An Empirical Study of the School Zone Anti-Drug Law in Three Cities in Massachusetts

• Date: 01 October 2004
• Author: Susan E. Aromaa,Carl N. Brownsberger,William N. Brownsberger,Susan C. Brownsberger
• DOI: 10.1177/002204260403400411
• Published date: 01 October 2004
• Subject Matter: Article

© 2004 BY THE JOURNAL OF DRUG ISSUES

JOURNAL OF DRUG ISSUES 0022-0426/04/04 933-950

__________

William N. Brownsberger is a defense attorney and a former Massachusetts Assistant Attorney

General in Narcotics and Special Investigations. He is Associate Director for Public Policy of the

Division on Addictions at Harvard Medical School and past chair of Harvard’s interdisciplinary

Working Group on Drugs and Addictions. He serves as senior criminal justice advisor to Join

Together, a project of the Boston University School of Public Health. He teaches and writes on

issues of drug policy and criminal justice. Susan E. Aromaa is the web content manager for Join

Together, a project of the Boston University School of Public Health. She has a master’s degree in

communication research from the Boston University College of Communication. Carl N.

Brownsberger is a Distinguished Life Fellow of the American Psychiatric Association. Before

retirement he was a clinical psychiatrist and also served on the faculties of Harvard, Tufts, and the

University of Washington medical schools. Susan C. Brownsberger is a translator and editor.

AN EMPIRICAL STUDY OF THE SCHOOL Z ONE ANTI-DRUG

LAW IN THREE CITIES IN MASSACHUSETTS

WILLIAM N. BROWNSBERGER, SUSAN E. AROMAA, CARL N. BROWNSBERGER, SUSAN

C. BROWNSBERGER

This study reviewed the role of a law providing enhanced penalties for drug

dealing within 1,000 feet of a school in 443 drug-dealing cases in three cities in

Massachusetts: Fall River, New Bedford, and Springfield. We reviewed district

attorneys’ case files and mapped drug-dealing incidents using a combination of

geographic information systems and location visits with a hand-held geographic

positioning system. School zones – the areas within 1,000 feet of schools –

cover 29% of the areas of the study cities and 56% of the high-poverty areas

within the cities. Although less than 1% of the drug-dealing cases involved sales

to minors, approximately 80% of the cases occurred within school zones,

apparently because of the density of schools in high-poverty/high-drug-dealing

areas. Most school zone cases are “broken down” – defendants plead to lesser

charges and receive less than the two-year mandatory minimum sentence for

dealing in a school zone. Decisions to “break down” charges are not influenced

by proximity to schools or time of day. Most drug dealers commit their offenses

close to home, and most dealers charged with dealing in school zones reside in

school zones. Overlapping school zone boundaries are chaotic and confusing

in the inner city areas studied. The school zone statute fails to push drug dealing

away from schools: the density of dealing within 250 feet of schools is similar to

the density of dealing at greater distances.

BROWNSBERGER, AROMAA, BROWNSBERGER, BROWNSBERGER

934 JOURNAL OF DRUG ISSUES

INTRODUCTION

At the height of national concern about crack during the late 1980s and early

1990s, Massachusetts and many other states created an enhanced penalty for drug

dealing in proximity to areas where children play (Bateman, 1995). In Massachusetts,

the legislature provided for a minimum mandatory two-year incarceration for dealing

within 1,000 feet of a primary, secondary, or vocational school.1 The two years are

additional to any other punishment imposed. The present study essentially focuses

on two questions: (1) Are charging and sentencing in school zone cases shaped by

the legislative goal of keeping drug dealing away from schools? (2) Is the law

successful in moving drug dealing farther from schools?

LITERATURE REVIEW

Much has been written about the expansion of incarceration for drug-related

offenses in the United States over the past two decades. Some have questioned the

use of prison resources to house low-level or nonviolent drug offenders (for example,

Brownsberger, 1997; King & Mauer, 2002). Many have been troubled by the heavy

overrepresentation of minorities among those incarcerated for drug offenses (for

example, Brownsberger, 2000; Human Rights Watch, 2000; Tonry, 1995). However,

these larger issues are beyond the scope of the present study.

Our study focuses empirically on the operation of the school zone law in

Massachusetts. In Massachusetts, as quantified in this study, most retail drug-dealing

cases are charged as school zone offenses. Over 20 states and the federal

government have enacted similar statutes (Bateman, 1995). The Massachusetts

Supreme Judicial Court has generally upheld the school zone law, stating in

Commonwealth v. Taylor, 413 Mass. 243, 250, 596 N.E.2d 333 (1992), that the

law “furthers a legitimate State interest of protecting children and adolescents by

establishing a drug free school zone.” Yet, we are unaware of any empirical research

looking at how school zone laws have been implemented in the courts or whether

they have been effective.

METHODS

The basic steps of our study were (1) to select counties for study, and cities

within them; (2) to define a set of drug-dealing cases for study in the selected cities;

(3) to review district attorneys’ case files for the selected cases and extract selected

data items (primarily from the police reports); (4) to map schools, parks, and incident

locations in the cities; (5) to compute distances from the locations of drug-dealing

incidents to schools and parks; (6) to analyze geographic and time/date factors

influencing case outcomes; and (7) to analyze the geography of drug dealing with

reference to the school zone law.