Q&A: Inside the Campaign to Close Rikers

On April 1, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio announced his determination to shutter Rikers Island, the jail complex notorious for the long history of violence and abuse that has unfolded there. But for Herbert Sturz, senior advisor at the Open Society Foundations, it was a story more than 30 years in the making. Sturz spoke with us about the campaign to close Rikers and the challenges ahead.

How did the drive to close Rikers come about?

When I was with the Koch administration, we worked on trying to get the city to sell Rikers to New York State. The plan at the time was for the state to reserve the facilities for city residents convicted of serious felonies, and spare them the need to go to Attica upstate. The effort failed, and got put on the shelf for a long time.

Then Jennifer Gonnerman wrote her powerful piece in the New Yorker about Kalief Browder, who was held for three years on Rikers without trial on suspicion of having taken a backpack. It seemed like there might be an opportunity to try again.

What was the vehicle for building support for reform?

I met with our leadership at the Open Society Foundations, and we discussed how the moment might be ripe to try to close Rikers, given the bipartisan interest in reducing mass incarceration. We helped to support the creation of an independent commission to study the subject, which was convened by New York City Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito.

How did the comission work?

I was honored to join the Independent Commission on New York City Criminal Justice and Incarceration Reform, along with Ken Zimmerman, director of Open Society’s U.S. Programs, and Darren Walker from the Ford Foundation, as well as a number of distinguished criminal justice experts from academia and the advocacy field and leaders from business and real estate.

The Vera Institute of Justice, the Center for Court Innovations, and the City University of New York’s State and Local Governance group all played key roles in providing the data and specific policy proposals that were debated and integrated into the final report. We were most fortunate to have as our leader the Honorable Jonathan Lippman, who served as chief judge of the New York Court of Appeals until 2015.

The group broke into committees and held hearings around the state, looking at how this idea could be processed, where the population might be diverted, and what would happen to the land currently occupied by the correctional facility, among other issues. Under Judge Lippman’s leadership, the commission was able to produce a report in just over a year. It was a lot of people coming together. [Editor’s note: Read the full report, entitled A More Just New York City.]

The mayor was previously against this idea. What do you think turned the tide?

Kalief Browder’s story was crucial. The New Yorker piece on what happened to him helped humanize the problem. The New York Times wrote good editorials on the subject (the New York Post was against it). Glenn Martin, the leader of JustLeadershipUSA, who was himself formerly incarcerated and has been working effectively on this issue for a long time, played an especially important and creative role both as a member of the commission and in rallying community support—organizing meetings, influencing the administration, applying public pressure, but giving the political process room to work.

City Council Speaker Mark-Viverito and the progressive caucus on the council stepped up. And Judge Lippman drove the whole thing. You have to give Mayor de Blasio credit—he saw more information, saw the momentum swing behind this idea, and lent his support. His continued backing will be critical to the successful implementation of the initiative.

So what happens next?

Well, we need to help the city find the money to help draw down the Rikers population. Perhaps philanthropy can play a modest role going forward. The commission plan calls for a series of small jails to be built in each borough. I believe we can bring the population down faster than some think. We should get the women out first. There is a lot of momentum now, and a lot of organizations working to reduce incarceration.

The plan is to make smaller jails in the boroughs, near the courthouses, so families can visit, so it doesn’t take all day to go to an island. With smaller jails, you can have fewer guards, easing the tensions inside. It’s the opposite of mass incarceration. It’s decarceration. Shorter stays are also a key part of this. Further court reform is needed, so people move through the system more quickly, and don’t languish in such terrible places for long periods of time. And the island could host a new runway for LaGuardia Airport.

Rikers has been a poster child for everything that is bad about the corrections system for 85 years. This move will reverberate, if the city can pull it off. There will be pressures on the mayor and council members heading into an election year, and continued support from those leaders, and families of the incarcerated, will be critical. If they stand firm, I would hope there could be a ripple effect in prison policy more broadly.

Learn More:



Rikers island is inefficient as well.due to its location. .. when inmates have a court date a significant amount of time is spent transporting them to the courthouse in lower Manhattan and then back to Rikers .... A typical day( for inmates and correction officers as well). often begins at 4.30 in the morning and ends after 8 pm ....a significant amount of time is spent boarding the numerous inmates on buses for the journey to the courthouse...,then the long journey then , disembarking upon arrival .. the process is repeated in reverse at the end of the day ... .....there have been situations as well in which certain inmates after having traveled from. Rikers to.the courthouse do not get to appear before a judge .and must return on a future date .......in those cases, the. Courts simply ran out of time on that specific day and could not process everyone ..Due to this inefficient system ..it is easy to see how people can languish in jails for months at a time..before their case is heard ...and wemust remember that many are people who are accused( perhaps even falsely) of crimes. ....not convicted .......and yet as a result of this inefficient system these people are essentially serving a sentence. ..... with the result that lives are cruelly destroyed and families are unnecessarily broken

This is a fantastic initiative and a great victory that will require ongoing and sustained attention
Congratulations to OSF, CCI and all who were involved

This is heartening news. I am eager to see this process move forward. Getting the women off Rikers first is an important goal. But one has to be VERY careful when you are talking about building smaller jails in local communities. Instead of putting most of the $ in jails, I believe putting that $ into usable and useful community centers, where a jail may be part of it if absolutely needed, is a better way of spending cj resources.

People who have dealings with the prison system in the U.S. understand it is a business; if incarceration was only about keeping dangerous people off our streets, and working genuinely towards lowering rates of convicted felons returning to crims. They would have noted 84 years ago that Rikers Island is a dismal failure! Well done to everyone invovled in the process of closing Rikers Island. 84 years is far too late, but better than leaving the mess go on for decades more.

People are not going to want a local jail in their own borough. It is a stupid idea. If you want to fight crime then you need to deal with the root of the problem which is poverty. We have a corrupt political system which maintains poverty by providing everthing from cell phones to abortions which i oppose. It is time to end Uncle Sam's plantation and expect people to work for a living link they do in nations like
Africa. the poilitical system and academia have produced a a nation of poor people that EXPECT and DEMAND to paid to lay up in their crib and do nothing. This is called laziness or slothfulness. It is demaeaning and produces hopelessness instead of stimulate the economy so peole can work for a living. Academia does andother study and government launches another program to give the people something that they should be working for all along. The federal government was never designed to become the the Uncle Sam plantation of poverty programs that it has become. I beleive we should only support the citizens that are physically unable to work which would be a small porportion of the population, but since this would be unpopular with the poor who vote in the politicians. i don't realistically see this happening so the middle class will disappear under a mound of fiat money that is worthless while the Globalist financiers like: George Soros , Rockefellers, Rothchilds and assortment of the Bilderberger group maintain their wealth by buying gold and silver. I refuse to drink the cool aid of Socialism or as you call it now Progressivism. I beleive in working hard. I believe in God... Jesus Christ... and not a government that wants to take care of us from cradle to grave. America is in deep spiritual trouble. The sad thing is most people don't know and the ones that know the country is in trouble are very concerned!!!

Add your voice