BOSTON - A new, 50-state study finds that putting more people in jail for drug offenses doesn't reduce drug use or overdose deaths.

On Monday, President Donald Trump called for harsher sentences - including the death penalty for drug traffickers - to combat the opioid epidemic. Jake Horowitz, director of research and policy at Pew Charitable Trusts' Public Safety Performance Project, said they compared states' drug imprisonment rates to rates of drug use, overdose death and drug arrests, and found no correlation at all.

"These findings reinforce a large body of prior research that casts doubt on the theory that stiffer prison terms deter drug misuse, distribution and other drug law violations,” Horowitz said.

While Massachusetts has the lowest rate of drug imprisonments in the nation, the study showed the rate of overdose deaths is almost identical to Wyoming which has one of the highest imprisonment rates.

But while increased incarceration rates have no significant effect on drug use, Horowitz noted that stiffer prison terms do have a dramatic impact on everyone else.

"Putting more drug law violators behind bars for longer periods of time has generated an enormous cost for taxpayers but has not yielded a convincing public safety return on those investments,” he said.

Since 1980 the number of Americans in state and federal prisons for drug law violations has exploded from fewer than 25,000 to more than a quarter-million. Horowitz said Pew has polled voters nationally and found broad, bipartisan support for reducing prison penalties for drug crimes.

"In states like Maryland we note 75 percent of voters agree that imposing longer prison terms is the wrong way to break the cycle of crime and addiction,” Horowitz said. “And these kinds of findings span from Louisiana to Utah, red and blue states across the country."

He added research shows the most effective response to drug misuse includes treatment, prevention and alternatives to incarceration for nonviolent drug offenders.


get more stories like this via email

New York towns are reaping many benefits since the Inflation Reduction Act was passed.

Along with funds for larger clean energy projects, the state was awarded $158 million for the IRA's Home Energy Rebates program.

Smaller towns and villages use these grants to implement their climate action plans.

Brighton Town Councilmember Robin Wilt said an IRA grant they applied for will help upgrade the town's HVAC system.

"We will be implementing geothermal and then use a solar array to make the system close to net zero, not quite," said Wilt. "I think we'll get 55% of our energy back with the solar panels."

The bureaucratic process to access the funding was challenging, but some groups are working with the Department of Energy to improve it.

Wilt said feedback on the clean energy projects has been positive. Future projects using IRA funding include increasing walkability and sustainable redevelopment.

Critics have said the IRA includes multiple provisions to increase fossil fuel production.

Towns nationwide are using IRA grants to bolster clean energy projects.

Joel Hicks is a council member for the Borough of Carlisle, Pennsylvania.

They've just applied for a grant to work on energy efficiency and solar projects with Harrisburg. He said this will have positive impacts beyond establishing clean energy.

"We were really excited at this potential," said Hicks, "because we saw that the cost savings we would have for putting in substantial solar projects on our public property would actually fund many of our other public municipal goals."

These include purchasing an electric vehicle fleet and having more efficient solid waste programs.

One thing Hicks said he wants to see in future is state and local governments helping small towns and municipalities with putting together their IRA grant proposals.

A new report analyzes Pennsylvania's existing voucher programs, that divert public funds to private schools.

This comes on the heels of Gov. Josh Shapiro's plan to create a new voucher program for K-12 students.

Diana Polson - senior policy analyst with the Keystone Research Center - said last year's Commonwealth Court decision ruled that Pennsylvania's system of funding public education is unconstitutional, therefore the state doesn't have a dollar to waste on expanding existing private-school voucher programs or creating a new one.

"The basic-education funding commission estimated the state must pay $5.1 billion over the next seven years to make sure our public schools are funded equitably and adequately," said Polson. "Meanwhile, our report finds that existing private-school voucher programs are siphoning millions from taxpayers with little to show for it."

Supporters argue that vouchers let children leave under-performing public schools and get a better education at private schools.

Polson said Pennsylvania's voucher programs have no "meaningful educational or financial accountability," so they really have no way of knowing if these programs operate as intended or are beneficial to low-income or moderate-income students.

Polson said the report reveals that the programs have grown, and just this year they will cost the state nearly $500 million.

However, these voucher programs exclude students in rural areas, because there are few if any participating private schools in these regions.

Local public schools remain the primary option for most rural families.

"We also found that private schools receiving these funds are allowed to - and do - routinely discriminate against students for reasons including disabilities, sexual orientation, religious beliefs and more," said Polson. "These programs are also exclusive. They subsidize the state's most elite and expensive private schools as well as affluent families."

Polson said the report reveals that the Independent Fiscal Office estimated that the average EITC program scholarship was $2,314, while the Opportunity Scholarship Tax Credit was slightly less at around $2,000.

The cost of attending one of the top 25 private schools in Pennsylvania is around $41,000 per year. This means these schools are still out of reach for many low- and moderate-income families.

As Nebraska's 2024 legislative session draws to a close, family caregivers and their supporters are closely watching the progress of Legislative Bill 937, the Caregiver Tax Credit Act.

The bill provides eligible family caregivers up to $2,000 in tax credits for out-of-pocket expenses or up to $3,000 if the family member receiving care has dementia or is a veteran.

Jina Ragland, state director of advocacy and outreach for AARP Nebraska, said family caregivers are filling health care gaps in the state, especially with 15 Nebraska counties currently lacking a nursing home or assisted-living facility. Ragland argued the state's family caregivers need and deserve financial support.

"We really feel they're the backbone of the U.S. care system," Ragland emphasized. "Especially here in Nebraska because they're helping parents, they're helping loved ones live independently in their homes."

Family caregivers in the U.S. spend an average of $7,000 per year in out-of-pocket expenses. Employed caregivers sometimes lose wages when they have to take time off for caregiving responsibilities. Others retire early, losing both wages and retirement income.

The bill includes an income limit of $50,000 for individuals and $100,000 for married couples. Sen. Eliot Bostar, D-Lincoln, introduced the bill on behalf of AARP Nebraska. The legislature is expected to debate the measure for the second time this week.

Joyce Beck of Grand Island knows firsthand the emotional and financial strain of being a caregiver and losing a loved one. She retired early to care for her husband, who suffered from multiple sclerosis and cancer. In addition to significant out-of-pocket expenses, her Social Security and pension payments are both lower because she retired early.

Beck said she knows some Nebraskans face bigger financial struggles as a result of their caregiving.

"If there's any financial support that we can give, that would be so beneficial," Beck contended. "Some people don't have the option of a retirement account or a pension plan, so $2,000 would be huge for them. "

Ragland stressed family caregivers are helping Nebraska taxpayers as well. When their caregiving delays or prevents expensive-nursing home placement, it contributes to lowering the state's Medicaid costs.

"An important concept for people to understand is the value of those people who are just doing what they think is right," Ragland asserted. "The time and the money and the energy that they're providing as family caregivers to offset, again, the gaps in the care services that we have in our communities."

Six states currently offer a caregiver tax credit, and there is a bipartisan bill in the U.S. Congress to enact one at the federal level.