Who is Afraid of Early Releases and Non-Custodial Sentences?


Not the American public, according to a study conducted by the National Council on Crime and Delinquency. The findings are summarized as follows:

  • A majority of US adults believe that some crimes, for which offenders are currently incarcerated, do not demand time behind bars.
  • Eight in ten (77%) adults believe the most appropriate sentence for nonviolent, nonserious offenders* is supervised probation, restitution, community service, and/or rehabilitative services; if an offender fails in these alternatives, then prison or jail may be appropriate.
  • Over three-quarters (77%) believe alternatives to incarceration do not decrease public safety.
  • More than half (55%) believe alternatives to prison or jail decrease costs to state and local governments.
  • US adults more often think alternatives to incarceration are more effective than prison or jail time at reducing recidivism (45% vs. 38%).
  • Respondents cited a variety of reasons they believe justify sending fewer people to prison or jail, including expense, overcrowding (danger to guards, danger to inmates), the ability of proven alternatives to reduce crime, and the fairness of the punishment relative to the crime.
While the questions emphasized “nonviolent” and “nonsexual” offenders, and are therefore not devoid of bias, they are more specific than questions targeting “offenders” in general, which used to be the modus operandi in public polls and the like. This is very good news, and it proves the point that punitivism has not been our lot simply because “that is what the public wants”. We are smarter than that.
The full study can be found here.
For a review of other studies and trends, arriving at similar conclusion (with more rigorous metrics), see our previous post on the topic.

Update on Vera Report

I have just received word from the Vera Institute with an update of their report, which was released July 29 in light of new information about the influence of stimulus funds in a number of states and new budget information from four additional states.

The revised report, which is based on survey responses from 37 states, finds at least 26 states have reversed the trend of recent decades and cut corrections spending. In three states-Kansas, Nebraska, and South Dakota-officials reduced initial general fund appropriations knowing that a portion of the reduction would be made up by federal stimulus funds. Thus, although general fund appropriations decreased by double-digits in these states, the actual operational impacts were smaller.

Other updated findings include:

  • At least 31 states are reducing staff, instituting hiring freezes, reducing salaries or benefits, and/or eliminating pay increases.
  • At least 22 states are closing facilities or reducing beds, or delaying expansion or construction of new facilities.

The Fiscal Crisis in Corrections: Rethinking Policies and Practices was funded by the Public Safety Performance Project of the Pew Center on the States.

Download the revised report here.

Prison Cuts in Lean Times: Vera Institute Survey Reveals Cuts in 23 States

How much effort are other states making to save on corrections?

The Vera Institute of Justice conducted a survey, trying to establish the impact of the financial crisis on correctional policies. California was one of the states that did not respond to the survey, possibly because it had not yet enacted its 2010 budget. The full survey (only 16 pages and very much worth a read) can be found here in PDF format. Here are some of the highlights.

Second only to Medicaid, corrections has become the fastest growing general fund expenditure in the United States. Two million three hundred thousand people in the U.S. are now in prison or jail—more than one in 100 adults. On any given day 7.3 million adults are under federal, state, or local correctional control (including those on probation, parole, and other forms of supervision)—one in 31 adults. In FY2008, the most recent year data are available, states spent an estimated $47 billion of general funds on corrections, an increase of 303 percent since 1988. They spent an additional $4 billion in special funds and bonds and $900 million in federal funds, bringing total corrections expenditures to nearly $52 billion. (p. 2)

The basic cuts can be seen in a chart from the report, which I lovingly converted to JPG for your convenience (click on the image to clearly see the chart). As you’ll see, at leats 23 states have taken on cuts in their correctional operations. The executive summary identifies most of the activity as occurring in three areas:

Operating Efficiencies: Though many state corrections departments squeezed out efficiencies during the last recession, they are trying to eke out even more savings now. States are reducing healthcare services or joining in purchasing agreements to lower the cost of inmate pharmaceuticals. Many states have reduced corrections staff, instituted hiring freezes, reduced salaries or benefits, and/or eliminated pay increases. Others
are consolidating facilities or halting planned expansions. Still others are eliminating or downsizing some programs.

Recidivism Reduction Strategies: High rates of failure among people on probation and parole are a significant driver of prison populations and costs in most states. To cut down on new offenses and the incarceration of rule violators, several states are strengthening their community corrections systems. Many states began these efforts in the past few years as part of the national emphasis on helping people successfully return to the community following their release from prison. States are now bolstering both their reentry programs and community
supervision programs and working to improve outcomes for people on supervision.

Release Policies: The biggest budget savings come from policy changes that impact how many people come into prison and how long they stay. Staffing typically accounts for 75 to 80 percent of corrections budgets, so substantial cost reductions can be achieved only when the prison population shrinks enough to shutter a facility—whether a single cellblock or an entire prison. In FY2010, states looking for large cuts have turned to release policies and found that they can identify some groups of people who can be safely released after serving shorter terms behind bars.

The report also anticipates further cuts, in the form of transitioning to non-custodial alternatives.

————-
Props to our friends at The Real Cost of Prisons for alerting us to this.

Are you With Arnold or Against Arnold? GOP and Police Reactions to Budget Plan

(image courtesy the Sacramento Bee)

There has been some back-and-forth with police chiefs and GOP members over the last few days regarding their support of Governor Schwarzenegger’s plan for the correctional system. Trying to make some sense of it all, it appears that the idea is to vote on unallocated savings, then figure out the details. The Governor has been quoted as saying that the prison issue had caused “some misunderstandings, and we are ironing them out.” Basically, as the L.A. Times puts it, “[d]espite the delay, the budget deal will still include $1.2 billion in cuts to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, though it will not specify how they are to be made”.

The main point of contention, as we discussed here and here, is inmate release. The solution? Decide on the cuts, postpone discussion on what is to be cut. The inner dealings between Republicans and Democrats regarding this compromise, complete with political back-and-forth and emails titled “Budget Double Cross” (sic), are in the Sac Bee, for your reading pleasure (or agony).

Secretary Cate Proposes Alternatives to Inmate Release

(image courtesy CDCR)

Secretary Matthew Cate’s column on Flash Report makes a few suggestions for shrinking the correctional budget without releasing inmates.

While no one is happy to be in the position of discussing a $1.2 billion reduction in the corrections budget, the Administration has developed a proposal in coordination with local law enforcement that is smart on crime, cuts prison populations, and saves taxpayer dollars. It is our hope that this reasonable and measured package can allow us to achieve our budget cut targets, without the early release that the public has feared.

Cate’s proposal includes a reduction in the reincarceration of parole violations (a 5,300 reduction in prison population); using GPS monitoring as a prison alternative for low-risk offenders; adjusting property crime thresholds; moving undocumented immigrants to the hands of the Feds; providing good behavior credits for early release; and taking several administrative measures to save money. All in all, the proposal does not differ much from the Governor’s proposal; the magical words “inmate release” aren’t there, but there are a variety of release equivalents, packaged in a way that makes them easier to digest.


BREAKING NEWS – New Budget Plan: Less Felonies, Less Inmates, Less Parole

The Chron reports on the Governor’s plan for corrections cuts, which includes changing the definition of some offenses, charging wobblers as misdemeanors, moving undocumented immigrants to the hands of the Feds, and narrowing the scope of parole. This plan will reduce the CA prison population by 27,000 inmates, and is already generating much opposition from Republican politicians.

Stay tuned for more.

More CDCR Cuts in New Budget Deal: California Police Chiefs Wage War on Potential Inmate Release

The new California budget deal has been struck yesterday, and among other policies, it includes $1.2 billion in unallocated cuts to CDCR. While the San Jose Mercury reports that inmate release is not explicitly mentioned as one of the cuts, the broad issue is still on the table. As expected, some are not thrilled with this humonetarian move. The Sac Bee reports:

The campaign, expected to consist of thousands of phone calls, targets Democrats who plan to run for higher office next year, represent hotly contested districts, or who have been sympathetic or outspoken about law enforcement issues in years past.
“Frankly, it will not be possible for anyone who votes for the early release of felons to ever be taken seriously on public safety issues again,” the campaign said in a memo to participants.
As part of a much larger plan to bridge the budget gap, the prison agreement would cut $1.2 billion from the prison system, which Melekian and other opponents fear could release more than 19,000 prisoners before their sentences expire.
“The concern is that the only way that you get to that amount of money is to release people from prison,” Melekian said.
He said police chiefs are also concerned that there is no money available to help with prisoners’ return to society.
“There’s no money for job training – there’s no money to do anything to transition these folks from institutional life to life back in the community,” he said. “It’s more than just releasing them. It’s releasing them with no real plan for dealing with them.”
Also see the report from UPI.

While releases of non-violent offenders would do good to a system that had no business locking up so many people in the first place, the concerns regarding reentry are certainly warranted. The time to think about reentry options for these released inmates is now.

Receivership News

Volume 2(6) of the Receivership newsletter, Turnaround Lifeline, is out. Among other issues, you’ll find information on creating an electronic repository of the inmates’ medical files, as well as on containing the H1N1 flu virus (an issue we reported about here).

Although closing to visitors was considered necessary to minimize the possibility of an influenza pandemic, it came at an unfortunate time for many- the prisons were closed on the weekend of Mother’s Day… [f]ortunately for all involved, only a very small percentage of CDCR’s pending probable cases of the H1N1 “Swine Flu” virus were confirmed by the State Testing Lab and the virus was contained. Dr. Winslow attributes this success to “fast and effective action by our medical and custody staff throughout the State.” He goes on to note that the steps taken by CDCR and CPHCS during the flu outbreak “appear to have helped avoid a potentially dangerous situation.” Visitation has since resumed and the previously cancelled Mother’s Day visitation trip has been rescheduled for June 26th, but precautionary health measures have been implemented to ensure the continued containment of the H1N1 “Swine Flu” virus.

There are also interesting features on telemedicine and on the pharmacy improvements. True to the spirit of humonetarianism, telemedicine is advocated as a cost-saving measure.

Correctional Budget Cuts at the Local Level: Decrowding Shasta County Jail


(Shasta County Jail building image from the Sheriff’s website)

Not long ago we discussed the plan to shift state prisoners into local facilities, as well as the local resistance to the plan. This may not be as feasible as the Governor’s office believes, since many local facilities face financial difficulties of their own.

This morning’s Redding Record Searchlight reports on more humonetarian occurrences on the local level.

According to the Shasta County Sheriff’s website, the Shasta County Jail is a high security facility, with a capacity of 381 inmates, 317 males and 64 females. It seems that this capacity has been reached through aggressive parole revocation operations, and the plan now is to scale back on jail time and on parole operations to relieve the budgetary distress.

Here is what seems to be going on:

Shasta County’s drunken drivers, petty thieves and drug users are less likely to serve jail time. Parolees will be given a bit more leeway on violations that can send them back to prison. And even fewer prisoners police bring to the Shasta County jail will spend a night in a cell.

Local officials say that’s the reality now that Shasta County’s 381-bed jail is 150 inmates smaller.

As jailers have been quickly and quietly working to release a third of the inmates from the jail because of budget cuts, local law enforcement officials have been meeting to plan how they’re going to deal with the sudden loss of space at the already chronically full jail.

…

The decision to clear out a floor of the jail came earlier this month after the Shasta County Board of Supervisors refused Sheriff Tom Bosenko’s pleas to find other ways to trim from the county’s general fund budget rather than make him cut more than $2 million cut from his budget.

Bosenko has since ordered the floor closed and the layoffs of six jail employees.

Jailers began freeing up jail space almost immediately after the decision, mainly by stepping up their “capacity-release” program that lets newly admitted prisoners go free, often before they’d even had time to post bail.

“We’re trying not to do a mass release,” said Lt. Sheila Ashmun, the jail’s second-in-command.

Tax Cannabis 2010: More Marijuana Humonetarianism

In 2010, we may expect to see on our ballots this proposal, which essentially aims to legalize the possession of up to one ounce of cannabis for adult Californians. The language of the proposal is still in draft format and was last amended today; the people behind the proposal are soliciting responses.

What is interesting, and controversial, is the market and fiscal aspect of the proposal, which gives cities the prerogative to set sales tax, procedures and legalization as they please. In that sense, control over possession and sale would be very localized (and I wonder how that would work for the Feds, especially considering the federal lack of respect for permissive local rules, as per Virginia v. Moore).