For the first time in nearly 40 years, states see a decline in prison population, as reported by this new Pew report. The decline in California, though not the most impressive percentagewise (that honor falls to Rhode Island, per Jesse’s post), is the largest in total numbers: we have shedded 4,257 prisoners in 2009. Compared to the total numbers we are dealing with, this is a modest beginning, but maybe the financial crisis will have a “humonetarian” impact after all. The report ascribes the reduction in California to a combination of the financial crisis and the development of intermediate sanctions for parole violators.
The number of federal prisoners, however, has increased.
Incidentally, check out the impressive 6.7% reduction in the Michigan inmate population. Ironically, Michigan’s ability to do more about overcrowding than we do is what allows them to try and enter contracts to house our prisoners out of state. If we were able to do, in-state, what Michigan has done, we would have no need for Michigan’s services.
Adding to our last post on the new Pew study, as a transplanted Rhode Islander I was thrilled to see Pew report that Rhode Island now leads the states in prison population reduction. As Bruce’s post reminds me, we never thought we’d see the day RI had fewer than 4,000 state prisoners. The RI General Assembly has recently eliminated mandatory minimum sentences for drug crimes, restoring judicial discretion. The Department of Corrections has increased sentence reductions for inmates’ good behavior.
Last night, the RI Senate Committee on Marijuana Prohibition released its final report, and concluded its business by releasing its final report and voting to recommend that the legislature decriminalize marijuana. This change would result in vast savings: in 2009 RI arrested 2,546 people for first-time marijuana possession. According to re-entry institute OpenDoors’s new report, in 2008 RI imprisoned 188 people and jailed 396–who spent a collective 2,366 days in jail.
Yesterday’s New York Times reported that the Californian trend is not unique. Many states find themselves recurring to early releases, good time credits, and other mechanisms, in an attempt to save money. The interesting part of the article pertains to the backlash against early releases in Oregon and Michigan; the examples in the article are, of course, of convicted sex offenders.
Californians are trying to tax and regulate marijuana, through such measures as the Tax Cannabis 2010 ballot initiative and Assm. Tom Ammiano’s AB 2254. Meanwhile, legislators in the Rhode Island House of Representatives have also introduced a bill to legalize marijuana; text here: http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/BillText/BillText10/HouseText10/H7838.htm. H7838 would regulate marijuana wholesalers, retailers, and home-cultivators, and set a tax of $50/ounce like CA AB2254. Looks like there’s a race on to see who can begin reaping tax revenues, first: at least 6 states (California, Rhode Island, Colorado, Washington, Oregon, Nevada) will consider taxing and regulating marijuana by the end of 2012. H7838 specifically invokes corrections/enforcement savings as a reason for regulating marijuana: “There were more than 847,000 arrests for marijuana offenses in the US in 2008, which is more than Rhode Island’s entire adult population.”
Elsewhere, we discussed the recent moratoria on executions, as well as ALI’s retraction of support for the death penalty and its abolition in New Mexico. These trends are undoubtedly linked to the financial crisis. Today’s question–and maybe our readers have some thoughts on this–is whether anti-death-penalty activists are making the most of the scarcity-related genre of arguments against the death penalty. There seems to be some evidence that they are.
Broadly speaking, we can classify anti-death-penalty arguments into three groups:
Value concerns: this is a broad family of arguments, which include not only the broad issue of the appropriateness of the state’s killing of its own citizens, but also doubts about its deterrent effect, as well as concerns about the inequities associated with the death penalty (such as the overrepresentation of minorities);
Innocence concerns: featuring cases of wrongful convictions and executions, the death penalty’s irreversibility plays an important part.
Cost concerns.
There’s hardly any doubt that cost-related concerns figure prominently in the discourse nowadays. Mike Farrell’s post this weekend on The Huffington Post places particular emphasis on the cost argument. The Death Penalty Information Center also seems to highlight this argument in their publications. What I don’t know, and would very much like to find out, is whether this is a new phenomenon, generated by the financial crisis, or whether previous installments of the death penalty debate also featured cost-related arguments. My (unproven) hypothesis is that there would be evidence of all three arguments throughout the debate, but that the focus of the debate has shifted from value concerns (which were always discussed) to innocence concerns (whose importance probably increased with the introduction of DNA testing) to cost concerns. I guess the way to figure this out is to go back to activist literature from before the 1970s and spend some time “counting” reasons in articles. Your thoughts on this, as well as on the effectiveness of cost-related arguments in this debate, are welcome.
As regular readers probably know, I have been thinking a lot about the many ways in which the financial crisis has shaped changes in the criminal process. Most of my energy was devoted, recently, to thinking about its impact on the correctional apparatus; in my article Humonetarianism: The New Correctional Discourse of Scarcity (which I started shaping on this very blog!) I argued that the crisis provided a rare opportunity to revisit a forty-year-old punitiveness wave; it gave politicians permission to adopt non-punitive policies with less concerns about appearing “soft on crime”. The most striking example of this is the passage of the (admittedly watered-down version of) Governor Schwarzenegger’s early release plan, based on comprehensive parole reform and good credits.
This does not mean, of course, that the considerations behind our correctional policy have really become less punitive in any deep or meaningful way. Our discourse has not fundamentally changed; moreover, the solutions we have approved are far from being systematic. California still does not have a sentencing commission. Various serious concerns about prison overcrowding, such as the overrepresentation of minorities, have not been properly addressed. Not much consideration, if any, has been given to the aims of punishment with regard to old and infirm inmates (beyond the issue of cost of their medical expenses). Nevertheless, as studies in punitivism repeatedly show, the public tends to be much less punitive in surveys and experiments when presented with the costs of punishment.
Keeping track of humonetarianism made me more aware of the impact of cost and scarcity on other stages of the criminal process. And, indeed, there is some evidence of crisis-mode budgeting which is changing the nature of the criminal process. This is not real leniency or a turn away from severity, but it often manifests itself in the way of decriminalization, changes in prosecutorial policies, etc, among other phenomena. Which is why I call it “leaniency”. One glaring example is the fact that, perhaps for the first time, there is a real chance that California voters might legalize marijuana. As I recently found out from Quintin Mecke, who is Assemblyman Tom Ammiano‘s Communications Director (who spoke recently at Hastings), they’ve been seeing increased support of their marijuana legalization/regulation proposal in polls whenever they link it with taxation and increased revenue for the state from marijuana sales.
Other aspects of leaniency have to do with the decreased budgets of the police, prosecution, and defense. All these agencies have to adopt lean, smart policies about work if they are to survive. Beyond the hiring crisis in D.A. and P.D. offices, there is evidence that prosecutorial policies have changed to allow less cases into the criminal process; in some counties, some offenses are not being charged. Public Defenders focus their efforts on cheaper case management, avoiding involvement in mechanisms such as problem solving courts, which tend to suck up resources and time. Has there been an increase in plea bargains? I have no idea, but I would not be surprised if there has. In what other ways is a cheap criminal process different? Is it merely an updated version of Herbert Packer‘s crime control model, or is something else going on? Your comments appreciated.
Today the Justice Policy Institute issued a press release criticizing President Obama’s budget proposal. The new budget would increase funding for law enforcement and prisons, and reduce funding for alternative justice programs. JPI has released a full fact sheet, here. The text of their release follows:
Group Criticizes Obama Administration’s Budget Plan to Increase Policing and Prisons
Justice advocates disturbed by proposed $29 billion for ineffective and unfair policies
Washington, D.C. – The Justice Policy Institute released a factsheet today challenging the Obama administration’s proposed Fiscal Year 2011 Department of Justice budget. The Administration is asking for $29.2 billion, which includes more funding for law enforcement and prisons, and reductions in spending on juvenile justice programs that have been proven to be effective at getting youth back on track for positive life outcomes. A hearing for the proposed budget was scheduled before the Congressional Budget Committee, Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and Science on February 11, but was delayed and is in the process of being rescheduled.
“The Administration’s rationale for dumping more money into COPS (the federal Community Oriented Policing Services program) is that we need more police while the economy improves in order to prevent crime,” stated Tracy Velázquez, executive director of JPI. “That doesn’t pass the smell test. Crime rates have been falling for the last few years and we’ve already put a billion stimulus dollars into more policing last year. If the Administration wants to buy jobs that will improve public safety, they should put that $600 million into struggling communities, schools, treatment, and social services.”
Velázquez also noted that the proposed budget will likely result in increased incarceration costs for states, with only marginal public safety benefits. This is at a time when financially-strapped states are trying to downsize prisons through such mechanisms as greater use of community supervision and more diversion programs. While Velázquez praised funding for the Second Chance Act, which helps formerly-incarcerated people with their transition back to the community, she added, “More money should be focused on programs that help to keep people out of the criminal and juvenile justice systems in the first place.” These alternatives include community-based prevention and early intervention programs for youth, education and employment training, and substance abuse and mental health treatment services.
Some of the key findings in the newly-released fact sheet http://www.justicepolicy.org/content-hmID=1811&smID=1581&ssmID=87.htm include:
* Byrne Justice Assistance Grants: JPI found that while the $500+ million proposed for this program can be used for prevention and education, in reality most money goes to law enforcement. Research has shown that increased law enforcement results in the least-effective solution-higher drug imprisonment rates-while this money could be more effectively spent on community drug treatment.
* Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Funding: The Administration is requesting $600 million in hiring and retention grants for police officers, purportedly anticipating a rise in crime as the economy recovers. Such increased policing is likely to have a concentrated impact on communities of color, who are already disproportionately impacted by the criminal justice system. JPI suggests this money would be better spent on creating jobs, housing, and treatment programs for increased public safety.
* Juvenile Justice Programs: Funding for essential juvenile justice programs has been declining for years, and the Administration is proposing a $133 million decrease this year. Evidence shows that youth who spend time incarcerated have decreased educational and employment opportunities. Currently, there are more than 90,000 youth imprisoned in the United States. Investments in prevention programs, by contrast, are associated with improved public safety and better life outcomes for youth. “At a time when the Administration can’t seem to find the time to hire someone to run the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention,” stated Velázquez, “this lack of commitment to funding core programs that protect and help youth is discomfiting.”
* Drug Courts: JPI commends the federal government’s interest in pursuing treatment as an option for people with substance abuse problems as an alternative to incarceration. However, drug courts, and the criminal justice system generally, can’t and shouldn’t be used as a substitute for community-based treatment services through the public health system, where it is most effective and appropriate.
* Adam Walsh Act: Having failed to bully states with threats of funding cuts if they fail to comply with the Adam Walsh Act, the federal government is adding a “carrot” to the “stick”: $20 million to help states implement the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA). A number of reports have found little correlation between the use of sex offender registries and keeping children safe. In addition, broad compliance with SORNA will increase the number of people who cannot meet their basic needs (housing, employment), which is a major risk factor for recidivism. Especially hard-hit are youth on registries that may be barred from pro-social activities that can have a positive impact on improving their lives and on public safety.
* Increased Funding for Prisons: Increased funding for prison beds will likely lead to higher prison populations and expenses without significantly improving public safety. In fact, most states are reducing prison populations due to the current economic crisis and are seeking more effective solutions.
“While I hesitate to grade the Administration,” concluded Velázquez, “we certainly were optimistic that it would use the research that groups like JPI have done over the years in developing its justice budget. We hope the Administration will more seriously engage the reform community in the budget process in the future so that budgets and policies will be prioritized to one day allow the United States – land of the free-to leave behind the shameful moniker of being the world’s largest jailor.”
The Justice Policy Institute (JPI) is a Washington, D.C.-based research and policy organization that promotes fair and rational justice policies. For more information, please visit www.justicepolicy.org
Yesterday’s Chron reported the expected cuts to rehabilitative programs in California prisons.
The cuts mean that 17,000 fewer inmates will be able to enroll in academic and vocational programs and 3,500 fewer inmates will be able to enroll in substance abuse programs. At San Quentin State Prison alone, 13 of the 19 programs currently offered are slated for elimination, according to teachers there, including all but two of the six vocational programs, an anger management course and a high school program.
California has a 70 percent recidivism rate – the highest in the nation. That number will increase with these changes, said San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris, a Democratic candidate for attorney general.
“We know that when you go to prison and come out with no changed circumstances, you are prime to reoffend,” she said. “The first and principal priority should be prevention.”
The cutbacks are the result of the state’s budget crisis and the $60 billion deficit lawmakers tackled last year. As part of two budget plans approved in 2009, prison officials were forced to reduce spending by $1.2 billion this year. The state also made deep cuts to education, health and human services, and many other public programs. Still, California now faces a new $20 billion deficit through June 2011 and further cuts to state programs are anticipated.
This morning’s Chron features a serious critique of these cuts from unexpected sources: Harriet Salarno, president of Crime Victims United of California (and driving force behind Prop 9), and Assemblyman Ted Lieu, who is a prosecutor and member of the Assembly Judiciary Committee.
This is shortsighted because, while the time a criminal spends in prison is for punishment, it can also be used for rehabilitation and change. This time is wasted unless it’s used to teach an inmate to read, earn a high school diploma, acquire life skills, complete anger management courses, learn a trade or otherwise provide them with alternatives to a life of crime. Instead of increasing rehabilitation programs – or at least maintaining current levels – the department is cutting $250 million of a $600 million rehabilitation program. It’s also laying off 600 to 900 educational and vocational prison instructors. These reductions fail both inmates and the public.
If an inmate spends five years in a state prison, is released without rehabilitation, re-offends, and then is sent back to prison, what have we gained? The department’s approach is unwise and dangerous. Unreformed inmates are very likely to re-offend, which means more crimes will be committed, more victims created, more lives torn apart. Where is the reform?
Salarno and Lieu’s angle is, of course, the expected danger to society, and they do not fail to mention the risk of the expected releases. But the interesting thing is that punitiveness and rehabilitation are not contradictory. Several studies in punitivism have found Americans to have a “punitivism complex”, which consists of supporting, simultaneously, punitive initiatives and extensive rehabilitation programs, particularly for juvenile offenders. In the turmoil around early releases, we may have found something we can all agree on.
A few days ago we reported on the impending jail releases and their effects. Jeanne Woodford’s op-ed in the Contra Costa Times offers some ideas on how to thoughtfully reduce population and how to spend the Federal and AB 900 money:
First, California is expected to receive upward of $35 million in federal funds through the Edward Byrne Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program in 2010. Federal JAG grants, which do not require state or county matching funds, are approved for law enforcement, prosecution and court programs, community corrections, and drug treatment, among others.
Sacramento should direct these funds to counties to assist counties’ handling of probationers and parolees.
This is not unheard of. Last year the Legislative directed $100 million in federal stimulus JAG funds toward crime-reduction programs, including $45 million to county alcohol and drug services (to provide treatment instead of incarceration to low-level drug offenders), $45 million for intensive probation services (to increase the number of felony probationers completing probation successfully) and $10 million for a new Re-Entry Courts initiative (to reduce parolee recidivism).
Secondly, counties should be able to access funding from the prison expansion legislation passed in 2007, AB 900. That bill included resources for rehabilitation services and a limited amount of funding for counties. Rather than being spent to expand state prison beds several years in the future, more of these resources should be directed to counties now to fund community corrections and, where needed, jail space.
I think the key to use the funds thoughtfully is to find out which “crime-reduction programs” have proven rates of success. It’s time for a new “What Works”. After reading Dreams from the Monster Factory, I thought whether anyone had collected good data, including a control group, regarding the success of the RSVP program. Assessing the efficacy of such programs should be top priority. One of the challenges is that recidivism data is rather difficult to access in California and rap sheets tend to be somewhat inaccurate. In addition, due to the multiple types of parole violations, it’s hard to know whether to treat them as failures of rehabilitation or not. But good methodological answers to these questions can and should be found. These are no trifle sums of money, and they need to be well spent.
