The Real Cost of Prisons Weblog

I.

The fact is, California has a lot of good news on the subject of crime.

Crime rates -- measured in terms of crimes per 100,000 population -- have been consistently dropping since the early 1990s. Today, violent crimes have dropped to 1973 levels. Property crimes have dropped to 1967 levels.

Some of that decline is due to locking up violent, habitual criminals for more time. But the bulk of the decline is due to other factors: a greater commitment to community policing; a shrinking population in the crime-prone age group of 18- to 29-year-olds; a strong economy; the decline of the crack epidemic. Other states with much lower imprisonment rates than California also have seen declining crime rates.

So why is the governor calling for more prisons when crime has dramatically declined in California?

He says we need new prisons because California's population is increasing. But he's looking at the wrong numbers.

What he and the Legislature need to look at are California's state prison incarceration rates, which, like crime rates, are based on population.

In 1973, with a population of about 21 million, California had about 22,500 in state prisons -- an incarceration rate of about 100 per 100,000 population, a rate that remained about the same through the 1970s. Today, with a population of about 37 million, California has about 170,000 in state prisons -- an incarceration rate of more than 450 per 100,000.

A rate of 400 per 100,000 would give us a prison population of 148,000. A rate of 350 per 100,000 would give us a prison population of 129,500.

Our incarceration rates per 100,000 population in California have been at historic highs since the mid-1990s -- and in Schwarzenegger's time in office, they're creeping back up again, even though they're dropping in other states.

To put these numbers in perspective, consider this: The United States leads the world in incarceration rates and California ranks in the top half of states.

That large-scale imprisonment comes at a cost to society. In California, the corrections budget took 4.3 percent of the state's general fund in 1985-1986. Since then, its share of the budget has doubled. Last year corrections consumed 8.8 percent of the general fund.

These dry statistics hide a very real problem. Spending on prisons is crowding out spending on higher education, essential to the future prosperity and quality of life in our state. Soon, if our policies don't change, the corrections budget will be 10 percent or more.

Why have our incarceration rates gotten so high? You'll see in tomorrow's editorial that the rate is up largely because California has increasingly shifted low-level, nonviolent offenders to the state prison system. That system was intended and designed for violent, habitual criminals. But we are now filling state prisons with check forgers, perjurers, fraudsters, petty thieves and other low-level criminals who used to be handled at the local level.

The Legislature should resist the call to build more prisons. As we'll see in upcoming editorials, it is unnecessary and wasteful. It is a giant backward step -- pouring scarce resources into a big black hole with no end in sight.

There has to be a better solution -- and there is.

About the editorial:
This is the first of four editorials on how to solve the problems in
California's prison system. Next, who is in California's prisons, what
is driving current prison overcrowding and what can we do to fix it?

II.
Editorial: The prison two-step

Local role, sentencing changes are keys

Published 12:01 am PDT Saturday, August 5, 2006
If Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and lawmakers really want to alleviate prison overcrowding, control spending on prisons and avert a takeover by the federal courts, they should shift their attention away from building more prisons.

Instead, they should look at how California deals with nonviolent, low-level offenders such as check forgers, shoplifters and petty thieves.

In past decades, those offenders did their time at the local level. They were sent to county jails and community punishment programs, which cost much less to operate than state prisons. Costly state prison space was reserved for violent, repeat offenders such as murderers, robbers, rapists and kidnappers.

Today, however, our state prisons are bursting with more than 170,000 prisoners. But the problem isn't that there are too many violent, repeat offenders. Only 85,000 inmates are classified as Level III or IV prisoners, the levels requiring high and maximum security prisons. The rest, the Level I and II offenders, are in prison for property and drug-related crimes or parole violations. Most of them have terms of 18 months or less.

Putting these prisoners in higher security state prisons is like a hospital putting all patients in intensive care rooms. It is expensive and unnecessary.

The shift of low-level offenders to state prisons has happened over time with little attention. That should change during this special legislative session. Lawmakers and the governor can fix this problem. Two steps would go a long way toward fixing it.

First, restore the local role.

In the past, local jails and community punishment programs were the preferred way to handle low-level offenders. They kept the offender close to home, family, jobs, schooling and other services. Putting nonviolent, low-level offenders in state prison was seen as harmful because it broke local ties and sucked the offender into the prison culture.

Until 1984, equal numbers of people served time in state prisons and local jails. That's no longer the case. Today, state prisons house 170,000 offenders; local jails, 80,000.

While the state went on a 21-year, 22-prison building binge beginning in 1984, the locals have been starved of resources for jail space and community punishment programs. They face critical shortages, which means that more and more low-level offenders end up in state prisons -- and state spending on prisons continues to grow unchecked.

The state can change that by planning to build 30,000 to 40,000 county jail beds during the next decade, at a cost of $600 million to $900 million. That would enable the state to gradually return responsibility for housing less serious offenders from the state prison system back to the local level.

The state should fund construction and operating costs for these jails because they would house low-level offenders who would otherwise end up in state prisons. To make this work, financing would have to be stable and predictable. Some have suggested creating a State-Local Corrections Partnership Fund with a percentage of the state sales tax, but this is something lawmakers should negotiate.

Restoring the state-local partnership should be a top long-term priority of the special session that begins Monday.

Second, change sentencing.

Some sentencing changes are needed. Instead of state prison, why not have those convicted of some crimes -- for example, perjury, bookmaking, bribery, drug possession, receiving stolen property, petty theft with a prior nonviolent conviction, car theft and forgery -- serve their time at the local level? They could be in local jails or in approved community punishment programs such as work camps, day reporting centers, electronic home detention or restitution centers.

In general, California has an incoherent, piecemeal sentencing system created by legislators reacting to sensational events with "crime of the week" bills. The state needs a sentencing commission -- an ongoing, independent body that develops, annually modifies and monitors the state's sentencing guidelines for all felony offenders.

Previous attempts in California to create sentencing commissions have been seriously flawed and were defeated. They were set up as one-time bodies to impose pet sentencing schemes. But many states have successful sentencing commissions. Minnesota's, the first, comes to mind. California can learn from those examples.

The challenge of the special session is to get past the usual election-year rhetoric and do something long term to return the state prison system to a population of the most serious offenders. Restoring the local role and reforming sentencing are key steps to meeting that challenge.

About the editorial:
* This is the second of four editorials on how to solve the problems
in California's prison system. Next, short-term relief to allow
long-term solutions to take hold.

The Sacramento Bee, 2100 Q St., P.O. Box 15779, Sacramento, CA 95852
Phone: (916) 321-1000

III.

[sacbee.com - The online division of The Sacramento Bee]

This story is taken from Opinion at sacbee.com.
Editorial: Look back to find solutions for state's prisons State has plenty of prison cells -- if it invests in options for low-risk inmates

Published 12:01 am PDT Sunday, August 6, 2006
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger says California's prison system faces an overcrowding emergency. He wants to build two new prisons (9,000 beds) and add 15,000 new beds at existing prisons.

This is a bunch of hooey.

California's prisons have plenty of space for the state's 80,000 to 85,000 violent, repeat offenders. The prisons are overcrowded with 170,000 prisoners because lower-level, nonviolent offenders increasingly have been shifted to state prisons. That is the issue that Schwarzenegger and the Legislature should address in the Aug. 7 special session.

To solve this problem, California needs to rediscover and reinvest in options for handling low-level, nonviolent offenders. Here are just a few options for immediate relief:

Conservation camps
Currently, 4,400 nonviolent offenders do time in 39 conservation camps, working on 196 fire crews. In 1992, the state had nearly 6,000 offenders in 49 camps, working on 292 fire crews. The state needs more trained fire and emergency crews than ever. Expanding prison conservation camps would help meet that need and free up 2,000 to 4,000 state prison beds.

Community facilities
The state contracts with counties, cities and private companies to house 5,300 low-level offenders with terms of 18 months or less. These dormitory-style facilities of 200 to 500 people offer training to prepare inmates for life on the outside. In 2002, these facilities housed 7,600 offenders. The state could free up 3,000 to 10,000 beds by expanding these programs.

Schwarzenegger has proposed 4,500 community corrections beds for women and 4,000 for men. But he has added a fatal flaw: requiring that these facilities be staffed with state prison guards, which makes these facilities much more expensive and undercuts their training efforts. Legislators should reject that new requirement.

Older prisoners
The state has 8,500 prisoners who are 55 and older. The state should evaluate each one and place low-risk, frail prisoners in public nursing homes or on house arrest with electronic monitoring. This could free up 1,000 or more beds.

Re-entry Centers
In 2003, the state contracted with local public and private providers for 32 re-entry centers, which housed 1,045 nonviolent offenders in their last 120 days in prison. In 2004, the program was changed and then abruptly ended. In 2005, the state put out bids for 17 re-entry centers for 745 offenders. Expanding this program could free up 1,000 to 5,000 beds.

Oddly, the governor has proposed that the state build and operate 10 re-entry centers of 500 offenders each. This is a major shift from the re-entry model of smaller locally run centers. Lawmakers should reject this plan.

These short-term options could be implemented immediately. That would help the state to get prison crowding and prison budgets under control. The alternative -- building more state prison cells and filling them with more and more low-risk offenders -- will simply make the existing crisis even worse.

About the editorial:

* This is the third of four editorials on how to solve the problems in California's prison system. Next: Lawmakers should just say "No."

Copyright © The Sacramento Bee, (916) 321-1000

IV.

[sacbee.com - The online division of The Sacramento Bee]

This story is taken from Opinion at sacbee.com.
Editorial: Reject it - now
Governor's prison plan would worsen crisis

Published 12:01 am PDT Monday, August 7, 2006
This is the last in a series of four editorials on the special session on prisons.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has called California's legislators into special session to make the state's broken prison system bigger. The Legislature should waste no time rejecting this approach.

Building more prisons won't fix the system's problems, but it will be a big boost for one group: the prison guards union, known as the California Correctional Peace Officers Association.

Back in January, the CCPOA came to the Legislature with a plan for two new prisons in 2006 and two more in 2010. Schwarzenegger essentially has adopted this plan -- and expanded it. The governor wants to build two new prisons (9,000 beds) and add 15,000 new beds to existing prisons.

Worse, he wants to require community corrections facilities run by counties, cities and private companies to have state prison guards as custody staff. This change would make these programs prohibitively expensive. It also would ruin the emphasis on education, vocational training and addiction programs to prepare Level I and II minimum-security inmates for life on the outside.

Worse still, Schwarzenegger wants to build 10 re-entry miniprisons (500 beds each) for parole violators and inmates serving their last 90 days. These would be state-run and staffed by state prison guards. This is a major shift away from contracting for locally run re-entry centers housing about 50 offenders each.

Schwarzenegger's plan isn't just about bonds for new bricks and mortar. It's about piling up long-term costs for state taxpayers.

If you add 10,000 new CCPOA prison guards -- not just at new state prisons but also at community corrections facilities and new miniprisons -- you have to figure costs of $100,000 a year each (salary, benefits and overtime). That alone adds $1 billion a year in new costs to already out-of-control prison budgets.

The governor's plan is a bonanza for the guards union, but it does nothing to deal with the real issue.

California's state prison system was intended and designed to house violent, repeat offenders serving long terms. Yet increasingly it has become filled with lower-level, nonviolent offenders serving sentences of a year or less -- prisoners who used to be handled at the local level.

Here's an example of how wrong things have gone. Today, 9,000 Level I minimum security prisoners are serving time in Level IV, maximum security housing. This is like a hospital putting people with a mild case of the flu in intensive care beds. It is outrageously expensive and utterly unnecessary.

As we've noted in editorials over the past three days, the key to fixing overcrowded prisons and out-of-control prison budgets is changing the way California handles low-level, nonviolent offenders. And the first step to that is to restore the balance between the state and local corrections responsibilities.

The governor's plan doesn't do that. Instead, it will make the problem worse and the eventual solutions more difficult. If lawmakers are serious about getting control of the state's prison system, the governor's plan should be dead on arrival.

Copyright © The Sacramento Bee, (916) 321-1000