What exactly do we mean when we talk about “Alternatives to Incarceration (ATI)?”

There is no agreed upon definition. I decided to do an internet search on the topic last week. What I found were people focusing on residential placements and other community-based treatment of people who are already caught up in the criminal legal system.

For these types of initiatives, this definition of ATI seems to be most applicable:

Instead of sentencing someone to jail or prison, ATIs allow a judge to sentence someone to a program where they receive treatment, education and employment training in the community, all while remaining under strict supervision. And, if people do not succeed in these programs, the court still has the option of sentencing them to incarceration.

In the past few years, some people have begun to advocate for more of these types of options and are making the case that it is more humane, cost-effective and likely to reduce recidivism by keeping people out of jails and prisons.

However my internet search also revealed a growing focus on a set of other tools meant to increase the surveillance of marginalized groups that are sometimes also characterized as ATIs:
• Boot Camps for Juveniles who get in trouble with the law;
• GPS and electronic monitoring that serve to criminalize people and behaviors that do not need to fall under the purview of state surveillance;
• Community-based Restorative Justice programs that police use as a way to hassle and dump more youth into the system for petty offenses.

Those are also being viewed and constructed by some as ATIs. This is very problematic in my view and underscores the critical importance of getting clear on what we mean when we talk about Alternatives to Incarceration.

Geographer and activist Ruthie Gilmore has often said that she evaluates all of her anti-prison work based on whether what she is advocating serves to extend or shorten the reach of the prison industrial complex. I want to suggest that the same framework has to be applied to our consideration of ATIs.

Do the interventions being proposed as ATIs serve to extend or shorten the reach of the PIC?

We have to keep asking that question.

So let’s stipulate that the ATIs being proposed serve to shorten the reach of the PIC. We still have to be concerned about the case that we are making for their existence in the first place. Right now a lot of the conversation and argument revolves around the cost effectiveness of these models. These arguments resonate and have some purchase with some people at this time because of the cash crunch that state and local municipalities are facing. But what happens when the economy rebounds which we all hope to see happen soon? Do we go right back to just incapacitating large groups of marginalized people? The answer has to be yes. Yes because we are not loudly and resolutely and most importantly collectively making that case that incarceration is in and of itself WRONG, IMMORAL, COUNTERPRODUCTIVE and INHUMANE.

So as we discuss this concept of ATI, I would ask that we keep three questions at the forefront of our minds:

1. How are we defining ATIs? What do we mean when we use that term?
2. Do the interventions being proposed serve to extend or shorten the reach of the PIC?
3. How do we collectively advocate for the ultimate abolition of prisons altogether? Or Can we collectively advocate for the ultimate abolition of prisons altogether? Can ATIs be an important stepping stone to that ultimate goal?

I want to end by sharing something from an article that I read a couple of weeks ago:

The District of Columbia’s juvenile justice agency is piloting a program that puts global positioning system devices on the ankles of the young criminals it releases into the community.

The program was started under Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services interim Director Robert Hildum, and seeks to keep better track of the agency’s wards.

“Electronic monitoring is a ‘tool’ in the ‘toolbox’ for case managers,” DYRS spokesman Reggie Sanders wrote in an e-mail. “It is not a panacea, but can be helpful to improve the oversight of young people in the community.”

Sanders said the agency has contracted with Satellite Tracking of People LLC, the same company used by District’s adult probation agency. DYRS, he said, is applying for grants that would help supply the funding needed to cover the costs that could range as high as $12 per day for each device. He wouldn’t say how many monitoring bracelets have been slapped on the ankles of DYRS wards, but sources said the program is running and about 200 bracelets have been purchased.

The monitoring system allows case managers to make sure their wards are attending school and treatment programs. It can also be used to enforce house arrest. If a ward deviates from a prescribed schedule, or steps out of his home, the case manager is alerted via e-mail. It’s not the first time the District has employed electronic monitoring, youth advocates said, but this program appears to be more advanced than previous iterations.

I want to leave you to consider that story in light of the arguments that I have advanced regarding alternatives to incarceration.