Single Page
Let's work together to bend the corrections cost curveYou may have seen a lot of news lately about the rising cost of Alaska’s corrections system. We have to face the facts: Prisons are incredibly expensive -- regardless of where or how they are built. It’s time for us to start focusing on why we have had to build a new prison in the first place. Alaska is not alone in its prison-cost woes. When Texas Republican Representative Jerry Madden was appointed chair of the Texas Department of Corrections budget committee, the very conservative Speaker of the Texas House sat him down and said: “Don’t build new prisons, they cost too much.” Those eight words shaped Madden’s work on the Texas corrections budget. At the Smart Justice Summit I hosted in early October, Representative Madden told the bipartisan panel that since he heard those eight words, Texas hasn’t built any new prisons. If a tough-on-crime state like Texas can stop spiraling prison costs, I believe Alaska can too. The high cost of building prisons is just the tip of the iceberg. Alaska’s yearly operating expense for the prison system tops $283 million, up from $210 million just three years ago -- an 11-percent increase annually -- driven primarily by the high rate at which ex-offenders return to prison after release. The Alaska Department of Corrections reports that 66 percent of all criminals go back to prison after release, but only a small percentage are going back for new crimes. Most return for violations of their probation or parole, and substance abuse is the overwhelming cause of those violations. In 2008 Texas faced a similar story: skyrocketing costs due to re-incarceration after release related to substance abuse and technical violations. Texas tackled this problem head-on, using data-driven cost-benefit analysis from sound business planning. Texas deployed taxpayer dollars on only the most cost-effective and proven strategies for reducing the rate at which ex-criminals reoffend and return to prison. Texas invested heavily on new infrastructure, both in-prison and out, that would facilitate substance abuse treatment programs, including 800 new beds in a residential treatment program for low-level offenders on mandatory supervision with substance abuse problems, 500 new beds for an in-prison treatment unit targeting people with DUI offenses, and 1,500 new beds for an in-prison intensive substance abuse treatment program. Texas also made a substantial increase in substance abuse treatment programs including outpatient substance abuse treatment for 3,000 criminals on mandatory supervision and intensive substance abuse treatment for an additional 1,200 prisoners in custody. Texas broke the cycle of re-offense after release by focusing on probationers. The state built 1,400 new beds in sanction facilities that would divert probation and parole technical violators from expensive prison beds and 300 new beds in halfway house facilities for people under mandatory supervision. Further, new state regulations required the application of swift and certain sanctions to probation violators and capped the total number of probationers assigned to each probation officer. At the same time, Texas refused to be “soft-on-crime,” but it did establish a number of diversion programs such as drug courts and other specialty courts to order low-level offenders into treatment programs rather than sending them to costly prison beds. Texas spent a lot of money on all these new programs -- $241 million to be exact. But Texas saved $441 million in prison costs as a result. These smart-on-crime strategies actually saved Texas taxpayers $200 million. Admittedly, Texas is very different from Alaska. Given our large geographic size and our scattered and diffuse population, Alaska faces unique correctional challenges. Fortunately, the residential treatment programs and diversion strategies employed by Texas are very well suited to the remoteness and isolation of Alaska’s communities. Recent research shows higher rates of successful reentry into society when offenders are rehabilitated near their home communities. An expansion of localized residential treatment and mandatory supervision in rural communities could reduce correctional costs while improving rehabilitative outcomes.
Ellis has always been the voice of reason when it comes to corrections and criminal justice. The state could save many millions by adopting 21st Century policies. He helped save us from the for-profit ripoff artists like Bill Weimar and Cornell Corrections. The latter apparently scored when it got the Alaska contract despite being the high bidder. Someone needs to investigate the Department of Corrections and Joe Schmidt. Here's my plan: Once a year the prison barge leaves for the Russian Far East. On board are one year's worth of convicts, all sentenced to four years or more. The Russians will look after them for $10 a day. With this low-cost approach there will be no more worries about the cost of sending some scumbag to the slammer for 20 years. I don't believe in a social-work approach to corrections. Some people do not belong in society. This removes them, but still allows them a life of sorts. It's odd we incarcerate so many people compared to other nations. What's odd about it is there are so many people walking around that should be locked up but aren't. "An expansion of localized residential treatment and mandatory supervision in rural communities could reduce correctional costs while improving rehabilitative outcomes." So, What senator Ellis is advocating is building and staffing residential treatment facilities in every village. Noble thought, and well spoken, certainly, but a battle still being fought at the wrong end of the field. So long as hopelessness and alienation are the hand maidens of joblessness and entitlement there will be no effective by-in to society in general from the membership of that portion of society most likely to wind up involved in some aspect of the criminal justice system. Without the perception of a personal value in the success of society the infliction of injury on society is of no real consequence. You can spend $250 million on prisons, or you can spend $250 million on social engineering programs for violators after they've violated. Either way, you've spent $250 million, fattened one bureaucracy or created another, and not addressed the problem where it could do the most good - before the offense is committed. Only a political climate that robustly supports the creation of public sector jobs, that creates incentives for all Alaskans to earn a shared stake in what happens to society, will turn this issue around to meet the problem head on. Otherwise, you're going to need a new prison eventually, regardless of what they say in Texas. |
Comments