dollars. 

Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 294-1 filed 06/17/13 USDC Colorado pg 4 of 19
CEPR The High Budgetary Cost of Incarceration  3

Incarceration Nation 

The United States has, by far, the highest incarceration rate among the rich countries that are 

members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Figure 1

shows the number of inmates per 100,000 people in the 30 OECD countries. Using the most recent 

data available, in the United States 753 of every 100,000 people are in prison or jail.2 This rate is 

more than three times higher than the country with the next-highest incarceration rate, Poland, with 

a rate of 224. The U.S. rate is over seven times higher than the median rate for the OECD (102) and 

about 17 times higher than the rate in Iceland (44), the OECD country with the lowest incarceration 

rate. (Table 1 presents the incarceration rates for the same countries for the years 1992, 1995, 1998, 

2001, 2004, and the most recent year available.) 

FIGURE 1 

Incarceration Rate per 100,000 in OECD Countries (Most Recent Year, 2008-2009) 

753

224

209

206

197

162

161

155

153

152

151

134

116

109

104

100

99

97

96

94

92

90

85

76

74

70

67

66

63

44

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

United States

Poland

Mexico

C zech Republic

New Zealand

Spain

Turkey

Luxembourg

England and Wales

Hungary

Slovakia

Australia

Canada

Greece

Portugal

Netherlands

Austria

South Korea

France

Belgium

Italy

Germany

Ireland

Switzerland

Sweden

Norway

Finland

Denmark

Japan

Iceland

Rate per 100,000

Source: Authors’ analysis of ICPS data; see appendix for details. 

 

2 Prisons generally house inmates serving sentences of at least one year, and are usually operated by the federal or state 

governments. Jails generally house inmates serving sentences of less than one year, and are usually operated by local 

governments. Alaska, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Rhode Island, and Vermont operate integrated systems that 

combine prisons and jails. 

Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 294-1 filed 06/17/13 USDC Colorado pg 5 of 19
CEPR The High Budgetary Cost of Incarceration  4

TABLE 1 

Incarceration Rates in OECD Countries, 1992-2008/2009 

1992 1995 1998 2001 2004 2008/2009 

Australia 89 96 107 116 120 134 

Austria 87 78 87 86 110 99 

Belgium 71 75 82 85 88 94 

Canada 123 131 126 117 108 116 

Czech Republic 123 181 209 210 169 206 

Denmark 66 66 64 59 70 66 

England and Wales 88 99 126 127 141 153 

Finland 65 59 50 59 66 67 

France 84 89 86 75 92 96 

Germany 71 81 96 98 98 90 

Greece 61 56 68 79 82 109 

Hungary 153 121 140 170 164 152 

Iceland 39 44 38 39 39 44 

Ireland 61 57 71 78 76 85 

Italy 81 87 85 95 96 92 

Japan 36 38 42 51 60 63 

Luxembourg 89 114 92 80 121 155 

Mexico 98 102 133 164 183 209 

Netherlands 49 66 85 95 123 100 

New Zealand 119 128 143 152 160 197 

Norway 58 55 57 59 65 70 

Poland 160 158 141 208 211 224 

Portugal 93 123 144 128 125 104 

Slovakia 124 147 123 138 175 151 

South Korea 126 133 147 132 119 97 

Spain 90 102 114 117 138 162 

Sweden 63 65 60 68 81 74 

Switzerland 79 80 85 71 81 76 

Turkey 54 82 102 89 100 161 

United States 505 600 669 685 723 753 

Source: Authors’ analysis of ICPS data; see appendix for details. 

The U.S. lead in incarceration is not limited just to rich countries. The United States also incarcerates 

a higher share of its population than any other country in the world. Figure 2 lists the ten countries 

with the highest incarceration rates in the world.3

 All of the other countries in the top-ten have a 

substantially lower GDP per capita than the United States and four were part of the former Soviet 

Union. Even so, the U.S. incarceration rate is almost 20 percent higher than second-place Russia 

(629) and over 25 percent higher than third-place Rwanda (593), whose statistics include inmates 

suspected of genocide. 

 

3 We exclude countries with a population below 100,000, but the United States has a higher incarceration than these 

countries, too. 

Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 294-1 filed 06/17/13 USDC Colorado pg 6 of 19
CEPR The High Budgetary Cost of Incarceration  5

FIGURE 2 

Top 10 Countries with Highest Incarceration Rates (Most Recent Year, 2006-2008) 

753

629

593

531

476

423

407

385

382

365

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

United States

Russia

Rwanda

C uba

Belize

Georgia

Bahamas

Belarus

Kazakhstan

French Guiana

Rate per 100,000

Source: Authors’ analysis of ICPS data, see appendix for details; excludes countries with populations less than 

100,000. Data for Rwanda includes genocide suspects. 

U.S. incarceration rates are also high by our own historical standards. As Figure 3 demonstrates, 

from 1880 to 1970 incarceration rates ranged between about 100 and 200 per 100,000.4 From 

around 1980, however, the prison and jail population began to grow much more rapidly than the 

overall population, climbing from about 220 (per 100,000) in 1980, to 458 in 1990, to 683 in 2000, 

and finally to 753 by 2008. (Figure 4 shows the total number of inmates in prisons and jails in the 

United States from 1980 through 2008. In 2008, there were just over 2.3 million inmates, about twothirds in prison and about one-third in jail.) 

 

4 The lowest rate was 107.4 in 1923; the highest rate was 207.4 in 1940. 

Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 294-1 filed 06/17/13 USDC Colorado pg 7 of 19
CEPR The High Budgetary Cost of Incarceration  6

FIGURE 3 

U.S. Incarceration Rate, 1880-2008 

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

Rate per 100,000

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Census Bureau, and Cahalan (1986). See Appendix for further details. 

FIGURE 4 

U.S. Prison and Jail Population, 1980-2008 

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Persons

Prison

Jail

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics 

Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 294-1 filed 06/17/13 USDC Colorado pg 8 of 19
CEPR The High Budgetary Cost of Incarceration  7

The standard measure of incarceration – inmates per 100,000 people in the total resident population 

– masks the strong concentration of men (particularly young men of color5) in prison and jail. Based 

on our analysis of Bureau of Justice Statistics data, for example, we estimate that, in 2008, 2.1 

percent of working-age men, or about one in every 48 working-age men in the United States, were in 

prison or jail (see Table 2). In 1960, this figure was 1 in 153 and it changed little by 1980 when it 

was at 1 in 156. 

TABLE 2 

Incarceration Rates for Males Age 18 to 64, 1960-2008 

 1960 1980 2008

Total Prisoners 226,344 319,598 1,518,559

 Prisoners, Male 217,806 302,174 1,410,260

 Prisoners, Male 18-64 210,129 273,673 1,338,036

 

Total Jail Inmates 119,671 183,988 785,556

 Jail Inmates, Male 111,866 166,305 685,790

 Jail Inmates Age, Male 18-64 105,128 159,672 671,475

 

Total Prison and Jail, Male 18-64 315,258 433,345 2,009,512

Total US Population, Male 18-64 48,212,468 67,729,280 97,228,219

 

Prison and jail as percent of 

total US population, Males 18-64 0.65 0.64 2.07

 

One in every ... men age 18-64 

is in prison or jail. 153 156 48

Notes: Authors’ estimates based on BJS and Census data. See Appendix for details. 

Crime and Punishment 

Why are U.S. incarceration rates so high by international standards and why have they increased so 

much over the last three decades? The simplest possible explanation would be that the jump in 

incarceration merely reflects a commensurate rise in crime. The data, however, are clear that 

increases in crime since 1980 can explain only a small share of the massive rise in incarceration. 

Figure 5 shows the change between 1960 and 2008 in the incarcerated population, the number of 

violent crimes, the number of property crimes, and the overall population. The figure sets the level 

of all four statistics at 100 percent in 1980 and graphs the proportional change in each measure 

before and after that year. The total amount of violent crime did increase after 1980, peaking in 1992

at about 44 percent above its 1980 level. Property crime also rose, but much less, peaking in 1991 at 

about 7 percent above its 1980 level. Over this same period that violent and property crimes were 

on the rise, the incarcerated population also grew, but much more rapidly – rising more than 150 

percent between 1980 and 1992. 

 

5 For an excellent recent analysis, see Public Safety Performance Project (2008a) and Austin (2007). 

Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 294-1 filed 06/17/13 USDC Colorado pg 9 of 19
CEPR The High Budgetary Cost of Incarceration  8

FIGURE 5 

Change in Violent and Property Crime, and Inmate and Total Population, 1960-2008 

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

1980=100

Population

Incarceration

Violent C rime

Property C rime

Source: Authors’ analysis of FBI and BJS data. 

After 1992, both violent crime and property crime declined – returning by 2008 to close to 1980 

levels in the case of violent crime and actually falling well below 1980 levels in the case of property 

crimes. Even as the total number of violent and property crimes fell, however, the incarcerated 

population continued to expand rapidly. 

These data suggest that rising crime can explain only a small portion of the rise in incarceration 

between 1980 and the early 1990s, and none of the increase in incarceration since then. If 

incarceration rates, for example, had tracked violent crime rates, the incarceration rate would have 

peaked at 317 per 100,000 in 1992, and fallen to 227 per 100,000 by 2008 – less than one third of the 

actual 2008 level and about the same level as in 1980. 

Stricter sentencing policies, particularly for drug-related offenses, rather than rising crime, are the 

main culprit behind skyrocketing incarceration rates. The last three decades have seen the 

implementation of new “tough on crime” policies such as three-strikes laws, truth in sentencing 

laws, and mandatory minimums.6 These laws have led to a significant increase in the number people 

who are incarcerated for non-violent offenses. Arrests and convictions for drug offenses have 

increased dramatically over the last three decades,7 with non-violent drug offenders now accounting 

for about one-fourth of all offenders behind bars (see Table 3), up from less than 10 percent in 

1980.8 Additionally, during this period, the criminal justice system has moved away from the use of 

 

6 See, for example, Public Safety Performance Project (2007, 2008a), Abramsky (2007), Western (2006), Stemen, 

Rengifo, and Wilson (2006), and Benson (2009). 

7 See Benson (2009). 

8 Figure for 1980 calculated based on Mauer and King (2007), who indicate that there were an estimated 41,100 drug 

offenders in the nation’s jails and prisons in 1980. 

Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 294-1 filed 06/17/13 USDC Colorado pg 10 of 19
CEPR The High Budgetary Cost of Incarceration  9

probation and parole. As a result, convicted criminals today are much more likely than in the past to 

be sentenced to prison or jail, instead of probation, and to serve longer terms, with less chance of 

being released on parole. 

TABLE 3 

Inmates by Most Serious Offense, 2000s

Estimated total, 2008 

All inmates 

Offense / year 

Jail

2002

(Percent)

State

prison

2006

(Percent)

Federal

prison

2008

(Percent) Jail

State

prison

Federal

prison Percent Number

Violent Offenses 25.4 50.2 8.5 199,531 662,713 16,849 38.2 879,093

 

Non-violent offenses 74.5 49.8 91.5 585,239 657,432 181,567 61.8 1,424,238

 Property Offenses 24.4 20.9 6.1 191,676 275,910 12,057 20.8 479,643

 Drug Offenses 24.7 20.0 52.1 194,032 264,029 103,465 24.4 561,526

 Public-Order Offenses 24.9 8.4 32.5 195,603 110,892 64,528 16.1 371,023

 Other 0.5 0.5 0.8 3,928 6,601 1,517 0.5 12,045

 

Total 785,556 1,320,145 198,414 2,304,115

Notes: The estimated totals for 2008 apply the 2002 jail, the 2006 state prison, and the 2008 federal prison offense 

rates by type to the corresponding jail, state and federal inmate populations for 2008. Individual items may not sum 

to total due to rounding. Authors’ analysis of Bureau of Justice Statistics, “Profile of Jail Inmates, 2002,” July 2004, 

Table 3; and Bureau of Justice Statistics, “Prisoners in 2008,” December 2009, Appendix Tables 15 and 17. 

While the increase in incarceration is better explained by a shift to harsher sentencing policy than by 

an explosion in crime, can the case be made that higher levels of incarceration have helped to reduce 

crime? In a recent review of the extensive research on the relationship between incarceration and 

crime, Don Stemen, of the Vera Institute of Justice, concludes: “The most sophisticated analyses 

generally agree that increased incarceration rates have some effect on reducing crime, but the scope 

of that impact is limited: a 10 percent increase in incarceration is associated with a 2 to 4 percent 

drop in crime. Moreover, analysts are nearly unanimous in their conclusion that continued growth in 

incarceration will prevent considerably fewer, if any, crimes than past increases did and will cost 

taxpayers substantially more to achieve.”9

Thus, the available evidence suggests that the higher rates of incarceration have made some 

contribution to lowering the crime rate, either by acting as a deterrent or by warehousing offenders 

during the ages in their lives when they are most likely to commit crimes. But, the impact of 

incarceration on crime rates is surprisingly small, and must be weighed against both its high 

monetary costs to government budgets and its high social costs to prisoners, their families, and their

communities.10

In the next and final section of this report, we examine the potential financial benefits to the federal, 

state, and local governments of rethinking sentencing policies for non-violent offenders. 

 

9 Stemen (2007). See also Austin et al. (2007), Irwin, Schiraldi, and Ziedenberg (1999), and Public Safety Performance 

Project (2007). 

10 For discussion of social costs, see Austin et al. (2007). 

Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 294-1 filed 06/17/13 USDC Colorado pg 11 of 19
CEPR The High Budgetary Cost of Incarceration  10

The High Cost of Punishment 

In 2008, federal, state, and local governments spent nearly $75 billion on corrections, with the large

majority on incarceration. Figure 6 breaks down total corrections costs across the three levels of 

government and illustrates that by far the largest share of the costs of corrections are borne by state 

and local governments. State governments house about 60 percent of inmates and account for about 

the same share of total correction expenditures. Local governments hold about one third of all 

inmates and make not quite one third of total corrections spending. The federal government, which 

holds less than 10 percent of the inmate population, spends just under 10 percent of total national 

corrections expenditures. 

FIGURE 6 

Total Inflation-adjusted Corrections Expenditures by Type of Government, 1982-2008 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1982 1987 1992 1997 2002 2007

billions of 2008 dollars

Local

State

Federal

Source: Authors’ analysis of BJS data; 2007-2008 values are estimates based on growth in respective inmate 

populations. 

Figure 6 also demonstrates that the total cost (in inflation-adjusted dollars) of government 

corrections budgets has increased almost in lock-step with the incarceration rate. Given the earlier 

analysis that higher incarceration rates are overwhelmingly not a function of higher crime rates and 

that higher incarceration rates have only a small effect on crime rates, the data in Figure 6 suggest 

that there may be substantial scope for reducing government expenditures on corrections. 

One concrete proposal for cutting expenditures on incarceration would be to reduce the number of 

non-violent offenders in prison and jail by half (with no change in the incarceration rates for violent 

offenders). Table 4 presents the projected budgetary impact of such a proposal, using the estimated 

distribution of prisoners and estimated costs for incarceration in 2008. The calculations in the table

assume no change in the violent-offender population in prisons and jails, and that the reduction in 

Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 294-1 filed 06/17/13 USDC Colorado pg 12 of 19
CEPR The High Budgetary Cost of Incarceration  11

non-violent-offender inmates would be largely accomplished by moving non-violent offenders to 

probation (for new offenders and jail inmates) or parole (current prisoners). 

On the one hand, these calculations imply a large shift in corrections strategy, including moving 

about 700,000 current or potential inmates to probation or parole. On the other hand, despite the 

scale of the reduction in inmates, the overall incarceration rate would only fall from 753 per 100,000

to 521 per 100,000 and would still leave the United States with the highest incarceration rate in the 

OECD (more than twice the rate of second place Poland) and the fourth highest rate in the world 

(behind Russia at 629, Rwanda at 593, and Cuba at 531). The new implied rate of 521 per 100,000 

would only return the US incarceration rate to roughly where it was in 1993 (528 per 100,000). 

TABLE 4 

Estimated Total Budgetary Savings from Reduction by Half in Non-violent Offender Incarceration 

 Change in corrections spending 

As percent

 Total Change Savings per Billions of of corrections

 inmates in inmates offender dollars budget

Federal 

 Violent 16,849 0 0 0 0.0

 Non-violent 181,567 -90,783 22,700 -2.1 -30.6

State 

 Violent 662,713 0 0 0 0.0

 Non-violent 657,432 -328,716 23,200 -7.6 -17.6

Local 

 Violent 199,531 0 0 0 0.0

 Non-violent 585,239 -292,620 24,700 -7.2 -30.2

Total 2,304,115 -712,119 -16.9 -22.8

Notes: Savings calculated assuming that new and existing non-violent offenders move from prison to 

parole or from jail to probation; that annual operating costs are $25,500 per federal prisoner, $26,000 per 

state prisoner and per jail inmate, $2,800 per parolee, and $1,300 per probationer, based on Public Safety 

Performance Project (2007, 2009) and authors’ estimates. Federal, state, and local corrections budgets

from Figure 6. Inmates by most serious offense type from Table 3. 

The calculations in Table 4 assume that for each non-violent offender shifted from prison or jail (at 

an average cost of about $25,500 to $26,000 per year) to probation or parole (at average cost of 

$1,300 to $2,800 per year), government corrections systems would save $23,000 to $25,000 per 

inmate per year. Given the mix of prisoners by offense type (see Table 3), a 50 percent reduction in 

non-violent-offender inmates would save the federal government about $2.1 billion per year, state 

governments about $7.6 billion per year, and local governments about $7.2 billion per year, even 

after factoring in additional probation and parole costs. Across all three levels of government, these

savings total $16.9 billion or about 22.8 percent of the total national spending on corrections in 

2008. 

Previous research by corrections officials, criminologists, and others has suggested several ways to 

achieve this reduction in the prison and jail population. The first is sentencing reform. Mandatory 

minimum sentences, three strikes laws, and truth in sentencing laws have contributed substantially to 

Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 294-1 filed 06/17/13 USDC Colorado pg 13 of 19
CEPR The High Budgetary Cost of Incarceration  12

the growing numbers of nonviolent offenders in prisons and jails.11 Repealing these laws and 

reinstating greater judicial discretion would allow non-violent offenders to be sentenced to shorter 

terms or to serve in community corrections programs (such as parole or probation) in lieu of prison 

or jail.12 Furthermore, “earned time” systems could be designed to give offenders incentives to 

complete education or rehabilitation programs in exchange for shorter time behind bars. 13

Shifting non-violent offenders from prison and jail to parole and probation will be most beneficial if

these community correction systems themselves are reformed. Current probation and parole policies 

often lack intermediate sanctions for minor violations. In many cases, the only response available for

technical and minor probation or parole violations is prison or jail. A system of graduated, 

intermediate sanctions would give probation and parole officers and the courts authority to impose 

punishments short of incarceration for minor violations. 14 

Fortunately, policy makers are realizing that there are cost-effective alternatives to the status quo.

The Sentencing Project, for example, notes that: “During 2009 state legislatures in at least 19 states

enacted policies that hold the potential to reduce prison populations and/or promote more effective 

approaches to public safety.”15 At the federal level, Congress is considering legislation that would 

create a national commission to undertake a comprehensive examination of the criminal justice 

system in the United States. After an eighteen-month review period, this commission would offer 

recommendations “for changes in, or continuation of, oversight, policies, practices, and laws 

designed to prevent, deter, and reduce crime and violence, improve cost-effectiveness, and ensure 

the interests of justice.”16 

Conclusion 

The United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world and also the highest rate in its 

history, with about 753 people per 100,000 in prison or jail in 2008. The number of incarcerated 

people in the United States has increased by more than 350 percent since 1980, while the overall 

population has grown by only 33 percent. 

A reduction by one-half in the incarceration rate for non-violent offenders (who now make up over 

60 percent of the prison and jail population) would lower the overall incarceration rate to the level 

reached in 1993 (which was already high by historical standards). This would also lower correctional 

expenditures by $16.9 billion per year, with the large majority of these savings accruing to state and

local governments. These projected savings would amount to almost one-fourth of total corrections 

budgets. The extensive research on incarceration and crime suggests that these budgetary savings 

could be achieved without any appreciable deterioration in public safety. 

 

11 See Austin et al. (2007), Irwin, Schiraldi, and Ziedenberg (1999), and Porter (2010). 

12 See Austin et al. (2007), Porter (2010), and Public Safety Performance Project (2008a, 2009). 

13 Public Safety Performance Project (2008a, 2008b). 

14 See Austin et al. (2007), Porter (2010) and Public Safety Performance Project (2008a,2008b 2009). 

15 Porter (2010). See also Public Safety Performance Project (2008a, 2008b, 2009, 2010), Western (2008), Kleiman 

(2009), and Greene and Mauer (2010). 

16 Website of Senator Jim Webb (D-VA), http://webb.senate.gov/newsroom/pressreleases/2010-04-27-03.cfm. 

Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 294-1 filed 06/17/13 USDC Colorado pg 14 of 19
CEPR The High Budgetary Cost of Incarceration  13

Appendix 

International Incarceration Rates 

Figure 1 

All data for incarceration rates comes from the International Centre for Prison Studies (ICPS) at 

King’s College London. Most rates were taken from each respective country’s World Prison Brief 

information at ICPS. The most recent rates for the following countries, however, were taken from 

an ICPS report entitled World Prison Population, 8th Edition: Luxembourg, Canada, Greece, 

Netherlands, South Korea, France, Italy, and Iceland. Also, all rates are for either 2008 or 2009 with

the exception of Luxembourg whose most recent reported rate is for 2007. 

 

Table 1 

ICPS, World Prison Brief for each country, except for data in the 2008/2009 column, which is the 

same as the data graphed in Figure 1. 

Figure 2 

All data on incarceration rates were taken from each country’s World Prison Brief information at 

ICPS, with the exception of Russia, whose rate was taken from the ICPS report entitled World 

Prison Population, 8th Edition. Cuba’s rate is for 2006, French Guinea, 2007, and all other countries’ 

rates, for either 2008 or 2009. 

Historical Incarceration Rates 

Cahalan (1986) provides a wealth of information on corrections, particularly incarceration, in the 

United States from 1850 to the early 1980s. Though data is provided from U.S. Census Bureau 

reports on incarcerated individuals in 1850, 1860, and 1870, those reports are not directly 

comparable to later reports, so we use 1880 as our starting point for the earliest statistics on 

incarceration rates. See Appendix Table 1. 

APPENDIX TABLE 1 

Incarcerated Population and Rates, 1880-2008 

Prison and Jail Inmates Rate per 100,000

1880 58,609 116.9

1890 82,239 131.5

1904 97,308 118.4

1910 128,314 138.9

1923 120,284 107.4

1933 210,418 167.5

1940 274,821 207.4

1950 264,557 174.8

1960 346,015 193.0

1970 328,020 161.4

1980 503,586 220.4

1990 1,148,702 458.2

2000 1,937,482 682.9

2008 2,304,115 753.5

Source: 1880-1970, Cahalan (1986); 1980-2008, CEPR analysis of BJS data.

Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 294-1 filed 06/17/13 USDC Colorado pg 15 of 19
CEPR The High Budgetary Cost of Incarceration  14

Working-Age Men in Prison or Jail 

2008 

We applied the percentage of 18-64 male prisoners under the jurisdiction of federal and state prisons 

to the custody figures for prisoners, both from the BJS’ “Prisoners in 2008.” (See below for more 

information on custody and jurisdictional data). The comparable report for jails, “Jail Inmates at 

Midyear 2008 - Statistical Tables,” did not provide a similar figure; however, the report did give an 

estimate of males age 18 and over. We used the percentage of male prisoners age 65 and over (1.06) 

to derive male jail inmates age 65 and over. Data for males age 18-64 in the U.S. came from the July 

1, 2008 Census Bureau estimate17 increased by the percentage change in the overall population from 

July 1, 2008 to Jan 1, 200918 to estimate males age 18-64 as of Dec. 31, 2008 (the information 

provided in “Prisoners in 2008” is for Dec. 31, 2008). 

1980 

Prisoner and jail inmates age 18-64 are estimated from the custody totals as provided by the Bureau 

of Justice Statistics, using the average of the percentages for this group from 1960 and 2008. Data 

for males age 18-64 in the U.S. came from the April 1, 1980 Census19 increased by the percentage 

change in the overall population from April 1, 1980 to Jan. 1, 198120 to estimate males age 18-64 as 

of Dec. 31, 1980. 

1960 

Prisoner and jail inmates age 18-64 are estimated from the (custody) totals provided in “United 

States Census of the Population, 1960: Inmates of Institutions,” Tables 25 and 34.21 U.S. males age 

18-64 are from the April 1, 1960 Census22 increased by half the percentage change from July 1, 1960 

to July 1, 1961.23

Custody vs. Jurisdiction Counts of Inmates 

Custody data refer to the “physical location in which an inmate is held regardless of which entity has

legal authority over an inmates” while jurisdiction data refer to “the entity having legal authority over 

a prisoner, regardless of where that prisoner is held.”24 Throughout this report, we have used 

custody rather than jurisdiction counts of prison inmates. One reason for this is that there is no 

jurisdiction count for inmates in jails – there is only a custody count (conducted every five to seven

years in the Census of Jails, estimated in all other years through the Annual Survey of Jails, at the 

end of June). This means that the national jail count includes some inmates who are actually under 

the legal jurisdiction of a state or the federal government but are being temporarily held at a local 

facility. Combining custody counts from jails with jurisdiction counts from prisons would result in 

double counting of some inmates. Additionally, while the BJS currently provides information on the 

number of prisoners held in local facilities, this practice only began in its 2000 report on prisoners

(for 1999 data) and so provides only a limited time period which estimates could be derived. 

 

17 http://www.census.gov/popest/national/asrh/NC-EST2008/NC-EST2008-01.xls 

18 http://www.census.gov/popest/national/NA-EST2009-01.html 

19 http://www.census.gov/popest/archives/1980s/stiag480.txt 

20 http://www.census.gov/popest/archives/1990s/nat-total.txt 

21 http://www2.census.gov/prod2/decennial/documents/41927948v2p8a-8c_ch02.pdf 

22 http://www2.census.gov/prod2/decennial/documents/09768103v1p1ch6.pdf 

23 http://www.census.gov/popest/archives/1990s/popclockest.txt 

24 Sabol, West, and Cooper (2009), p.13. 

Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 294-1 filed 06/17/13 USDC Colorado pg 16 of 19
CEPR The High Budgetary Cost of Incarceration  15

Jurisdiction counts for state and federal prisoners were not conducted until 1977,25 so historical 

comparisons are best done using custody counts. The semi-annual and annual reports on prisoners 

by the Bureau of Justice Statistics contain extensive information based on jurisdictional data. Thus, 

when looking at only prisoners (and not the total incarcerated population) in recent years, these data

can be very useful. For instance, the jurisdiction counts in these reports provide a breakdown of 

those prisoners who are held in custody of private (typically for-profit) facilities (see Appendix 

Table 2). In general, these prisoners are not included in custody counts.26

APPENDIX TABLE 2 

Custody and Jurisdiction Counts of Prisoners, 1999-2008 

 Custody Jurisdiction 

 Held in Private Facilities Held in Local Facilities

 Total Total Federal State Subtotal % of Total Subtotal % of Total

1999 1,287,172 1,363,701 135,246 1,228,455 71,208 5.2 63,635 4.7

2000 1,316,333 1,391,261 145,416 1,245,845 87,369 6.3 63,140 4.5

2001 1,330,007 1,404,032 156,993 1,247,039 91,828 6.5 70,681 5.0

2002 1,367,547 1,440,144 163,528 1,276,616 93,912 6.5 72,550 5.0

2003 1,390,279 1,468,601 173,059 1,295,542 95,707 6.5 73,440 5.0

2004 1,421,345 1,497,100 180,328 1,316,772 98,628 6.6 74,445 5.0

2005 1,448,344 1,527,929 187,618 1,340,311 107,940 7.1 73,164 4.8

2006 1,492,973 1,569,945 193,046 1,376,899 113,697 7.2 77,912 5.0

2007 1,517,867 1,598,245 199,618 1,398,627 123,942 7.8 80,621 5.0

2008 1,518,559 1,610,446 201,280 1,409,166 128,524 8.0 83,093 5.2

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics 

 

25 Cahalan (1986), p. 35. 

26 Sabol, West, and Cooper (2009), p. 9. 

Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 294-1 filed 06/17/13 USDC Colorado pg 17 of 19
CEPR The High Budgetary Cost of Incarceration  16

References 

Abramsky, Sasha. 2007. American Furies. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. 

http://www.americanfuries.com 

Austin, James et al. 2007. “Unlocking America.” Washington, DC: The JFA Institute. 

http://www.jfa-associates.com/publications/srs/UnlockingAmerica.pdf 

Benson, Bruce L. 2009. “Escalating the War on Drugs: Causes and Unintended Consequences.” 

Standford Law & Policy Review 20(2). Working paper available at: 

http://www.coss.fsu.edu/economics/sites/coss.fsu.edu.economics/files/users/bbenson/escalatingstanford.pdf 

Cahalan, Margaret Werner. 1986. “Historical Corrections Statistics in the United States, 1850-1984.” 

Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. 

http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/pr/102529.pdf 

Greene, Judith and Marc Mauer. 2010. “Downscaling Prisons: Lessons from Four States.” 

Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project. 

http://www.sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/publications/inc_DownscalingPrisons2010.pdf 

Irwin, John, Vincent Schiraldi, and Jason Ziedenberg. 1999. “America’s One Million Nonviolent 

Prisoners.” Washington, DC: Justice Policy Institute. 

http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upload/99-03_REP_OneMillionNonviolentPrisoners_AC.pdf 

Kleiman, Mark A. R. 2009. When Brute Force Fails: How to Have Less Crime and Less Punishment. 

Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 

James, Doris J. 2004. “Profile of Jail Inmates, 2002.” Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Available at http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/pji02.pdf 

Mauer, Marc and Ryan S. King. 2007. “A 25-Year Quagmire: The War on Drugs and Its Impact on 

American Society.” Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project. 

http://www.sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/dp_25yearquagmire.pdf 

Minton, Todd D. and William J. Sabol. 2009. “Jail Inmates at Midyear 2008 - Statistical Tables.” 

Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. 

National Public Radio. 2007. “Timeline: America’s War on Drugs.” 

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9252490 

Porter, Nicole D. 2010. “The State of Sentencing 2009: Developments in Policy and Practice.” 

Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project. 

http://www.sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/s_ssr2009Update.pdf 

Public Safety Performance Project. 2010. “Prison Count 2010: State Population Declines for the 

First Time in 38 Years.” Washington, DC: Pew Center on the States, Pew Charitable Trusts. 

Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 294-1 filed 06/17/13 USDC Colorado pg 18 of 19
CEPR The High Budgetary Cost of Incarceration  17

Public Safety Performance Project. 2009. “One in 31: The Long Reach of American Corrections.” 

Washington, DC: Pew Center on the States, Pew Charitable Trusts. 

 http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org/uploadedFiles/PSPP_1in31_report_FINAL_WEB_3-26-

09.pdf 

Public Safety Performance Project. 2008a. “One in 100: Behind Bars in American 2008.” 

Washington, DC: Pew Center on the States, Pew Charitable Trusts. 

http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org/uploadedFiles/8015PCTS_Prison08_FINAL_2-1-

1_FORWEB.pdf 

Public Safety Performance Project. 2008b. “Policy Framework to Strengthen Community 

Corrections.” Washington, DC: Pew Center on the States, Pew Charitable Trusts. 

Public Safety Performance Project. 2007. “Public Safety, Public Spending: Forecasing America’s 

Prison Population, 2007-2011.” Washington, DC: Pew Center on the States, Pew Charitable Trusts. 

http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org/uploadedFiles/Public%20Safety%20Public%20Spending.pdf 

Sabol, William J., Heather C. West, and Matthew Cooper. 2009. “Prisoners in 2008.” Washington, 

DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/p08.pdf. 

Scott-Hayward, Christine S. 2009. “The Fiscal Crisis in Corrections: Rethinking Policies and 

Practice.” New York: Vera Institute of Justice. 

http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org/uploadedFiles/Vera_state_budgets.pdf 

Stemen, Don. 2007. “Reconsidering Incarceration: New Directions for Reducing Crime.” New 

York: Vera Institute of Justice. 

http://www.vera.org/download?file=407/veraincarc_vFW2.pdf 

Stemen, Don, Andres Rengifo, and James Wilson. 2006. “Of Fragmentation and Ferment: The 

Impact of State Sentencing Policies on Incarceration Rates, 1975-2002.” New York: Vera Institute 

of Justice. http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/213003.pdf 

Western, Bruce. 2008. “Reentry: Reversing Mass Imprisonment.” Boston Review, July/August. 

Western, Bruce. 2006. Punishment and Inequality in America. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. 

Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 294-1 filed 06/17/13 USDC Colorado pg 19 of 19