Note: Several charts in this report did not translate well into html. Please contact the Montana Legislative Library to see a paper copy.

Comparison of Regional Corrections Agencies

Prepared by

Gordon Higgins, Research Analyst

for the Correctional Standards and Oversight Committee

April 1998

Across the nation, lawmakers and public policy specialists have exhibited a strong willingness to address the public'sapprehension about crime and punishment. Legislative action strengthening penalties for criminal activity necessarily forcecorrections officials to rethink their inmate population projections and subsequently, the physical space they control toincarcerate those inmates.

Incarceration is a critical component of a well-balanced criminal justice system. Accuratelypredicting space requirements in light of apparent increases in incarceration has forced many states to face critical policyquestions. Overcrowding and deteriorating prisons exacerbate an already difficult task of managing prison populations.Many states have opted to promote prison construction as a twofold community benefit. Construction and operation ofprisons can be an effective argument for communities facing dwindling resources and stagnant economies. Further, ifgovernment leaders are correct in their interpretation of public opinion, new prisons can provide the necessary vehicle fordisplaying the efficiency of tough-on-crime policies while simultaneously recognizing the public's demand for stricteroffender punishment.
This prison construction boom is not immune from detractors. Borrowing an idea from formerPresident Eisenhower, many criminal justice experts claim that the country is in the grips of a prison-industrial complex.Many critics believe the call for increased appropriations, driven by propaganda and misinformation at the expense of otherimportant funding obligations, does little to stem crime. While no one should deny the fact that overcrowding in Montana'sprison system has reached critical levels, public officials should be vigilant and exercise due diligence before falling intostep behind states that are building prisons at a record pace.
According to a recent Governing article, The End of the PrisonBoom, many states chose to offer early release as one method to address crowding problems. After a sustained publicoutcry, policy makers took notice, and plotted new directions to address the public's claim that good public policy requiredkeeping dangerous offenders in prison longer. Allowing early release merely to manage space was deemed an inappropriateresponse. Because the problem with prison populations remained, the alternative, building new prisons, gained numerousconverts as states like California, Texas, North Carolina, and Florida spent millions on new prison construction. Thesestates are just now coming to the end of their building cycles. In 1993 Florida estimated that its prison population wouldincrease from 50,000 to 98,000 by the turn of the century.⁽¹⁾ Recently, forecasters have adjusted their projections downwardto just 76,000 prisoners by the year 2000.⁽²⁾ A Florida Department of Law Enforcement official admitted that, "there areactual vacancies" in the state's correctional institutions.⁽³⁾ The same scenario occurred in Virginia, where four prisonconstruction projects have been taken off the table and several more prisons, expected to be completed soon will not openuntil the prison population shows signs of growth.
Many state corrections agencies believed tougher sentencing laws,predicted to affect incarceration rates, placed them in a difficult position. Early in the decade, economic conditions limitedthe revenue corrections officials could request for large, often multi year, multi prison construction projects. Committed toconstruction, and armed with forecasts that demonstrated incarceration rates were increasing nearly 8 percent annually,officials with large prison populations convinced legislators to appropriate the additional dollars. In recent years,particularly the last two, incarceration rates have declined to around 5 percent a year. Whether this decline is an aberration,or indicative of the use of other forms of punishment, the fact remains that Virginia and Florida must wait for the prisonpopulation to increase before they can effectively take advantage of their new facilities, and thus justify the millions spenton new, empty prisons.
While states such as California, Texas and Florida offer Montana interesting information regardingprison population, construction, and budgets, comparing these factors among states in Montana's region is more useful.States chosen for the regional comparison are Colorado, Idaho, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington,and Wyoming.⁽⁴⁾ The following charts and tables will give policy makers a better understanding of how Montana'scorrectional activity compares with these states.
Ideally, this type of comparison would provide up-to-date informationfrom the individual corrections agencies themselves. The time-consuming nature of that approach and the fact that thiscomparison should offer conceptual information designed to educate and raise awareness, the research staff relied uponpublished compendiums of national data. State correctional agencies provide information to these organizations that aresolely dedicated to providing an umbrella approach to criminal justice comparisons.

Index of Tables and Charts:

INCARCERATION RATES

Figure 1 charts the changes in incarceration in the region from 1992 through 1996. Montana witnessed a 9.4 percent increase in incarcerations per 100,000 citizens from 1995 through 1996. As was notedearlier, the nation's average incarceration rate has been falling over the last two years to about 5 percent. While this increase strains the available space and programming opportunities in Montana,two-thirds of the region's states have seen percentage increases greater than those of Montana. Idaho witnessed the largest rise in rates with an increase of nearly 25 percent. Colorado had the smallest gain,checking in with just less than three/10ths of a percent for the same period. If rates of crime, recorded by the Uniform Crime Reports, are stable or declining, increases in western state populations couldaccount for the increase in incarceration rates. A virtually stable population in Colorado may also account for the fractional change in their incarceration rates. Ifincarceration rates continue to rise, it is reasonable to assume the current crowding problems identified by the Montana Department of Corrections will continue. It is also reasonable to assume thoseincreased budget allocations, earmarked for new prison construction or renovation, will at least ease the crowding problem and possibly allow for flexibility if bed space for new inmates is necessary.While Figure 1 clearly shows an increase in incarceration rates over the last five years, the actual percentage change each year yields important information. Are incarceration rates showing signs ofstabilizing, or will the rates continue to rise? The following graphs will show the percent changes in incarceration rates, and the actual incarceration rates between 1992 and 1996. When looking atMontana, it is important to note that while incarceration rates have increased steadily over the past several years, the frequency at which those rates are increasing is beginning to show signs of slowing. Forinstance, although Figure 2 shows that rates spiked dramatically (182/100,000 to 225/100,000 between 1994 and 1996), the actual percent change (as denoted in Figure 3) fell between that same period. Until data becomes available for 1997, any attempt to establish a trend in Montana's incarceration rates is ineffective. Nationally, the average incarceration rate was 352 with a change between 1995 and1996 of approximately 4.9 percent. Two states, Connecticut and Rhode Island, witnessed a percent change falling below zero (-1.4% and -7.9% respectively).⁽⁵⁾PRISON POPULATIONFigure 4 outlinesthe prison populations of each state in the regional comparison. The information collected from the Bureau of Justice Statistics reported that Montana gained seventy-four inmates (1,999 to 2,073) fromyear-end 1995 to year-end 1996 for a percent change increase of 3.7 percent, the lowest in the region. Each state in the region increased the number of inmates incarcerated at state facilities. North Dakotahad the highest percent change increase in the nation with a change of 18.8 percent. Idaho was third in the nation with a percent change increase of 15.2 percent.

The 1996 Corrections Yearbook, produced by the Criminal Justice Institute provides detailed information on the number of inmates, both male and female, admitted into state facilities in 1995. This data(the most recent that effectively compares each state in Montana's identified region) reports that Montana admitted roughly 850 inmates during 1995, sixty-one of whom were women. Oregon admitted thelargest number of inmates in the region atjust less than 6500, with approximately750 women. North Dakota admitted 450inmates, the lowest in the region.Overall, Montana ranks in the bottom third inmost categories concerning inmatepopulation. Montana admitted fewerwomen, fewer total inmates, andMontana's female inmate population as aproportion of the total inmate populationranks consistently lower than thesurrounding states. Although Montana mayhave nominally smaller inmate populationsthan other states in the region, Montanastill faces serious crowding problems inDepartment of Corrections facilities.Corrections officials have been forced toutilize space at local county jails, and haverecently contracted with private prisonsoutside the state for inmate bed space. Toaddress space issues at the MontanaWomen's Prison in Billings, theDepartment has proposed the construction of a new housing unit in addition to important renovations designed to serve the needs of inmates and prison staff.Figure 6, taken from the Bureau of JusticeStatistics, relates the prison populations of the regional states as a percentage of highest reported prison capacity. Except Utah, whose inmate population is only 86 percent of the prison capacity, all thestates in the region are above capacity. Washington has the worst crowding problem, followed by Montana, (120 percent of operational capacity at year-end 1996).

Seven of the nine states in the regionalcomparison place inmates in local jails.Both South Dakota and Washington reportcurrent inmate populations above ratedcapacity but do not place inmates in otherfacilities. The remaining states, includingUtah, house some percentage of theirinmate population in jails. North Dakotacounties house 91 state inmates, the largestpercentage (12.6 of total inmates) of anystate in the region. Colorado had 549inmates in county jails at year-end 1996,while Montana reported 133 inmates beinghoused in jails across the state. Byyear-end 1996, almost 7 percent of thetotal inmate population was beingincarcerated in facilities other thanMontana prisons.

AGENCY BUDGETS AND SPENDINGThe following four charts outline the proportion of corrections agency budget to total state budget, the anticipated budgets of corrections agencies, the averagecost per day, and the average cost per day for state-operated boot camps.Figure 7 reports the proportion of each state's corrections budget to the totalstate budget. Washington Department of Corrections had the largest budget in the region with a total of nearly $445 million. As a proportion of the total budget, monies appropriated to the WashingtonDepartment of Corrections were just slightly higher than in Montana. The Colorado Department of Corrections appropriation of $280 million is six percent of the total state budget, the highest in theregion. Montana reported its corrections budget for fiscal year 1996 at just more than $70 million. Except Wyoming, Montana correctional funding as a percentage of total state funding, was less than orequal to the rest of the region.In two cases, anticipated budgets for fiscal year 1997 declined from fiscal year 1996. Washington and South Dakota both reported they would need less state revenue than theprevious fiscal year. The remainder of the states in the region predicted marked increases. Colorado anticipated an additional $100 million for fiscal year 1997. The Corrections Yearbook reported thatMontana's fiscal year 1997 budget wouldbe just $1 million more than the previousyear. Figure 8 illustrates the anticipatedbudgets for fiscal year 1997 for theremainder of the region.

The Montana Department of Corrections, with the assistance of the Legislative Services Division Fiscal Division, and Audit Division, developed a paper that outlined the cost per day per inmate in the state. The following chart draws its comparison from information provided by the corrections agencies present in the region. While the Montana figure presented may not match the most recent cost per day calculations developed, the dollar amounts reported in Figure 9 offer a general comparison. The information collected by the Corrections Yearbook related that Montana spent $41.29 per inmate per day. South Dakota was the only state in the region to spend less per day on inmates than Montana. Nationally, the average cost per day for prison inmates on January 1, 1996 was $53.85. The final chart dealing with agency expenditure and budgets is the average cost per day for boot camps operated by the state. Not all states in the regional comparison operate boot camps, but of those that do, Montana, which spent $75 a day, ranks higher in cost per day expenditures than each of the other states. In addition, Montana spent approximately $12 more than the national average.

With a few exceptions, Montanacorrections expenditures are less than thoseof the surrounding region. Each stateidentifies factors that affect the size oftheir corrections budgets and how muchthey spend on inmates per day. States withmore inmates may have the opportunity totake advantage of economies of scale.Also, states that have new prisonconstruction projects in planning stages orunder construction may be forced toallocate a greater percentage of the state'stotal budget to corrections. Finally, theappropriations process is driven by policydecisions.

States that chose to spend more of theirrevenue on corrections do so based ondecisions made at the executive andlegislative level to reflect outcomes desiredby the public.

AVERAGE DAILY POPULATION,AVERAGE LENGTHS OF STAY & RECIDIVISM

Crime and sentencing have become an important issue for legislators and policy makers across the country. Many public opinion polls state that people expect convicted criminals to receive their "justdesserts," and expect sentences that punish offenders and remove them from society. Understanding what percentage of sentences are being served and whether releasees are committing new crimes is auseful tool to decide whether the longer sentences are providing the public a sense of safety and justice.Table 1, found on page 12, outline that longer sentences for violent offenders suggests that offenderswill serve more time before their first release. However, in Montana's case, it does not suggest that a greater percentage of the sentence is actually completed. Violent offenders in Montana do serve moretime than the regional average, but as a percentage serve less than the regional average of 50 percent.From 1992 through 1994, violent offenders remanded to the Montana State Prison were consistentlysentenced to longer terms than other states in the region (140 months). The mean maximum sentences in the other states in the region were 86 months in 1992; 93 months in 1993; and 86 months in 1994.While the mean time served by Montana violent offenders prior to first release was the third highest in the region in 1992 and 1994, and the second highest among the states in 1993, the percentage of thesentences served prior to first release was among the lowest each year.Idaho and Washington required violent offenders to serve the greatest percentage of their sentence prior to first release, but eachstate's respective mean maximum sentences were consistently at the opposite ends of the regional comparison.⁽⁶⁾How does this violent offender information compare with the total inmate population interms of average length of stay for releases? The 1996 Corrections Yearbook provides information about 1995 releases and recidivism rates for most of the nation. Here, Table 2 (on page 13), assumes thataverage lengths of stay apply to all inmates of all classifications. Care should be taken when making specific comparisons, given that Sourcebook data and Corrections Yearbook data are not collected inthe same manner, nor are they determined for the same time periods. Table 2 is useful, however, because it provides a broad picture of recidivism and average lengths of stay that may be investigatedfurther.

Table 1: Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics, 1996

Maximum Sentence, Time Served, and Percent of Sentence Served for Violent Offenders 1992

	Mean Max		Mean Time		Percent Sentence
	Sentence		Served		Served
	(months)		(months)
All Region:		86		42		51%
Colorado		78		39		50%
Idaho		81		57		70%
Montana		130		48		37%
North Dakota		62		27		44%
Oregon		123		40		33%
Utah		106		50		46%
Washington		50		35		70%
Wyoming		59		36		61%
1993
All Region:		93		43		50%
Colorado		73		39		53%
Idaho		104		59		57%
Montana		166		55		33%
North Dakota		52		22		42%
Oregon		109		42		39%
Utah		113		47		42%
Washington		57		38		67%
Wyoming		66		41		63%
1994
All Region:		86		42		50%
Colorado		67		35		52%
Idaho		83		56		67%
Montana		124		46		37%
North Dakota		54		25		46%
Oregon		103		43		42%
Utah		103		46		45%
Washington		58		39		67%
Wyoming		96		45		47%

Table 2: 1995

Average Daily Population, Average Lengths of Stay for 1995 Releases, and Recidivism Rates.State ADP Average Length of Stay (months) for Release

	Recd. Rate
	Overall		Discretionary			Mandatory
Colorado(7)		7,788	22.5				38.8%
Montana(8)		1,795	36.3	34.2		39.4	10.6%
North
Dakota	668	20				23%
Oregon(9)	7,635	11.4			11.4	31%
South
Dakota(10)		1,812	15.5	11.5		21.7	15%
Utah(11)	3,773	22	22			70%
Washington		11,367	23	99		21	28%

Definitions: Average Daily Population: The average number of inmates incarcerated by an agency on any given day during the calender year.

Discretionary Releases: Inmates released based on the decision of the parole board or parole authority. Mandatory Releases: Inmates released based on a formula for legally releasing inmates early in orderto control population levels or when an inmate has completed his/her sentence.

Recidivism Rate: Agency calculated percentage of inmates being incarcerated for a new charge who have served a prior sentence. Rates are calculated differently making cross-agency comparisonsdifficult.

PROBATION AND PAROLE

In this section, Table 3 provides information about Fiscal Year 1996 budgets for probation and parole agencies, and cost per day figures.⁽¹²⁾ Table 4,Probation and Parole Statistics, taken from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, offer policy makers a sense of where Montana resides in the region in regard tothe actual number of inmates affected by probation and parole programs. Table 3: Fiscal Year 1996 Budgets and Cost per Day Expenditures(1995);

Probation and Parole (in millions)

Table 4, found on the next page, reports the probation and parole populations for each of the states in the regionalcomparison.

CONCLUSION

Given the differences in corrections management and policy decisions, interstate comparisons do not lend themselves toindepth analysis. While regional comparisons tend to oversimplify important issues, knowing how Montana stacks up tothe region in terms of spending, inmate population and incarceration rates will help policy makers better understand wherethe state stands today, and in which direction the state should move in the future.

l55 8117ghxa.

1. Governing, August 1997; pg. 33.

2. pg. 32.

3. pg. 32.

4. Most regional comparisons divide the nation into traditional categories, (i.e. east, Midwest, west, south), however, for purposes of this comparison,Montana's region was chosen by combining North and South Dakota with the Rocky Mountain states, and adding Washington and Oregon.

5. 1996 Corrections Yearbook lists the incarceration rates for each state.

6. In 1992, 1993, and 1994, Idaho violent offenders were sentenced to an average of 89 months in prison. Washington violent offenders were sentenced toroughly 55 months during the same time period. Over the course of the three years however, Washington offenders served an average of 68 percent of theirsentences, whereas Idaho offenders served an average of 65 percent of their sentences.

7. ADP excludes offenders sentenced to Youthful Offender System under jurisdiction of DOC. Recidivism rate includes technical violations as well as"new" crimes.

8. ADP for FY 1995. Recidivism rate is 5 year average. Recidivists were all returns within 3 years of release. Returns with new crimes made up 5.1% ofthe total. The remaining returns were technical violators.

9. ADP excludes 156 rental beds.

10. South Dakota places no limit on the number of years in the recidivism rate calculation. Length of stay is from initial admission to initial release (paroleviolators excluded). Recidivism rate is inmate self-reported.

11. All releases are discretionary.

12. Colorado and Oregon operate separate Probation and Parole agencies. South Dakota corrections officials provided Parole agency information but did not report the FY 1996 budget for Probationaryactivities. Utah officials did not report cost per day figures. The remaining states in the comparison organize probation and parole similarly to Montana's system. (1996 Corrections Yearbook, CriminalJustice Statistics)

13. The Colorado cost per day is the sum of both Parole and Probation expenditures.

14. The Oregon cost per day is the sum of both Parole and Probation expenditures.