Humonetarianism Transcends Politics: Conservatives Support Prison Reform


This week’s L.A. Times features a piece by Richard Fausset on conservative politicians who transcend the “tough/soft on crime” traditional divide to support prison reform — for humonetarian reasons.

Now, with most states suffering from nightmare budget crises, many conservatives have acknowledged that hard-line strategies, while partially contributing to a drop in crime, have also added to fiscal havoc.

Corrections is now the second-fastest growing spending category for states, behind Medicaid, costing $50 billion annually and accounting for 1 of every 14 discretionary dollars, according to the Pew Center on the States.

That crisis affects both parties, and state Democratic leaders have also been looking for ways to reduce prison populations. But it is conservatives who have been working most conspicuously to square their new strategies with their philosophical beliefs — and sell them to followers long accustomed to a lock-’em-up message.

Much of that work is being done by a new advocacy group called Right on Crime, which has been endorsed by conservative luminaries such as former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, former Education Secretary William J. Bennett, and Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform.

. . .

The right’s embrace of ideas long espoused by nonpartisan and liberal reform groups has its own distinct flavor, focusing on prudent government spending more than social justice, and emphasizing the continuing need to punish serious criminals.

Even so, the old-school prison reform activists are happy to have them on board.

“Well, when the left and the right agree, I like to think that you’re on to something,” said Tracy Velazquez, executive director of the Justice Policy Institute, a Washington think tank dedicated to “ending society’s reliance on incarceration.”

Julie Stewart, founder of Families Against Mandatory Minimums, even believes that Republicans, with their tough-on-crime credentials, may have a Nixon-in-China cover to push reform further than Democrats.

“There is a safety conservatives have,” she said. “And for better or worse, Democrats don’t always have that luxury.”

The Right on Crime website features Reagan’s decarceration efforts and welcomes influential figures, such as Broken Windows theorist George Kelling.

This group embodies the spirit of humonetarianism. The message is all about retreating from mass incarceration based on considerations of fiscal prudence. One of the more promising aspects of humonetarianism is the potential for rethinking deeper aspects of incarceration policies after questioning them based on the fiscal consideration, and indeed, the group embraces traditionally “lefty” concepts such as restorative justice, a libertarian take on overcriminalization, eliminating mandatory minimums, and support for geriatric parole. The website has a wealth of information, abundant links to research, and much conservative knighthood clout.
The question, of course, is the extent to which this new and wise move among conservatives will find a good home among the New Right tea party-ers.
———
Props to Colin Wood for the L.A. Times link.

Report Back: Donald Specter and Paul Wright

Golden Gate University Law Professor Mort Cohen moderated a discussion between Prison Law Office Director Donald Specter and Prison Legal News Founder/Editor Paul Wright. Donald Specter told a series of fascinating war stories about litigation and advocacy he’s engaged in. He described pointing out to prison administrators that hearing-impaired inmates told to “Get down or we’ll shoot!” were in mortal peril. He said that last month he toured a CA prison and pointed out to wardens that overflowing toilets meant that prisoners in wheelchairs were getting sewage on their wheels and thus their hands. “Aren’t they supposed to be given gloves for that?” “No one told us.”

Next, he walked us through the genesis of the Plata/Coleman proceedings. In 1991, 7 years after Prison Law Office opened, 3 prisoners in Vacaville on psychotropic medication died from heatstroke because they were in overheated cells and insufficiently hydrated. Specter started the case because they had just won a San Quentin mental health and medical care case resulting in an injunction from Judge Marilyn Patel. Since implementing the injunction was too expensive, they moved those prisoners to Vacaville. PLO won a consent decree against Vacaville requiring adequate care and staffing for mentally ill inmates. In response, the Department of Corrections engaged in “bus therapy,” meaning scattering them around the state without regard to whether there were mental health workers at the prisons they went to. For example, many went to Pelican Bay State Prison, where there were only one psychologist and no psychiatrists. Having been burned twice, by San Quentin and Vacaville, PLO sued the whole prison system. They were only able to afford it with help from several SF law firms. They tried the case in 1993, and after a 3-month trial, an injunction issued in 1995. 6 months later PLO tried the Pelican Bay case, and Judge Henderson issued a similar order in 1995. In 1999 Specter started negotiating with the Attorney General’s office, and finally filed in 2001 because the AG said there were not enough doctors. Prisoners were at risk to receive bad care because they were being treated by doctors of the wrong specialties. The parties settled in 2002. In 2005 a receiver was appointed by Judge Henderson, but they still couldn’t fix the problems because prisons were at 200% of design capacity. Specter tried the present litigation before Judges Carlton, Henderson, & Reinhardt, against 51 interveners besides the State of CA, and is now finally waiting for a decision from the Supreme Court.

New (to me): Twice as many California prisoners kill themselves compared to the national average.

Specter said he finds most disappointing the degree to which the Legislature has come to depend upon the Judiciary for its decision-making. The Legislature has virtually abdicated its initiative in this policy area, relying on the courts to decide for them what to do with the prisons.

When asked how to fix the prison system, Specter said we need: (1) fewer prisoners, (2) less pay for prison guards / less concessions to CCPOA, (3) more programs in prisons to reduce recidivism rates and repeat crimes. Paul Wright said we need equality: in southern California celebrities can discharge their sentences in “pay-to-stay” state-run facilities where they get to keep their cell phones and laptops in their cells.

One of the best questions of the evening: “Does California have an emergency disaster plan in case of an earthquake on a scale comparable to Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans?” Specter cited the major fire that nearly destroyed a prison a few years ago, as evidence that even though there is such a plan here its implementation is suspect.

On another question, Paul Wright surprised many attendees by reminding us that a major obstacle to prison reform is the private prison industry that spends millions of dollars lobbying state governments to keep/put more people in prison.

Event 2/1 5:00p on prisons — great speakers

“Spotlight on California’s Criminal Justice System

The ACLU chapter at GGU hopes to raise awareness of the state of California’ criminal justice system by hosting a series of four panels titled “A Critical Eye on Criminal Justice.” The third panel, “Life in a California Prison” will be held Tuesday, February 1, 5:00 – 6:30 PM in room 2203.

For many students, this will be the first glance at living conditions of prisons. There will be a discussion on prison reform litigation and the quality of life in prison in light of the Coleman/Plata case. We will be joined by lead council in Schwarzenegger v. Plata – regarding violations of prisoners’ Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment and the state of California prisons which has lead to many unnecessary deaths.

The panelists are Donald Specter, Director of the Prison Law Office, Jeanne Woodford, former warden at San Quentin State Prison, and Paul Wright, editor and co-founder of Prison Legal News. The discussion will be moderated by Professor Mort Cohen. Food and wine will be provided, all are welcome! For more information please contact: Orien Nelson at orien.nelson@gmail.com.”

WSJ: DoJ ends safe surrender program +more

Great Wall Street Journal article this week about the economic crisis and fiscal austerity coming home to roost in federal law enforcement and sentencing/corrections policy. Full article here. My favorite part is the bullet points:

“—Increasing the amount of time deducted from prison terms for good behavior, which would immediately qualify some 4,000 federal convicts for release, and another 4,000 over the next 10 years.

—Eliminating the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s National Gang Intelligence Center, for a savings of $8 million in the next budget year.

—Sharing less of the proceeds from property confiscated from criminals with state and local authorities, and eliminating other funding to local police departments for some operations. The change would reduce spending by $120 million, according to the White House.”

And I found this paragraph the most intriguing: “The U.S. Marshals Service has quietly shelved the Fugitive Safe Surrender Program, which has cleared the books on thousands of low-level criminal cases in the past six years. Under the program, law enforcement officials set up temporary shop in a church or a public setting, urging fugitives to turn themselves in to resolve old warrants and often drawing hundreds in a single day.”

Legislative Analyst’s Office Unhappy with Brown’s CDCR Budget

The Legislative Analyst’s Office has just issued a report critiquing Jerry Brown’s plan for the CDCR budget (which we briefly discussed just a few days ago), and it does not paint a pretty picture. LAO finds serious overbudgeting in some areas, and is deeply concerned with CDCR exceeding its budget in several areas.

General Fund support for CDCR, particularly with regard to CCPOA salaries and overtime (already on the top steps of the salary scale), appears to be excessive, and CDCR has already exceeded its authority in these matters. Among the other surprising expenditures are $55.2 million in medical transportation costs, $20.5 million in legal costs (wouldn’t it be cheaper to decrease population, which would also mean that the population decrease order would not have to be fought in court?), and $17.3 million in “empty beds” in case incarceration needs change.

The LAO report critiques the CDCR practice of notifying the legislature of budget shortfalls after the fact, thus coercing legislators to increase the budget in restrospect. Also, the budget does not take into account savings in adult parole and administration, which might mean the money could go elsewhere, where it is needed.

A particularly thorny issue is the fact that the budget assumes that CDCR will be making personnel cuts it has no intention of making absent a reduction in inmate population.

The budget, says the report, does not hold CDCR accountable regarding its expenditures, and there is no guarantee against CDCR pulling its retrospective budgeting trick again on the legislature. LAO therefore recommends that the legislature demand accountability and accuracy in the correctional budget.

Assembly Committee Critiques Receivership Spending

On today’s Chron, Marisa Lagos reports some disturbing findings from the Assembly Committee on Accountability and Administrative Review. Examining expenditures made by the federal receiver appointed by the court to oversee prison health care, the committee found extravagant spending with little or no effect on quality health care.

The findings, which are expected to be announced during a hearing today, show large salaries being paid to construction consultants on an abandoned project, who then turned around and charged taxpayers for housing, meals and dry cleaning. Prison health care spending has also grown by more than 65 percent since 2006, when a three-judge panel appointed the receiver after concluding that substandard medical treatment and neglect were killing one inmate per week.

Today’s public hearing will feature responses from the receivership, whose speaker explained to the Chron that —

all of the expenses paid out by the previous receiver were within federal reimbursement guidelines.

“Those contracts no longer exist, and after Clark arrived he cut back and eventually eliminated all of them,” she said.

Kincaid also noted that Kelso has made great strides toward reining in expenses. The overall death rate at prison health care centers has dropped by at least 10 percent since 2006, according to a presentation Kelso is scheduled to make to the committee today.

(Kelso recently reported continued improvements in inmate health care. Others found mixed results.)

Whether the expenses are attributable to the current or the former receivership should be an easy matter to check. What is less easy is to examine the complex connection between these developments and the overcrowding problem. It seems that both sides to the debate can use this report as ammunition for their position. As some readers may recall, one of the points made by the state in the Plata/Coleman litigation was that appointing the receiver should have been enough. Those concerned about early releases might argue that, had the receivership been more prudent in setting its priorities and spending its budget, there would be no need for the Plata/Coleman panel to order the population reduction. The counterargument, made by Don Specter in the newspaper article, is that regardless of how the receivership spends its money, as long as prisons are overcrowded no construction projects or expensive consultants will be able to improve the quality of health care behind bars.

More on Youth Correctional Facilities

The New York Times provides a well-written story from the Bay Citizen on the sides to the debate over Brown’s initiative to close all CA youth correctional facilities. The initiative’s roots are traced to an informal policy that

has been centered in the Bay Area after accusations of abuse and neglect at the institutions surfaced in a 2003 Alameda County lawsuit. In recent years, some local judges often refused to send young offenders to state institutions, preferring to confine them in county facilities regarded as safer and more effective.

Mr. Brown’s initiative would take that unofficial policy further. It would scrap the state juvenile justice system and shift responsibility for confining the most violent young offenders to the local level, where they are nearer to family and have more community treatment options. The move would affect the 1,300 youths in state care, down from 10,000 in 1996.

The main concerns offered by the experts featured in the story concern the lack of funding for improving local facilities and equipping them to handle severely troubled young people, as well as the concern that the intentions behind the initiative will be circumvented by opting to try more juveniles as adults. There is an additional concern over the new responsibilities shouldered by local probation officers.

Jerry Corrections Watch: Abolishing State Juvenile Facilities?


Today we begin a new CCC enterprise: Over the coming weeks and months, we’ll be closely monitoring Governor Jerry Brown’s correctional policies. During the gubernatorial race, we posted on Brown’s history with corrections, and with CCPOA, as former governor and as attorney general. It will be interesting to see whether Brown follows in Schwarzenegger’s footsteps in terms of thinking outside the box (perhaps sometimes too far out) about our correctional crisis.

Brown’s new budget deviates from Schwarzenegger’s pattern of budgetary cuts in the correctional apparatus, especially compared with painful cuts to other aspects of government. In fact, the Brown administration plans —
an ongoing augmentation of $395.2 million within the CDCR’s budget to correct previous budget shortfalls and more accurately reflect the operational costs within the adult institutions’ budgets. This augmentation will allow the Department to fully fund the salary and wages of authorized Correctional Officers, Sergeants, and Lieutenants, which is critical to ensuring that the adult institutions have the resources to pay security staff. The augmentation also provides funding to correct for a decline in the number of overtime hours available to CDCR to use within its adult institutions. Due to salary and wage increases for correctional officers over the last eight years, and no increase in departmental overtime funding, the overtime base does not go as far as it originally did. The use of overtime is critical to ensuring that all necessary staffing levels are maintained at CDCR’s institutions, and the decline in funded overtime hours has been a primary cause for redirections of funding from other activities.
In other respects, however, the Brown administration continues a trend from the Schwarzenegger administration: Diverting inmates from the states system to county-level jails. This move continues to draw ire from county officials, given the overcrowding in jails. The latest incarnation of these efforts is Brown’s plan to abolish the state youth correctional system and incarcerate juveniles exclusively at county-level facilities. Given the distressing facts we know about state juvenile facilities, and the decline in juvenile crime, this is not necessarily a bad idea. Barry Krisberg, however, voices a serious concern that counties will prosecute more juveniles as adults, to circumvent Brown’s policies.

Rosenberg on Reentry: The Importance of Peers and Good Programs

In two recent NYT blog posts, Pulitzer prize awardee Tina Rosenberg reflects on the conditions for successful prisoner reentry.

Rosenberg’s first blog post mentions the meager release packages for inmates exiting correctional institutions and the lack of rehabilitative programs, but emphasizes the need to provide them with “a better class of friends”: People committed to AA meetings and GED classes, who will motivate them rather than drag them down the recidivist path. She mentions two programs: The Castle in New York, and San Francisco’s Delancey Street Foundation. Here is some of what she has to say about the latter:

People come to live at the Delancey Street residential building for an average of four years. Each resident is required to get at least a high school equivalency degree and learn several marketable job skills, such as furniture making, sales or accounting. The organization is completely run by its residents, who teach each other — there is no paid staff at all. Teaching others is part of the rehabilitation process for Delancey residents. The residence is financed in part by private donations, but the majority of its financing comes from the businesses the residents run, such as restaurants, event planning, a corporate car service, a moving company and framing shop. All money earned goes to the collective, which pays all its residents’ expenses.

. . .

The Delancey Street residence, which began in 1971, has never been formally evaluated. But there is no question that is phenomenally successful. It has graduated more than 14,000 people from prison into constructive lives. Carol Kizziah, who manages Delancey’s efforts to apply its lessons elsewhere, says that the organization estimates that 75 percent of its graduates go on to productive lives. (For former prisoners who don’t go to Delancey, only 25 to 40 percent avoid re-arrest.) Since it costs taxpayers nothing, from a government’s point of view it could very well be the most cost-effective social program ever devised. The program has established similar Delancey Street communities in Los Angeles, New Mexico, North Carolina and upstate New York. Outsiders have replicated the Delancey Street model in about five other places.

. . .

There are two puzzles here. Delancey Street is now celebrating its 40th anniversary. One would think that by now there would be Delancey 2.0 models sprouting all over. But there are not. A related mystery concerns the idea that underlies both Delancey and the Castle: the importance of pro-social peers. Our guts tell us they matter; we know the effect our friends can have on our behavior. Peer pressure may be the single most important factor getting people into crime — surely it should be employed to get them out again. Yet it is not. Besides Delancey and the Castle, there is probably not a single government agency or citizen group working with former prisoners that lists “clean-living peers” alongside housing, job training and other items on its agenda for what former prisoners need to go straight.

The second blog post expands upon the reasons for reentry failure. Citing David Kirk’s interesting research on the decline in recidivism following Hurricane Katrina, Rosenberg points out how important it is to maintain places that provide support and encounters with reentering peers. She mentions initiatives like Homeboy Industries in Los Angeles, and attributes their inadequate-to-nonexistent funding to “tough on crime” political rhetoric and to lack of research showing the decline in recidivism. However, there are grounds for hope, including humonetarianism (a discourse of scarcity that creates a countereffect to punitive policies) — the silver lining of the financial crisis:

The good news is that we may have reached a turning point, a chance at last to see effective anti-crime policies edge out ineffective ones. One reason is the record number of people being released from prison. This has made prisoner re-entry a hot topic in the field of corrections (if still invisible to the rest of the world). The politics, too, have changed. The crime rate throughout the United States has dropped, which means that voters are less panicked about crime and less singleminded about harsh measures.

The public isn’t thinking about crime — but state officials are. States are in budget crisis. Many states are looking for ways to let nonviolent prisoners out — and they can’t afford to see them come back again. California’s three strikes law — your third felony conviction, even if for something minor, brings a 25-year-to-life prison term — is costing the state $500 million a year, according to the state’s nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office.

Those costs will rise as the prison population ages as a consequence of the law — housing elderly prisoners can cost upwards of $50,000 per year per inmate. And elderly prisoners are the last people you want in prison, as they are the least likely to re-offend. States are finally getting interested in finding out what actually maximizes the chance that ex-offenders will become good citizens. They’re not going to be able to do that without financing research.

Rosenberg’s posts are a call to conduct empirical research on the recidivism-related implications of reentry programs. As we know, recidivism reports are very problematic. The dismal numbers in CDCR’s recidivism report do not necessarily reflect a “return to a life of crime” as much as they might reflect parole failures and technical parole violations (an aspect regarding which the Supreme Court has recently exhibited surprising naïvete). As this good summary from the NIJ website explains, recidivism is a difficult thing to measure. Studies examining the impact of reentry programs and changes in peer groups on recidivism should be careful in their findings. Assuming such problems can be tackled, funding should be provided to programs with proven effects on recidivism rates, such as the marine technology and carpentry training programs at CDCR.

————————
Props to Michael Sierchio for the link.