Microsoft Word Economy and CJ Brief Draft 5 07 09

Transcript

1 Pruning Prisons: How Cutting Corrections Can Save Money and Protect Public Safety The Justice Policy Institute May 2009 is dedicated to ending society’s reliance on incarceration and Introduction promoting effective and just solutions to social problems. ealities, states and localities As the United States grapples with harsh economic r Board of Directors utions that are not cost-effective. continue to cut budgets, shed jobs, and trim instit Among the least cost-effective are prison and jail systems. Federal, state and local Tara Andrews At-Large lars a year on a system that governments are spending a combined $68 billion dol does not definitively improve public safety, but, i nstead, destabilizes communities, David C. Fathi s. Research has shown that over the harms families, and derails the lives of individual Board Chair son populations have not seen last 10 years, states that have increased their pri Katharine Huffman time, the states that have reduced concurrent decreases in violent crime. At the same At-Large 1 gest drops in violent crime. their incarceration rates have seen some of the lar Peter Leone, Ph.D. can save money and improve While system changes can be daunting, policymakers Board Treasurer hich use existing, evidence- public safety by making incremental changes today w and spending. The primary based strategies to reduce correctional populations Administrative Staff findings in this brief include: Tracy Velázquez Executive Director every year. The United States’ prison system continues to grow Over 2.3 million people are incarcerated in U.S. prisons and jails. As state prisons hold nearly 60 Debra Glapion percent of the people incarcerated, yearly increase s in the prison system are most Administrative Director keenly felt by states. Research Staff Over the last arceration each year. The United States spends billions of dollars on inc ing on corrections has been 10 years the average yearly increase of state spend Amanda Petteruti Research & Publications tates would be expected to spend approximately 3 percent. If such trends continue, s 2 Associate 10. more than $50 billion on corrections per year by 20 Nastassia Walsh Increasing the availability of parole could save go vernment agencies millions of dollars. Research Associate llion dollars per year if they reduced State and federal agencies would save roughly $3 bi Ellen Tuzzolo iduals into the parole system. the prison population by 10 percent by moving indiv Associate Director Improving parole services and supports could save s tates millions of dollars. Southern Initiatives 7 returned to prison for a Approximately 26 percent of people on parole in 200 Communications Staff pervision to one of support and technical violation. By shifting the modality of su son for technical violations. If service, states could send fewer people back to pri LaWanda Johnson states returned only half as many people to prison for technical violations, the justice Communications Director system could save approximately $1.1 billion. Laura Jones Communications Advisor is more cost-effective than Substance abuse treatment provided in the community rge portion of Substance-involved people have come to compose a la imprisonment. Emily Sydnor role in the commission of certain the prison population and substance use may play a Communications Assistant prison and 18 percent of people crimes. Approximately 16 percent of people in state to obtain money for drugs. in federal prison reported committing their crimes 1003 K Street, NW, Suite 500 most cost-effective ways to Treatment delivered in the community is one of the Washington, DC 20001 Phone: 202-558-7974 less than incarceration per prevent such crimes and costs approximately $20,000 Fax: 202-558-7978 person per year. www.justicepolicy.org 1

2 Pruning Prisons rove public safety. Community-based programs are cost effective and imp Community-based alternatives to prison can ensure that people stay in the community with educational and employment opportunities, family, and other support systems. F or youth, especially, there are a growing number of evidence-based alternatives that cost less and are more effective than incarceration, such as Multisystemic Therapy. Incarcerating people with mental illnesses is expen sive and ineffective. Prisons make poor treatment facilities for people with a mental illness. Increa sing investments in community-based treatment, improving diversion from prison, and ensuring that those leaving prison have adequate care, all will reduce the financial burden of imprisoning people w ith a mental illness. Reinvesting money now spent on incarceration in oth er social institutions will improve public safety i n the long term. Making smart investments in communities and social institutions is the most effective way of improving public safety and supporting commu nities. Research shows that states that spend more on education have lower crime rates than state s that spend less. Investments in housing also correlate with lower incarceration rates. Making bu dgetary cuts in services that increase opportunitie s and strengthen communities could result in increase s in crime – and its resultant costs – in the futur e. Some states have already started to reduce their pr In order to keep ison populations to save money. our communities safe, government agencies should ta ke cues from states like Texas, Nevada, New York, New Jersey and Georgia, who have significantly redu ced prison populations through increased use of release mechanisms like parole and investments in c ommunities. Thus far, there is no evidence that the reduction of the prison population in those states has negatively impacted public safety. For several decades, policymakers have tried to spe nd their way to public safety via “cops, courts and corrections.” This has been a failed strategy. Whi le completely re-engineering these systems will tak e time, there is much policymakers can do right now to safely reduce incarceration rates, making fundin g available for the investments in education, employm e ent services, housing and treatment that will creat safer, healthier communities for years to come. For details on how to cut costs in the juvenile jus tice system, please see the Justice Policy Institut e’s companion brief, The Costs of Confinement: Why Good Juvenile Justice Policies Make Good Fiscal Sense , available at www.justicepolicy.org. 2

3 Pruning Prisons The United States spends billions of dollars on inc arceration each year As states and localities face looming budget crises , correctional spending by state governments alone is 3 predicts that state The National Association of State Budget Officers approximately $43 billion annually. 4 Over the last 10 years the to 47 billion in 2008. corrections spending will have increased 6 percent average yearly increase of state spending on correc tions has been approximately 3 percent. Unless states begin to reign in prison expansion, they are on track to spend more than $50 billion on 5 corrections per year by 2010. State Prison Populations and Costs, 2007 and 2008 Correctional % Correctional % Expenditures Population Expenditures Change Change Population State State in Millions, 2008 in Millions, 2007- 2007- 2008* 2007** 2008* 2007 2008 $387 Montana 3,564 3.5% $138 Alabama 28,844 2.0% Alaska Nebraska 4,244 -1.8% $169 2,449 -20.6% $248 Arizona 36,735 -0.9% 6.2% $225 $895 12,915 Nevada 0.1% New Hampshire 2,798 4.4% $92 Arkansas 14,484 $313 California 173,186 New Jersey 26,490 -3.7% $1,504 -0.8% $8,678 $576 Colorado 23,130 -3.2% $238 2.1% 6,096 New Mexico 14,389 New York 61,799 -2.1% $2,889 $631 Connecticut 3.0% North Carolina 33,775 3.1% $252 $1,156 Delaware 4,130 -1.5% $2,707 Florida 100,494 5.7% 1.0% $54 North Dakota 1,450 $997 Georgia Ohio 51,160 1.5% $1,766 -1.4% 52,481 0.4% $201 -1.2% Oklahoma 24,345 $461 Hawaii 4,280 -0.3% $175 $637 Idaho 7,338 0.4% Oregon 14,035 Illinois $1,230 45,215 Pennsylvania 45,770 1.5% $1,638 -0.8% $645 2.0% Rhode Island 2,534 4.8% $156 27,343 Indiana -0.7% 8,740 Iowa 3.8% $438 $319 South Carolina 24,074 -2.5% South Dakota 3,351 -2.5% $74 Kansas 8,633 $310 $465 Kentucky Tennessee 26,998 20,825 $572 -1.6% 2.1% $539 Texas 162,578 -0.2% $2,811 Louisiana 37,830 2.9% Utah 6,353 -1.0% $138 $324 Maine 1,747 -0.1% 1.0% $1,166 Vermont Maryland 1,555 -4.4% $116 22,636 3.6% $1,126 10,171 Virginia 39,224 3.7% $1,136 Massachusetts Washington 17,398 -0.3% $2,064 -0.2% $823 Michigan 50,482 3.8% $436 West Virginia 6,058 $168 Minnesota 9,964 0.7% 4.3% $227 Wisconsin Mississippi 21,705 -5.4% $1,037 22,009 Wyoming 2,073 30,455 $556 -1.9% $1 Missouri 0.2% $43,904 State Totals 1,360,332 0.7% 30, 2008. of state or federal correctional authorities, June * Number of sentenced prisoners under jurisdiction (Washington, Prison Inmates at Midyear 2008—Statistical Tables Source: Heather C. West and William J. Sabol, ov/bjs/abstract/pim08st.htm. D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2009) www.ojp.g **Source: National Association of State Budget Offi . (Washington, 2007 State Expenditure Reports cers, . DC: National Association of State Budget Officers, 2007). www.nasbo.org/Publications/PDFs/fy2007er.pdf 3

4 Pruning Prisons Some evidence suggests that although crime rates do have some impact on increasing incarceration rates, available resources to increase capacity hav e a similar and significant impact. New research arceration rates over the last 30 years is attribut able suggests that about 30 percent of the change in inc to increases in state resources to build more priso n beds, with crime rates accounting for 32 to 44 6 Thus, decreasing spending on incarceration would have a correlate effect on percent of the increase. incarceration rates. 4

5 Pruning Prisons Incarceration does not necessarily benefit public s afety Incarceration has not been definitively shown to re duce crime rates. Bruce Western at Harvard Universi ty cline in the 1990s was due to increased use of recently found that only 10 percent of the crime de 7 t increases in incarceration rates did not Between 1998 and 2007, states that had the greates incarceration. . Some states (Maryland Massachusetts, Nevada, New necessarily see a corresponding drop in crime rates Jersey, New York, North Carolina, South Carolina, a nd Texas) lowered their incarceration rates and sti ll 8 Such uneven results do not support continued over -reliance on experienced a drop in crime rates. incarceration, particularly in a time of fiscal cri sis. States that increased incarceration rates between 1998 annd 2007 did not necessarily experience a decline in crime rates dur ing the same time period. Alabama, -4% Alabama, 22% Alaska *, -15% Alaska *, 7% Arizona, -26% Arizona, 8% Arkansas, 5% Arkansas, 21% California, -18% California, 0% Colorado, -25% Colorado, 32% Connecticut *, -30% Connecticut *, 10% Delaware *, -24% Delaware *, 17% Florida, -30% Florida, 17% Georgia, -20% Georgia, 13% Hawaii *, -16% Hawaii *, 13% Idaho, -33% Idaho, 53% Illinois**, -29% Illinois**, -1% Indiana, -11% Indiana, 35% Iowa *, -17% Iowa *, 13% Kansas, -15% Kansas, 4% Kentucky, -3% Kentucky, 30% Louisiana, -21% Louisiana, 21% Maine, -16% Maine, 10% Maryland, -24% Maryland, -5% Massachusetts, -18% Massachusetts, -10% Michigan, -23% Michigan, 11% Minnesota, -18% Minnesota, 62% Mississippi, -20% Mississippi, 32% Missouri, -12% Missouri, 10% Montana, -25% Montana, 17% Nebraska, -21% Nebraska, 18% Nevada, -14% Nevada, -4% New Hampshire, -16% New Hampshire, 16% New Jersey, -30% New Jersey, -11% New Mexico, -35% New Mexico, 22% New York, -33% New York, -15% North Carolina, -14% North Carolina, -1% North Dakota, -24% North Dakota, 78% Ohio, -12% Ohio, 0% Oklahoma, -20% Oklahoma, 7% Oregon, -32% Oregon, 50% Pennsylvania, -15% Pennsylvania, 22% Rhode Island *, -19% Rhode Island *, 2% South Carolina, -12% South Carolina, -3% South Dakota, -31% South Dakota, 35% Tennessee, -4% Tennessee, 32% Texas, -9% Texas, -3% Utah, -32% Utah, 15% Vermont *, -22% Vermont *, 54% Virginia, -25% Virginia, 22% Washington, -26% Washington, 11% West Virginia, 10% West Virginia, 68% Wisconsin, -12% Wisconsin, 24% Wyoming, -18% Wyoming, 36% 60% -60% 80% 100% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% Incarceration Rate Index Crime Rate 5

6 Pruning Prisons rates Policies continue to fuel increasing incarceration Policies continue to fuel increasing incarceration rates te te In 2008, the Bureau of Justice Statistics reported that there were 2,310,984 people in federal and sta that there were 2,310,984 people in federal and sta that there were 2,310,984 people in federal and sta In 2008, the Bureau of Justice Statistics reported In 2008, the Bureau of Justice Statistics reported te 9 2007 and 2008, the number of people in federal and 2007 and 2008, the number of people in federal and state prisons state prisons Between 2007 and 2008, the number of people in federal and state prisons prisons and local jails. 10 rcent, or by 15,973 people rcent, or by 15,973 people . espite reforms in a number of states, the overall n D increased 1 pe espite reforms in a number of states, the overall n umber umber of people held in federal and state prisons continu es to increase every year at an average es to increase every year at an average rate of about 2 of people held in federal and state prisons continu es to increase every year at an average of people held in federal and state prisons continu the 1990s, the United the 1990s, the United eases have slowed compared to those of incr incr percent per year. Although these States still adds thousands of people to the pr son is ison system each year. The number of people in pri ison system each year. The number of people in pri son is States still adds thousands of people to the pr 11 12 nearly 5 times what it was 30 years ago, nearly 5 times what it was 30 years ago, despite crime rates being at historic lows. , and therefore experience the most out 57 percent of State prisons hold ab people who are incarcerated out 57 percent of , and therefore experience the most e over the 200,000 people in the federal system is growth in numbers. For example, a 2 percent increas e over the 200,000 people in the federal system is e over the 200,000 people in the federal system is growth in numbers. For example, a 2 percent increas growth in numbers. For example, a 2 percent increas mately 1.4 million people in an additional 4,000 people, whereas mately 1.4 million people in a 2 percent increase over the approxi whereas 13 state prisons is 28,000 additional people. In 2008, prison populations increased in 38 states. prison populations increased in 38 states. state prisons is 28,000 additional people. In 2008, prison populations increased in 38 states. state prisons is 28,000 additional people. In 2008, State prisons hold the largest proportion of State prisons hold the largest proportion of incarcerated people. 34% State Prisons 57% 9% Federal Prisons Local Jails Prison Inmates at Midyear Source: Heather C. West and William J. Sabol, Source: Heather C. West and William J. Sabol, stice Statistics, 2009) 2008—Statistical Tables (Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Ju (Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Ju www.ojp.gov/bjs/abstract/pim08st.htm. www.ojp.gov/bjs/abstract/pim08st.htm. While a variety of policies dro ve this increase, several stand out as being both s ignificant and ve this increase, several stand out as being both s ignificant and ignificant and ve this increase, several stand out as being both s ing: ones that policymakers have been effective in chang ing: ones that policymakers have been effective in chang fuel growing prison populations Drug arrests and prosecutions fuel growing prison populations The number of people in state prisons for drug offe nses has increased 550 percent over the last 20 nses has increased 550 percent over the last 20 The number of people in state prisons for drug offe The number of people in state prisons for drug offe nses has increased 550 percent over the last 20 14 not rates of that the amount spent on A recent JPI report found not rates of years. that the amount spent on drug use -- “cops and courts” – Counties that spend more on law enforcement dmissions to prison for drug offenses dmissions to prison for drug offenses is correlated to a Counties that spend more on law enforcement . 15 and the judiciary admit more people to prison for d And rug offenses than counties that spend less. and the judiciary admit more people to prison for d and the judiciary admit more people to prison for d rug offenses than counties that spend less. rug offenses than counties that spend less. the Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement through increases in federal funding Local Law Enforcement through rug enforcement have promoted increases in resources dedicated to d Assistance Grant Program have promoted increases in resources dedicated to d rug enforcement have promoted increases in resources dedicated to d rug enforcement . As crime continues to fall in many communities, law enforcement As crime continues to fall in many communities, law enforcement will have more time to focus on will have more time to policing of drug offenses aggressive policing of drug offenses ; this can be expected to lead to even higher drug imprisonment drug imprisonment BI reports, 83 percent of drug arrests are for BI reports, 83 percent of drug arrests are for rates and crowded jails and prisons. According to F rates and crowded jails and prisons. According to F rates and crowded jails and prisons. According to F BI reports, 83 percent of drug arrests are for 16 n, police possession of illegal drugs alone. And regardless of crime in a particular jurisdictio often And regardless of crime in a particular jurisdictio n, police 17 which can increase the disproportionate target the same neighborhoods to make drug arrests, target the same neighborhoods to make drug arrests, which can increase the disproportionate incarceration of people of color. 6

7 Pruning Prisons Since 2002, more people have entered state prisons than federal prisons. 50,000 Federal State U.S. total 40,000 30,000 prison 20,000 10,000 Change in number of people in 0 01 2001 - 02 2002 - 03 2003 2000 04 2004 - 05 2005 - 06 2006 - 07 - - Sentenced prisoners under State or Federal jurisdi Source: George Hill and Paige Harrison, ction (Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics, 20 05); William J. Sabol, Heather Couture, and Paige . (Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2007). Prisoners in 2006 M. Harrison, www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/p06.pdf; Heather C. W est and William J. Sabol, Prisoners in 2007 08) Appendix, table 3 (Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics, 20 More stringent release policies mean fewer people s upervised on parole in the community s increases 2.9 percent per year and the number of On average, the number of people admitted to prison 18 Put another way, states admit around 23,000 more people released increases 2.6 percent per year. people per year than they release. The difference b etween admissions and release rates may be hat nger sentences and “truth in sentencing” policies t attributable to a number of practices, including lo to behind bars. In addition, many parole boards fail require individuals to serve more of their sentence release to the community individuals who pose littl e e danger to public safety. This is generally becaus d therefore err on the side of caution, often feari they lack adequate tools to make good decisions, an ng the political repercussions of releasing someone wh o might later commit a crime. Strict parole rules fill prisons with people who ha ve trouble re-entering the community Parole is a mechanism that removes people from pris ons and returns them to communities, while maintaining supervision and accountability through the criminal justice system. People on parole are assigned a parole officer and are given varying lev els of supports and services to find and maintain employment and other services like substance abuse treatment. ty. People on parole supervision face a variety of obst acles to successful re-entry to life in the communi Among these can be conditions of parole, which are rules and requirements that must be met by the lead to re-incarceration. Research has found that person on parole. Violating one of these rules can about three in five people on probation or parole r eturn to prison within three years after the start of their supervision; 70 percent of these returns were not for new crimes but for technical violations li ke 19 missing appointments and not maintaining employment . Little is known about the relationship erson on parole will commit a crime. And yet, between conditions of parole and the likelihood a p treating minor rule infractions the same as new off enses is costing states millions in correctional co sts. The increases in drug imprisonment, the decrease in releases from prison, and the re-incarceration for technical parole violations are leading to signific ant overcrowding and contribute to the growing cost s of prisons. Prisons are stretched beyond capacity, cre ating dangerous and unconstitutional conditions 7

8 Pruning Prisons out of 50 states were at 90 percent capacity or mor which often result in costly lawsuits. In 2006, 40 e, 20 with 23 of those states operating at over 100 perce nt capacity. New York – Drug Law Reforms May Lead to Lower Priso n Populations and Cost Savings “This agreement is not the end of the Rockefeller D rug Laws, but very well may represent the beginning of the end.” Robert Gangi, executive director, Correctional Asso ciation of New York Drug Laws have imposed mandatory For over 35 years New York’s draconian Rockefeller sentences on people convicted of possession or sale of relatively small amounts of drugs and led to a dramatic increase in New York’s prison populat ion. But recent reforms may affect thousands of individuals arrested for drug offenses annually and greatly reduce the number of people incarcerated. The reforms restore judicial discreti on for broad categories of individuals charged with drug offenses. The Correctional Association of New York, a non-profit organization founded in 1844 to monitor prisons and to make poli cy recommendations to improve the state’s cent of the people convicted of drug offenses justice system, estimates that between 45 to 55 per currently confined in New York’s prisons – about 5, 400 to 6,600 people – would have been eligible for judicial diversion at sentencing had t hese laws been in place when they were 21 convicted. Currently, it costs New York over $525 million per year to house people convicted of drug 22 offenses in prisons. Even if just 25 percent of people currently incar cerated for drug offenses are diverted from prison due to the reforms, New Yo rk could save $131 million per year in prison expenses. The reforms also provide $70 milli on in additional funding for alternatives to incarceration and drug treatment programs in prison and in the community, which are proven to be cost-effective methods to reduce crime and recid ivism. In response to the state’s declining prison populat ion, New York also plans to close seven prison annexes and three work camps with an estimated savi ngs of $25.4 million over the next two 23 fiscal years. What follows in subsequent sections are a set of re commendations policymakers can use now to reduce spending or incarceration while protecting public s afety. 8

9 Pruning Prisons Increasing the availability of parole could save go vernment agencies millions of dollars Despite public perception that people on parole are likely to commit more crimes, the vast majority of offense. Approximately one in 10 people on parole i n people on parole do not return to prison for a new 24 People on parole are more likely to have the valua ble 2006 returned to prison on a new offense. community supports that are not available inside pr ison walls. State and federal agencies could save sed roughly $3 billion dollars per year if they reduced the prison population by 10 percent through increa people who are in state prisons for nonviolent parole use. A good place to start is paroling more offenses. In 2005, there were approximately 609,000 people in prison for nonviolent offenses, 41.5 25 percent (253,300) of whom were imprisoned for drug offenses. n in 2007 would save Paroling 10 percent of the people who were in priso ion.* state and federal governments approximately $3 bill Population Number 26 Total number of people in prison (state and federal ) 1,598,316 27 10 percent of total prison population 159,831 Cost Description of Expenditure 28 Cost of incarceration (per person in prison per yea r) $22,650 29 per $4,000 Cost of parole (estimated per individual on parole year) 30 n $3,620,172,150 Money spent on incarcerating 10 percent of people i prison 31 Money spent to parole 10 percent of people in priso $639,324,000 n n $ Money saved by releasing 10 percent of the people i 2,980,848,150 prison onto parole supervision tates no longer have discretionary * This table does not take into account that some s parole, and that a percentage of the incarcerated p opulation are serving sentences for after a set period of time with little or which parole is either not an option or is granted no flexibility. Policymakers should consider revisi ng statutes that unnecessarily limit parole eligibility. Given their mandate to protect public safety, parol e boards and policymakers need to make informed choices when deciding how to expand the number of p eople released onto parole supervision. The ways anisms include: some states are improving their parole release mech Use of actuarial risk assessment instruments, which can help identify more people who can be • safely released on parole and supervised in the com - risk populations include munity. Some lower people who have been convicted of nonviolent or dru g offenses and older individuals • Improved case planning – beginning at the commencem ent of their prison term when possible – to ensure people receive the services and treatment they need to be eligible for parole • Increased use of “good time credits,” which are ear ned by people in prison through compliance with rules and regulations and completion of treatm ent and programs 9

10 Pruning Prisons • Development or expansion of medical parole, which a llows people who are seriously ill to be released to supervision, where they can receive app ropriate care in the community, often using federal funds that are inaccessible when a person i s in prison. bility of parole Mississippi – Saving money by increasing the availa rections (MDOC) announced that it was In November 2008, the Mississippi Department of Cor submitting 2,900 cases to the parole board for poss ible early release. As one of the largest state agencies, MDOC faced a significant 2 percent budget cut. By increasing parole availability and removing other people from private prisons and jail s in the state, MDOC projected it would save 32 more than $6.5 million. 10

11 Pruning Prisons Improving parole services and supports could save s tates millions of dollars e or probation grew 12 percent, to over 5 million Between 2000 and 2007 the number of people on parol 33 The growth in the use of parole and recent state l egislation expanding parole suggests that people. arole in particular as a mechanism to quickly reduc states and the federal government are focusing on p e prison population. But states are realizing that us ing parole more will not successfully reduce correctional populations if individuals end up back in jail or prison, as many do now. In addition to expanding parole eligibility, reforms to these syst ems can ensure that people already under community supervision are successful in the long term and do not return to prison. es people must follow, and changing parole response s Improving the services, carefully examining the rul 34 States that to parole behaviors increase the chances that a per son on parole will stay out of prison. have successfully improved outcomes for people on p arole have done so through a combination of the following practices, including: • enforcement orientation to one more focused on Shifting the supervision modality from a law - helping people be successful in the community; ision behavior that include positive • Developing systems of graduated responses to superv - incarcerative sanctions; and incentives, treatment, and non Matching intensity of supervision to the level of r isk and needs of the individual, so people who • have greater needs have more case management, while those with fewer needs aren’t excessively burdened with parole requirements. Nationally, in 2007 there were approximately 121,00 cal 0 returns to prison at the state level for a techni 35 If states reduced by half the number of people sen t back to prison for technical violations, violation. state justice systems could save about $1.1 billion in incarceration costs, taking into account the co st of parole. 11

12 Pruning Prisons of the people whose parole was revoked for States could potentially save $1.1 billion if half technical violations in 2007 had remained in the co mmunity. Number of people Half of the number Potential cost savings of people who who were State returned to prison (Cost of incarceration - return to prison for Cost of Parole) technical violations on a parole from parole violation in 2007 Alabama 299 150 $ 2,788,175 2,728 1,364 $ 25,438,60 Arizona 0 Arkansas 963 $ 17,959,950 1,926 61,602 $ 574,43 8,650 California 30,801 3,283 1,642 $ 30,613,9 75 Colorado 1,394 697 $ 12,999,050 Florida Georgia 3,514 1,757 $ 32,768,05 0 Hawaii 302 151 $ 2,816,150 Idaho 389 $ 3,627,425 195 774 $ 7,217,550 Iowa 387 Kansas 1,293 647 $ 12,057,225 2,566 Kentucky $ 23,927,9 50 1,283 Louisiana 1,036 518 $ 9,660,7 00 Maryland 769 385 $ 7,170,925 Michigan 1,051 $ 19,591,8 25 2,101 Minnesota 2,064 1,032 $ 19,246, 800 Missouri 7,049 3,525 $ 65,731, 925 Montana 183 92 $ 1,706,475 Nebraska 245 123 $ 2,284,625 Nevada $ 1,193,600 64 128 New Jersey 2,483 $ 23,153 ,975 1,242 9,704 $ 90,489,8 00 New York 4,852 105 53 $ 9 79,125 North Carolina 136 68 $ 1,268, 200 North Dakota Ohio 549 275 $ 5,119,425 Oregon 2,012 1,006 $ 18,761,900 Pennsylvania 1,680 $ 31,3 22,675 3,359 Rhode Island 88 44 $ 820, 600 South Carolina 172 86 $ 1,603 ,900 South Dakota 758 379 $ 7,068, 350 909 Tennessee 455 $ 8,476,425 Texas 2,242 $ 20,906,650 1,121 1,320 $ 12,309,000 Utah 660 Vermont 83 42 $ 773,975 406 West Virginia $ 3,785 ,950 203 Wisconsin 3,080 1,540 $ 28,721, 000 Wyoming 68 34 $ 634,100 State Total 60,560 $ 1,129, 434,675 121,119 *Data not available for the following states: Alask a, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Vi rginia and Washington. Methodology: Potential Cost Savings: (Half of numbe r of people returned to prison for technical violat ions X Average cost of incarceration for one person for on e year ($22,650)) – (Half number of people returned to prison for technical violations X Average cost of parole pe r person per year ($4,000) Source: Lauren E. Glaze and Thomas P. Bonczar, Probation and Parole in the United States, 2007 Sta tistical Tables . t.pdf stics, 2008). www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/ppus07s Table 7. (Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Stati 12

13 Pruning Prisons people on probation or parole These six states are increasing the likelihood that stay out of prison A May 2007 law established 3,800 combined beds for residential and out-patient drug Texas – treatment for people on probation, maximum sentence lengths for people on probation, maximum case limits for parole officers, and incent ives for counties that establish progressive 36 sanctioning models for parole and probation systems . By enacting these policies, the state saved $210.5 million for the 2008–2009 fiscal bienn ium. If new treatment and diversion programs are successful and no additional prisons a re constructed, the state will save an 37 additional $233 million. – Under 2007 legislation, people in prison are gran ted a 60-day credit for participation in Kansas certain programs designed to facilitate reintegrati on into the community. The projected savings is approximately $80 million in the next five years. P rior to the legislation, Kansas had already been changing the philosophy of parole by hiring so cial workers to be parole officers and asking parole officers to ensure that people on parole sta y out of prison, rather than simply monitoring 38 them to catch them if they violate the terms of pro bation. Maryland – The Proactive Community Supervision initiative shi fts probation and parole to a customer service modality that enhances the availab ility of services and resources. Research has o enter prison either on a new sentence or on a shown that people enrolled in PCS are less likely t 39 revocation that people that did not participate. – In 2007, the state legislature passed a bill all Nevada owing people on probation to earn credits tion also establishes a series of graduated toward the reduction of their sentence. The legisla 40 sanctions for violation of the terms of parole to p revent the immediate return to prison. ons program that works with New Jersey – The Halfway Back Program is a community correcti people on parole who are at risk of returning to pr ison on technical violations. The program assists people with job placement, family, vocation al and educational training, anger 41 management, and substance abuse treatment to keep t hem from returning to prison. e addition of risk assessment centers, are Investments in this program, in combination with th 42 and $14 million in FY2010. estimated to save New Jersey $2.2 million in FY2009 - As part of the National Institute of Correction’ s Transition from Prison to the Georgia Community Initiative (TPCI), Georgia began implemen ting a data-driven, outcome-based approach to parole, with the goal of improving comp letion rates for people on parole. In order to accomplish this goal, parole officers serve as advo cates for people on parole, providing access to treatment, training, and other services. The model includes computer-based reporting systems that support this new approach to supervision and t he reports are readily available across 43 districts. The TPCI also includes improved risk assessment in struments designed to improve 44 the accuracy of predicting whether a person is at h igh risk of being reconvicted of a new crime. 13

14 Pruning Prisons Substance abuse treatment in the community costs fa r less than prison Substance-involved people compose a large portion o f the prison population. Substance abuse ing n crimes and resulting admissions to prison. Accord frequently plays a part in the commission of certai to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, • 53 percent of people in state prisons and 45 percen t of people in federal prisons meet the criterion for drug abuse or dependence; 16.6 percent of people in state prisons and 18.4 pe • rcent in federal prisons reported committing their crimes to obtain money for drugs; • one in three people in state prisons reported using drugs at the time of their offense, and one in four people convicted of violent offenses reported drug use at the time of their crime; and 64 percent of people in state prisons who committed a property offense reported drug use in • 45 the month prior to arrest. ddiction, we can reduce the number of offenses By reducing the demand for substances by treating a e involving drugs, the number of people going to pris on, and the cost of imprisonment. Although there ar than those associated with imprisonment, and they costs associated with treatment, they are far less oint than imprisonment. are more cost-effective from a public safety standp The cost of substance abuse treatment varies from s tate to state and also by the type of treatment. outpatient, to drug/medication assisted therapy. A Treatment services may vary -- from residential, to study by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Serv ices Administration (SAMHSA) showed that the s nationwide was approximately $5.5 billion in 1997 , cost of treatment for alcohol and illicit substance 46 with an average of $1,849 per admission to treatmen While there is no current data available from t. SAMSHA, the costs when adjusted for inflation for t he same number of admissions in 2008 would be 47 $7.3 billion. In 2000, California passed the Treatment Cost Substance Abuse and Crime Non-Hospital Residential* $ 3,840 Prevention Act, or Proposition 36, to Outpatient Methadone* $7,415 direct more people into treatment $1,433 Outpatient Non-Methadone* rather than the prison system. The $22,650 Incarceration** University of California showed that *Cost per admission, 2002 numbers Proposition 36 saved the state **Annual cost approximately $173 million in the Office of Applied Studies, Substance Abuse Sources: Treatment: first year alone. The Justice Policy The DASIS Report: and Mental Health Services Administration, Institute conducted a separate study (2004) Alcohol and Drug Services Study (ADSS) Cost Study and found that California saved more on: www.oas.samhsa.gov/2k4/costs/costs.pdf; Incarcerati State Prison Expenditures, 2001 James J. Stephan, . (Washington, than $350 million from 2000 to 48 D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2004). 2006. Although treatment behind prison walls is more cost effective than prison alone, drug treatment administered in t he community is by far the most cost effective means of saving money and protecting public safety. A Washington State Institute for Public Policy (WSI PP) study found that spending one dollar on drug treatment in prison yields nearly six dollars in sa vings in terms of increased public safety and monet ary n community-based drug treatment yields over $18 in savings. In contrast, an investment of one dollar i 14

15 Pruning Prisons cost savings. Funding programs in the community yie lds a higher return on the investment. Drug treatment improves life outcomes and increases the chances that a person will not come into contact with the criminal justice system. Community-based drug treatment provides bigger crime reduction returns than prison. For every $1 spent on drug treatment in the community, you save $18. $20 $18.52 $18 $16 $14 $12 $10 $8 $5.88 $6 Benefits (per dollar spent) $4 $2.10 $2 $0.37 $- Drug Treatment in Prison Adult Drug Courts Drug Treatment in Community Prison and Roxanne Lieb. 2001. The comparative costs and Source: Aos, Steve, Polly Phipps, Robert Barnoski, benefits of programs to reduce crime licy. . Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Po 15

16 Pruning Prisons Community-based programs are cost effective and imp rove public safety Community-based alternatives, which do not necessar ily include probation or parole, are a cost- effective means of redirecting people away from pri son while protecting public safety and maintaining e, but are not limited to, electronic monitoring, accountability. Community-based alternatives includ ouses. Community-based alternatives cost work release, day-reporting centers, and half-way h thousands of dollars less than prison, and help imp rove public safety by ensuring that people remain i n the community with their families and support syste ms, while also maintaining employment and receiving services. WSIPP found that programs in the community could in crease public safety by lowering recidivism rates. Treatment-oriented supervision in the community can lower recidivism rates by 16 percent. This treatment in jails and prisons. reduction surpasses the results of drug courts and Treatment-oriented supervision lowers recidivism rates more than all other drug treatment programs. -4.5% Drug Treatment in Jail -8.0% Adult Drug Courts -16.7% Intensive supervision: treatment-oriented programs Drug Treatment in Prison -5.7% Drug Treatment in Community -9.3% -20% -18% -16% -14% -12% -10% -8% -6% -4% -2% 0% Percent change in recidivism rate The comparative costs and benefits of nd Roxanne Lieb, Source: Steve Aos, Polly Phipps, Robert Barnoski, a licy, 2001) (Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Po programs to reduce crime se designed for youth, yield higher returns than Evidence-based community programs, particularly tho venile justice by the WSIPP, programs designed to the initial cost. In a program review focused on ju provide therapy and family or community oriented se rvices were very effective in reducing the chances 49 that a youth would come into contact with the juven ile or criminal justice system. Evidence-based tisystemic Therapy yield significant cost savings t o practices such as Family Functional Therapy and Mul states. For every dollar spent on family functional therapy, $15 is provided in benefits. (See JPI’s , for more information on cost-effective juvenile j ustice policies.) Costs of Confinement companion brief, 16

17 Pruning Prisons For every dollar spent on functional family therapy, $15 is provided in benefits. $14.69 $16 $14 $12.20 $12 $10 $8 $5.27 $6 $4 $1.98 $1.01 $2 $- Multisystemic Multidimensional County Detention Functional Family Juvenile Boot Therapy Therapy on Treatment Foster Camps Care Probation Source: Steve Aos, Marna Miller, and Elizabeth Drak e, Evidence-Based Public Policy Options to Reduce Futu re ime Rates Prison Construction, Criminal Justice Costs, and Cr (Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy, 2006) www.wsipp.wa.gov. the impact that various youth programs have on It should be noted that the table above highlights stice costs. Based on future savings to the adult future adult correctional costs, not on juvenile ju ose he need for additional prisons, Washington State ch criminal justice system, including elimination of t to make a major shift in their spending to support these cost-effective community programs. 17

18 Pruning Prisons Incarcerating people with mental illness is expensi ve and ineffective al health crisis centers, not incarceration.” “It would be better to use taxpayer’s money on ment State 50 Rep. Judy Solano, Denver Post Between 1998 and 2005, the number of diagnosed ment al health disorders increased while expenditures on mental health declined. In particul ar, the number of individuals in the prison system 51 As many as 56 percent of d significantly. with diagnosed mental health disorders has increase individuals in state prisons, 45 percent in federal prisons and 64 percent of individuals in local jai ls are 52 Comparatively, approximately 26.2 percent of all a dults suffer living with a mental health problem. 53 And mental from depression, anxiety, schizophrenia or other di agnosable mental health disorder. ers. As many as 74.1 percent of individuals in stat e illness often coincides with substance abuse disord prisons with a mental health disorder are also livi ng with alcohol dependence or an alcohol abuse 54 disorder. treatment in prisons, evidenced in the number of In addition to the lack of effective mental health lawsuits brought against states, formerly incarcera ted people with a mental illness may face limited access to some services because of their criminal r ecord. People with mental illness often cycle in a nd out of prison due to inadequate services in correct ional facilities and their re-entry community. Rese arch indicates that almost two-thirds of people with a m ental illness who are released from prison are re- 55 arrested within 18 months. There are more people with mental health problems in state prisons now than in 1998. 56% 60% 50% 40% 30% 16% 20% 10% 0% Percent of individuals with mental illness in state prison 2005 1998 Source: Lauren E. Glaze and Doris J. James, Mental Health Problems of Prison and Jail Inmates (Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statis tics, 2006). www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/mhppji.pdf ut reater chance of being arrested than a person witho People with a mental illness have a significantly g 56 l- a mental disorder would for a similar offense. Undertrained law enforcement officers often are il prepared to deal with people who are having a menta l health crisis, which often results in arrests, ra ther than mental health treatment. se in s is often cited as a contributing factor to the ri The deinstitutionalization of state mental hospital he U.S. engaged in a systematic reduction of state prison populations. In the mid-twentieth century, t 18

19 Pruning Prisons umber of state mental hospital beds from 600,000 to care for people with mental illness, reducing the n 57 But the 2,000 community mental health centers that 40,000. were supposed to supplant these 58 eated and many are severely underfunded. hospitals never materialized; only 700 have been cr States must pay for mental health treatment while a n individual is imprisoned. According to a recent article it costs $65 per day to keep an individual in jail; as the cost of imprisoning one person for one 59 the longer a person is in prison, the higher the c ost to taxpayers. But, because year averages $22,650, of the cost and the difficulty of providing appropr iate mental health services in a prison setting, le ss than 60 this has one third of the people that need mental health tre atment in state prison systems receive it; led to costly lawsuits in a number of states. son According to the Department of Justice, people in s tate prisons living with mental illness stay in pri 61 an average of four months longer than people in pri son who do not have a mental health problem. One reason is that people with a mental illness can find the prison environment, with its rules and 62 se. routines, especially difficult to adjust to; they o ften accrue demerits that delay their time to relea with mental illness to prison, could cost an averag Thus the potential cost of admitting people living e of $7,550 more per year than admitting a person withou t mental illness. Lawmakers should look to investments in community m ental health services, which cost on average $26 63 to reduce prison admissions. In addition, states a day, should provide crisis intervention training for law enforcement in order to divert more people with mental illness from the justice system, and tailor re-entry services to meet the medication and treatm ent needs of people with a mental illness that are being released to prevent their recycling through t he system. 19

20 Pruning Prisons other social institutions Money spent on incarceration could be reinvested in and The cost of incarceration might be best explained i n context of the cost of other social institutions public investments on which many people rely. Accor ding to a 2008 Hart poll of voters nationwide, respondents indicated that it is better to attack s ocial problems that lead to crime with better educa tion d by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur and job training programs. In another poll sponsore y would be in favor of taking money away from foundation, 60 percent of respondents said that the 64 However, in a time of state ucation and job training. incarcerating youth and spending it, instead, on ed em budget crisis, such decisions are in the hands of p olicymakers, who believe their constituents want th s in communities and social institutions is the to appear “tough on crime.” Making smart investment most effective way to improve public safety and sup port communities. For every two-person reduction one in the incarceration rate, a state could pay the sa lary of an additional secondary school teacher for school year. 65 Costs in context: Select government expenditures 66 $24,655 Annual cost of incarceration – one year $52,450 Average salary of a secondary school teacher disorder counselor Average salary of a substance abuse and behavioral $37,830 $38,940 Average salary of a licensed practical nurse Average salary of a mental health counselor $39,450 $41,920 Average salary of a social worker (family services) $49,150 tsecondary) Average salary of vocational education teacher (pos 67 ate, post-secondary education $6,585 Average tuition and fees of full time public, in-st 68 $1,849 Drug Treatment 69 Supportive Housing $11,272 20

21 Pruning Prisons Recommendations the prison population – are not difficult to justif y “Enormous cutbacks – reductions of 50 % or more in William Spelman, Professor of and would probably save the U.S. public billions of dollars each year.” 70 Public Affairs, University of Texas – Austin. At a time when states and localities are looking fo r ways to save money and cut expensive and icies that reduce the number of people entering and ineffective programs and policies, implementing pol returning to prisons can be an effective means of s aving money and keeping communities safe. Reducing in a long-term increase in public safety rather th an prison populations, when done correctly, can result an increase in crime. As such, the Justice Policy I e nstitute recommends the following changes to improv public safety and save money. • States and the federal government should re-examine policies that drive increases in incarceration, such as recommitment for technical v iolations of parole conditions and nonviolent offenses. Non-incarcerative, incarceration for low level drug offenses and many community-based alternatives should be explored. • States and the federal government should implement policies that can safely increase releases from prison through parole and other community-base d programs. • As closing prisons realizes the largest financial s avings, policymakers should scale their reforms to enable the closure of a facility or, at a minimu m, a wing or other discrete portion of a facility. • Money saved from closing prisons should be redirect ed to community-based services that have been proven to improve both public safety and the l ife outcomes of individuals. • To achieve long-term public safety gains, money sav ed on incarceration should be invested in including education, employment training, social institutions that build strong communities, housing, and treatment. Acknowledgements This policy brief was researched and written by Ama nda Petteruti, Nastassia Walsh, and Tracy Velázquez. Special thanks go to Andrew Brannegan, K elly Fister, Ashley King, and Aisling McDonough for their research assistance. This report would not ha ve been possible without generous support from the Open Society Institute–New York, the Public Welfare Foundation, and individual donors to JPI. 1 e Rates , 1998-2007 (Washington, D.C.: Justice Policy Factsheet: Percent Change in Incarceration and Crim Justice Policy Institute, Institute, 2008). www.justicepolicy.org/images/uplo ad/07-02_FAC_StatebyStateIncarceration_AC-PS.pdf 2 (Washington, D.C.: National Association of State National Association of State Budget Officers, State Expenditure Reports, 1999-2007 Budget Officers). www.nasbo.org 3 . (Washington, D.C.: National Association of State 2007 State Expenditure Reports National Association of State Budget Officers, PDFs/fy2007er.pdf. Budget Officers, 2007). www.nasbo.org/Publications/ 4 National Association of State Budget Officers, 200 7. 5 National Association of State Budget Officers, State Expenditure Reports, 1999-2007 6 William Spelman, “Crime, Cash, and Limited Options: Explaining the Prison Boom,” Criminology and Public Policy 8, issue I (February 2009): 29-77. 21

22 Pruning Prisons 7 Bruce Western, (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2006). Punishment and Inequality in America 8 d jails form one integrated system. ** Illinois dat a from December 2006. Incarceration rates are from June 2007. *Prisons an (Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2 008); Prison Inmates at Midyear 2007 Sources: William J. Sabol and Heather Couture, D.K. Gilliard, Prison and Jail Inmates at Midyear 1 998 (Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics , 1999); FBI Uniform Crime Reports, Crime in the United States, Table 4. 9 Heather C. West and William J. Sabol, (Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Prison Inmates at Midyear 2008—Statistical Tables htm. Statistics, 2009) www.ojp.gov/bjs/abstract/pim08st. 10 Heather C. West and William J. Sabol, 2009 11 Key Facts at a Glance: Correctional Populations (Washington, D.C.: Department of Justice, 2008) Bureau of Justice Statistics, www.ojp.gov/bjs/glance/tables/corr2tab.htm 12 FBI Uniform Crime Report, www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm 13 Heather C. West and William J. Sabol, 2009 14 Bureau of Justice Statistics, Correctional Populations in the United States, 1997 (Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2 000). www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cpus9701.pdf; Paige M . Harrison and Allen J. Beck, (Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Prisoners in 2005 b/pdf/p05.pdf; William J. Sabol, Heather Couture an Prisoners in Justice Statistics, 2006). www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pu d Paige M. Harrison, 2006 (Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2 007); Heather C. West and William J. Sabol, Prisoners in 2007 (Washington, D.C.: gov/bjs/pub/pdf/p07.pdf Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2008). www.ojp.usdoj. 15 g, The Vortex: The Concentrated Racial Impact of Drug Imprisonment and the Phil Beatty, Amanda Petteruti, and Jason Ziedenber (Washington, D.C.: Justice Policy Institute, 2007) www.justicepolicy.org Characteristics of Punitive Counties 16 FBI Uniform Crime Report, Crime in the United Stat es, Arrest Table, Arrests for Drug Abuse Violations , Percent Distribution by Region, 2007, www.fbi.gov/u cr/cius2007/arrests/index.html 17 Harry Levine and Deborah Peterson Small, Marijuana Arrest Crusade: Racial Bias and Police Po licy in New York City, 1997-2007 (New York, NY: New York Civil Liberties Union, 2008). ww w.nyclu.org/files/MARIJUANA-ARREST-CRUSADE_Final.pd f 18 Heather C. West and William J. Sabol, 2008 Table 3 . 19 Lauren E. Glaze and Thomas P. Bonczar, Probation and Parole in the United States, 2007 Sta tistical Tables (Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2008) 20 rrison, 2007 William J. Sabol, Heather Couture, and Paige M. Ha 21 Correctional Association of New York, (New York: Correctional Association, 2009) Analysis of Rockefeller Drug Law Reform Bill 09/03/analysis-of-rockefeller-reform-bill.pdf http://droptherock.ipower.com/wp-content/uploads/20 22 Correctional Association of New York, The Campaign to Repeal the Rockefeller Drug Laws (New York: Correctional Association, 2009) ad/ppp/factsheets/DTR_Fact_Sheet_2009.pdf www.correctionalassociation.org/publications/downlo 23 Nate Robson, “State plans to shut down part of But The Citizen , April 16, 2009, ler,” ws04.txt www.auburnpub.com/articles/2009/04/16/local_news/ne 24 Lauren E. Glaze and Thomas P. Bonczar, Probation and Parole in the United States, 2006 (Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2007). 25 Heather C. West and William J. Sabol, 2008, Append ix table 3 26 Heather C. West and William J. Sabol, 2008. 27 Calculated by taking 10% of the total population f rom Heather C. West and William J. Sabol, 2008. 28 James J. Stephan, State Prison Expenditures, 2001 . (Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2004). www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/spe01.pdf. 29 Rough high estimate for the average a state would spend on parole by using California as the high lim it. JPI has been unable to find a single national cost estimate for parole. The cost of parole also varies widely from state to state. C alifornia Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, “Third Quarter 2008 Facts and F igures” www.cdcr.ca.gov/Divisions_Boards/Adult_Operations/F acts_and_Figures.html 30 carceration per person); 159,831 x 22,650 (10% of the Total Prison Population) x (Cost of In 31 (10% of the Total Prison Population) x (Cost of Pa role per person); 159,831 x 4,000 32 penses: Inmates also will be removed from county j Jimmie E. Gates, “Paroles pushed up to cut jail ex Clarion ails, private prisons,” Ledger , November 25, 2008. www.clarionledger.com/article/ 20081125/NEWS/811250371/1001/news 33 Lauren E. Glaze and Thomas P. Bonczar, 2008. 34 Jeremy Travis, Thoughts on the Future of Parole (Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute, 2002) www.urban .org/publicatons/410521.html 35 a, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Mississippi, New Data not available for the following states: Alask Hampshire, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Virginia and Washi ngton. Lauren E. Glaze and Thomas P. Bonczar, 2008 36 Justice Center . Justice Reinvestment State Brief: Texas (Bethesda, MD: Council of State Governments, 2007) . www.pewcenteronthestates.org/uploadedFiles/TX%20Sta te%20Brief.pdf 37 Justice Center, 2007. 38 Erik Eckholm, “New Tack on Straying Parolees Offer s a Hand Instead of Cuffs,” New York Times , May 17, 2008. www.nytimes.com/2008/05/17/us/17parole.html 22

23 Pruning Prisons 39 Proactive Community Supervision in Maryland: Changi (College Park, MD: University of Faye Taxman et al. ng Offender Outcomes, Maryland and Virginia Commonwealth University. Febr uary 2006). 40 th Assembly Bill No. 510–Select Committee on Correctio ns, Parole, and Probation (Carson City, NV: 74 Regular Nevada Legislature, /Bills/AB/AB510_EN.pdf Nevada Legislature, 2007). www.leg.state.nv.us/74th 41 y Reporting Center and Halfway Back Programs: Embra cing the Rehabilitative Michael Ostermann, “An Analysis of New Jersey's Da Journal of Offender Rehabilitation Ideal through Evidence Based Practices,” 48, no. 2 (2009): 139 - 153 42 State Parole Board, April 15, 2008, Testimony of Peter J. Barnes, Chairman, New Jersey www.njleg.state.nj.us/legislativepub/budget%202009/ Testimony/SPB_Barnes_testimony.pdf 43 mproving Parole Outcomes with Performance Leadershi p and Data,” Topics in Danny Hunter, George Braucht, and John Prevost, “I sition from Prison Community Corrections: Promising Strategies in Tran 07). (Aurora, CO: National Institute of Corrections, 20 http://nicic.org/Downloads/PDF/Library/022777.pdf. 44 George Board of Pardons and Paroles, Georgia Parole Decisions Guidelines (Atlanta, GA: Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles , 2007). www.pap.state.ga.us/opencms/export/sites/def ault/resources/Proposed_Parole_Decision_Guidelines. pdf 45 Christopher Mumola and Jennifer C. Karberg, s, Drug use and dependence, state and federal prisoner . (Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2004 2006) 46 Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Adminis tration, ADSS Cost Study: Costs of Substance Abuse Treatment in the Specialty (Washington, D.C.: Department of Health and Human Services, 2003). www.oas.samhsa.gov/adss/ADSSCostSt udy.pdf. Sector 47 tatistics CPI Inflation Calculator: http://data.bls .gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl. Adjusted for inflation using the Bureau of Labor S 48 Proposition 36: Five years later (Washington, D.C.: Justice Policy Institute, 2006) . Scott Ehlers and Jason Ziedenberg, 49 Steve Aos, Marna Miller, and Elizabeth Drake, Evidence-Based Public Policy Options to Reduce Futu re Prison Construction, Criminal (Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Pol Justice Costs, and Crime Rates icy, 2006) www.wsipp.wa.gov 50 Christopher N. Osher, “Mental-Health Push in Jails Denver Post , June 24, 2007. ,” www.denverpost.com/news/ci_6214106?source=bb 51 Paula M. Ditton, ners, (Washington, D.C.: Office of Justice Programs, 199 9). Mental Health and Treatment of Inmates and Probatio http://ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/mhtip.pdf; Lauren E. Glaze and Doris J. James, Mental Health Problems of Prison and Jail Inmates (Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics, 20 06). www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/mhppji.pdf 52 Lauren E. Glaze and Doris J. James, (Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Mental Health Problems of Prison and Jail Inmates 2006). www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/mhppji.pdf 53 National Institute of Mental Health, “The Numbers Count: Mental Disorders in America,” June 2008. www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/the-numbers-co unt-mental-disorders-in-america.shtml. 54 Lauren E. Glaze and Doris J. James, 2006. 55 ww.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/released/etc/synops Frontline, “The Released,” Aired April 28, 2009. w is.html 56 Linda A. Teplin, Criminalizing mental disorder: The comparative arre st rate of the mentally ill. American Psychologist. Vol 39(7), Jul 1984, 794-803. 57 M.J. Stephey, “De-Criminalizing Mental Illness,” Time , August 08, 2007, www.time.com/time/health/article /0,8599,1651002,00.html 58 Psychiatric News 41, no. 20 (2006): 1-30. to Grow,” Rich Daly, “Prison Mental Health Crisis Continues http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/41/ 20/1 59 State Prison Expenditures: 2001. (Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics, 20 01) James J. Stephan, www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/spe01.pdf 60 2006. Lauren E. Glaze and Doris J. James, 61 Lauren E. Glaze and Doris J. James, 2006. 62 Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review Jamie Fellner, “A Corrections Quandary: Mental Ill ness and Prison Rules,” 41 (2006): 391-412. 63 Tara Lubin and Sarah Steverman, “Avoiding Jail Pay 33, no. 4 (2007): 20-21 s Off,” State Legislatures ingJail.htm www.ncsl.org/magazine/articles/2007/07SLApr07_Avoid 64 Center for Children’s Law and Policy, Potential fo r Change: Public Attitudes and Policy Preferences f or Juvenile Justice Systems thur Foundation, 2007). Reform (Chicago, IL: John D. and Catherine T. MacAr 65 stics, “Occupational Employment Statistics: May 200 7 National Occupational All salary information from: Bureau of Labor Stati Employment and Wage Estimates,” September 23, 2008. www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm#b25-0000 66 American Correctional Association. 2006 Directory of Adult and Juvenile Correctional Depart ments, Institutions, Agencies and Probation and Parole Authorities , 67th edition (Alexandria, VA: American Correction al Association, 2006). 67 College Board, (New York: College Board, 2008) Trends in College Pricing: 2008 trends-in-college-pricing-2008.pdf http://professionals.collegeboard.com/profdownload/ 68 Average cost of treatment, for all types of treatm ent. Adjusted for inflation using the cost of treat ment in 1997 ($1,849 per admission) determined in Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2003. 69 The Lewin Group, Costs of Serving Homeless Individuals in Nine Citie s . Chart book report. (New York: Corporation for Sup portive Housing, 2004) www.rwjf.org/files/newsroom/cshLewin Pdf.pdf 70 Spelman, 2009 23

Related documents