Oct. 21, 2007
|
Back behind bars Prisoner rehab necessary
For instance, recent research points out that while total national spending on corrections has jumped to more than $60 billion from just $9 billion in 1980, recidivism rates have barely changed. "More than half of released prisoners are back behind bars within three years," concluded the Pew Center on the States in its study "Public Safety, Public Spending: Forecasting America's Prison Population 2007 to 2011." The discussion is particularly timely in Michigan for a number of reasons. First, Michigan has the 10th highest incarceration rate in the nation, which means we have more prisoners behind bars for longer periods. Second is the basic fact that corrections constitutes 25 percent of expenses in the state's general fund. One-third of all state employees work in the prisons, so it follows that we should ask whether "we are getting the desired results, or whether we have reached the point of diminishing return with no drop in crime rate," said Russ Marlin, spokesman for the state Department of Corrections. This is exactly the kind of discussion in which Gov. Jennifer Granholm and state lawmakers should have engaged the taxpayers, instead of the mindless debate over whether taxes should be raised or services cut. In the case of corrections policy, it may be possible to both reduce expenses and improve results. "No policymaker is likely to (or should) pursue a path that saves prison money if it runs a substantial risk of increasing recidivism or crime rates," said the Pew study. "On the other hand, an option that can lead to better public safety outcomes while saving money is the picture that goes alongside the dictionary definition of win-win." It cost an average of $23,876 to house a prisoner annually in 2005, but that figure was $29,743 in Michigan. Elsewhere, the pricetag ranges from $13,009 in Louisiana to $44,860 in Rhode Island. At 502 inmates per 100,000 population, Michigan's incarceration rate far exceeds the Midwestern average of 392. Why is this the case? Marlin said there are a number of reasons, but the chief one appears to be the discretion Michigan law gives judges in sentencing of some criminals, which is different from what is permitted in most states. The 40 percent rate of imprisonment in discretionary cases is far more than what was anticipated when the guidelines were set. It could also be that "there are not enough other options," Marlin said. Such alternatives could include use of drug courts, tethering or home arrest and treatment for mental illness. Marlin said that 25 percent of inmates are known to suffer some form of mental illness. To that end, state Sen. Liz Brater, D-Ann Arbor, has introduced legislation that would create mental health courts. Judges could direct people suffering from mental illness to these courts to receive treatment instead of prison when they are charged with minor offenses. One program devised to help lower the incarceration rate through reducing recidivism is meeting with significant success. In the first year of its operation, the Michigan Prisoner Re-entry Initiative has reduced the incidence of repeat offenses by 20 percent. It consists of a system of services for offenders from the time of their entry to prison through their transition, community reintegration and aftercare. Connecticut has shown the most innovation in terms of reducing both prison population and crime, according to the Pew study. "Connecticut may provide one of the most striking and successful examples of policy intervention," the study said. "Using data-driven analyses, Connecticut policymakers identified that parole and probation violators were driving much of the prison growth. They passed legislation in 2004 that set a goal of reducing parole and probation revocations by 20 percent, and hired 96 new probation officers, reducing caseloads from approximately 160 cases per officer in January 2004 to approximately 100 cases per officer in June 2005. "As part of a Ôjustice reinvestment' strategy, Connecticut redirected $13 million of the expected savings from those reforms into recidivism reduction initiatives. The state funded two programs targeting violators, and required the development of a comprehensive re-entry plan, with focus on the specific neighborhoods to which most prisoners were returning. "Within two years following the development and adoption of this strategy, Connecticut went from having one of the fastest-growing prison populations in the nation to experiencing a decline steeper than almost any other state. Crime rates in Connecticut also dropped during this period, faster than they were falling in the nation overall." The Pew study said state and federal prisons will swell by more than 192,000 inmates over the next five years if current trends continue. This 13-percent jump would triple the projected growth of the general U.S. population, and will raise the prison census to a total of more than 1.7 million people. Imprisonment levels are expected to keep rising in all but four states, reaching a national rate of 550 per 100,000, or one of every 182 Americans. "If you put them all together in one place, the incarcerated population in just five years will outnumber the residents of Atlanta, Baltimore and Denver combined. The national price tag is staggering. The projected 192,023 new prisoners -- leave aside the current population of more than 1.5 million inmates -- could cost as much as $27.5 billion: potentially a cumulative $15 billion in new operating costs and $12.5 billion in new construction costs by 2011. "Every additional dollar spent on prisons, of course, is one dollar less that can go to preparing for the next Hurricane Katrina, educating young people, providing health care to the elderly, or repairing roads and bridges." Programs like the Michigan Prisoner Re-entry Initiative needs to be expanded. We can't afford not to. Glenn Gilbert is executive editor of The Oakland Press. Contact him at (248) 745-4587 or
glenn.gilbert@oakpress.com.
|