The Real Cost of Prisons Weblog

There is, however, one budget area that is growing at unsustainable rates and every recent attempt to control its growth has not tamed the monster. That monster is, of course, corrections.

In 10 years, Vermont's incarceration rate has increased 73 percent, compared with 19 percent nationwide. In those same 10 years, Vermont's violent crime rate has increased by 2 percent and property crime has decreased by 31 percent. A recent study, released in February by the Pew Charitable Trust, estimates that, "By 2011, without changes in sentencing or release policies, Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Montana and Vermont can expect to see one new prisoner for every three currently in the system."

Over the past 10 years, Vermont has seen an increase of about 100 beds per year. On June 6, 2006, Vermont's in-state prison population was 1,591, and there were 562 out of state, for a total of 2,153. In fact, state spending on corrections has risen faster than any other area of state government; double-digit increases have been the norm for several years.

Between 2006 and 2008 the budget rose by 16.4 percent, from $110 million in 2006 to nearly $129 million for fiscal year 2008, and if nothing changes, that trend can be expected for the foreseeable future. To put it another way, a family of four will pay an average of $800 in state taxes just to support corrections.

It may be little consolation, but we are not alone: In 1982 American taxpayers spent $9 billion for corrections; by 2002 that number had mushroomed to $60 billion. The Pew Charitable Trust study found that "one in every 32 U.S. adults is currently under some form of correctional supervision" and that "by 2011 Š one in every 182 U.S. residents will live in prison."

I doubt many would argue the need for prison space for violent offenders, but in Vermont between 40 percent and 45 percent of the males who are incarcerated are in prison for offenses that the Corrections Department classifies as nonviolent. With females, roughly 70 percent are incarcerated for nonviolent offenses. That means that on any given day, from 900 to 1,000 offenders are incarcerated for nonviolent offenses.

This year's Town Meeting Day survey by Sen. Bill Doyle, while not scientific, asked: "Should we reduce the Vermont prison population through the use of alternatives for nonviolent offenders?" ‹ 68 percent of those who responded said yes, with 18 percent opposed.

In 2006 the Legislature and the governor came together in support of Senate Bill 156, a corrections reform bill designed to reduce overcrowding. While many of the elements of that law, such as term probation, have yet to have an impact, we expect they will help reduce future prison populations. However, other initiatives in that bill, such as the establishment of a second work camp for 100 offenders and the use of electronic monitoring, have stalled.

This year during the Senate Appropriations Committee's budget deliberations I was trying to find $100,000 for a desperately needed intensive substance abuse program in my district, but the money just was not there. At the same time, I began looking at the cost per bed by correctional facilities in Vermont. The cost to house one offender at the Dale facility in Waterbury in 2006 was $66,667 per year, equivalent to the cost of tuition for six in-state students at the University of Vermont. The overall average in Vermont facilities in 2006 was $42,000 per year, while out-of-state costs averaged about $20,000 per year.

This frustration led to a plan I proposed to the Appropriations Committee that with some modification made its way into law as part of the 2008 budget bill. That plan, while controversial, articulates an effort to reduce the unsustainable growth in the cost of corrections, while at the same time keeping Vermont one of the safest states in the nation.

The plan's focus for reductions is on facilities because roughly 75 percent of the corrections budget is spent on incarceration, thus any significant reductions will need to be in prison beds. The plan includes the option of closing the Dale facility, changing the use of the women's facility in Windsor, renovating the Chittenden facility to make it into a women's facility, and using one or more facilities for detention. In addition, the plan requires the state to seek contracts for out-of-state facilities that are as close to Vermont as possible.

The plan also requires the department to come up with options to reduce operating costs by $4 million ‹ one half of which shall be invested in re-entry services. Finally, it requires the department to come up with a plan to reduce the number of nonviolent offenders incarcerated by 10 percent by July 1, 2008.

In the long term we must do more to prevent crime, and we need to double our efforts in finding reasonable alternatives for nonviolent offenders while holding our limited and valuable prison beds for those we and our families truly need protection from.

Sen. Richard Sears, D-Bennington, is chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070708/FEATURES15/
707080301/1030/FEATURES15