Levine: Fix our prison policy

Spend less on Corrections to protect resources for other important services

Written by

Barbara Levine
For the Lansing State Journal

10:32 AM, Apr. 11, 2011 

Why are we making draconian cuts to numerous critical state services but avoiding safe, reasonable cuts to spending on corrections?

That's the $500 million question.

The Department of Corrections budget proposed for Fiscal Year 2012 continues to be $2 billion and to consume nearly 25 percent of all general fund spending. Meanwhile, proposed cuts include: K-12 education - $781 million; higher education - $216 million; revenue sharing - $101 million; state employee concessions - $180 million; Earned Income Tax Credit elimination - $350 million.

Saving $500 million in corrections would not avoid all these results, but it would help mitigate them substantially.

There are three ways to reduce corrections spending:

• Lower the prisoner population.

• Reduce personnel costs.

• Make department operations more efficient.

If all three approaches are utilized, without excessive reliance on any one, a half-billion dollars could be found in corrections without jeopardizing the safety of the public or of the institutions in which employees must work and prisoners must live. (For further information, see www.corrections.crcmich.org.)

The quickest way to make corrections dollars available for other state programs is to reduce the population.

The Citizens Alliance on Prisons and Public Spending estimates that simply increasing the parole approval rates for those people who have served their minimum sentences, are not at high risk for reoffending and do not have poor institutional conduct, could save $243 million.

Restoring modest amounts of credit for good conduct could save anther $40.5 million. Restoring community transition programs for selected people who are nearing parole could save $22 million more. If the will were there, such changes could begin in time to affect spending choices in fiscal year 2012.

Michigan has 10,000 prisoners currently eligible for release. No one suggests they should all just be let out the door. However, research and experience have proven three points:

• More people can be released from prison sooner without any significant impact on public safety.

• Lengthy incarceration is not a cost-effective crime control strategy.

• We pay a great deal to extend people's incarceration based on how we feel about the offense, rather than on their actual risk of reoffending.

Although it has declined substantially from its all-time high, Michigan's prison population still stands at roughly 44,000. In the last 40 years, our state population has grown by 6.7 percent while our prisoner population has grown by 191 percent.

Prison growth results from numerous policy choices. We closed mental hospitals without adequately funding community-based treatment; now as many as 20 percent of prisoners are mentally ill.

We got tough on parole and now 23 percent of the population is past their first parole date.

We eliminated all sentencing credit and community transition programs in the name of "truth in sentencing," which helped push our average length of stay well beyond that of similar states.

We established sentencing guidelines, then eliminated the commission that was supposed to monitor their effectiveness.

Because of these choices we incarcerate thousands of prisoners who we know are at low risk for reoffending.

Surely now is the time to reconsider our priorities.