Seeking Middle Ground: Can Policy Makers Find an Answer to the Spiraling Costs ofCorrections?
Prepared for the Correctional Standards and Oversight Committee
by Gordon Higgins Legislative Research Analyst, Legislative Services Division
April 1998
When people discuss the affairs of the community, state or nation, they generally raise threetopics, education, taxes and crime. Policy makers expend a great deal of energy trying to developsensible solutions to the problems we face with school funding and our tax structure, butconsensus and agreement are difficult to achieve when opposing policy makers offer convincingarguments for alternative solutions. The issue of crime, on the other hand, seems to generatequick and popular policy decisions. Clearly, everyone is “against” crime and “for” thedevelopment of programs that enhance our community safety. In recent years, hundreds offederal, state and local policy groups have convened sentencing reform commissions resulting inthe recommendation of mandatory minimums, three strikes laws, and truth in sentencing. From apolitical standpoint, these policy groups have the perception that these reforms gave the publicwhat they asked for, less crime and safer streets. In some states parole and probation programshave come under intense scrutiny, and in a few cases states have actually abolished parole. Havethese measures actually reduced crime? Clearly, the answer to this question depends on whomone speaks to.
Between 1994 and 1996, the rate of violent crime declined 18 percent across the nation. Duringthat same period, property crimes decreased 14 percent. Western states enjoyed an even greaterdecline in violent crime; a reduction of 22 percent between 1993 and 1996. According to theNational Criminal Victimization Survey, the rates were the lowest since the survey began trackingvictimization in 1973.1
Criminologists attribute these declines to several factors, the aging population of baby-boomersand its effect on the teenage population, tougher sentencing laws placing more criminals in prisonand more effective law enforcement techniques. Programs focusing on prevention andintervention have also played a key role in reducing crime by targeting at-risk youth before theyembark on an escalating scale of more serious criminal activity.
As crime rates to diminish, incarceration rates rise. The relationship between the two is hotlycontested and the subject of numerous research proposals. Each study arrives at a differentconclusion and subsequently suggests the topic undergo further analysis. Intuitively, the betterlaw enforcement techniques become and the stricter sentencing statutes are, the number of peopleremanded to prison increases. By itself, that scenario is not antithetical to the will of the people. Causing concern among realistic and responsible lawmakers is the final bill that increasedincarceration leaves. Can the nation restrain increased corrections expenditures whilesimultaneously keeping its communities safe? Before the question is answered, a brief look at thecauses of the increased expenditures and the rising incarceration rate is warranted. When thepublic demanded a “war on crime,” lawmakers responded vigorously by enacting sentencingreforms. These reforms developed into a collective consciousness that prison is an effective toolto combat crime and parole programs adversely affected the community safety. As prisonpopulations swelled and crime rates declined, rehabilitation, once a solid component in criminaljustice theory, eroded away.
Sentencing Reforms
Since the early 1980's, the use of mandatory penalties, determinate sentences, and guideline-basedsentences has dominated sentencing reform. Of the reforms, mandatory prison sentences havebeen the most popular. They have aimed these primarily at persons who commit violent crimes,who use weapons in the commission of their crimes, who are habitual offenders, or who arehigh-profile drug traffickers. These reforms were based on three beliefs: First, that punishmentsfor serious crimes needed to be increased, as they were far too lenient; second, that the criminalstargeted by the reforms were “dangerous” people who must be incarcerated because lessersanctions would not be effective in curtailing the proscribed behaviors; and third, that mandatoryprison sentences would reduce crime by incapacitating or deterring the dangerous offenders whowere targets of the reform. With the implementation of the reforms there was unprecedentedgrowth in the size of federal and state prison populations. Between yearend 1985 and mid-year1996, state and federal prison populations grew from 744,000 persons to more than 1.6 millionpersons.2
The 1996 prisoner growth rate was five percent, less than the growth rate witnessed in 1995 andlower than the 8.8 percent increase in 1985.3 Prisoners with a sentence of more than one yearaccounted for 97 percent of the total prison population at mid-year 1996. This segment of theprison population increased 4.9 percent over 1995.4
In the fifteen years that these sentencing reforms have been in place, it is clear that the beliefs onwhich public support rested were largely false. Punishment for serious and violent offendersbefore the reforms was not as lenient as was popularly believed, nor less severe than punishmentsimposed in other industrialized nations for comparable crimes. The misperception of leniency wasdue largely to poorly used data and on the media attention that focused on the unusual oratypically short sentences given to violent offenders. In the implementation of the reforms, theyexpanded the definition of who was a dangerous offender to include not only most violentoffenders, but also many nonviolent and non-dangerous offenders, especially lower level drugoffenders whom they defined as dangerous in the heat of public reaction to the drug crisis of thelate 1980's.
Sentencing reform begs the question of how states should allocate scarce revenue to thecorrections system. Evidence that prison is cost effective and therefore beneficial in reducingoverall crime rates is mixed. While prisons may be cost beneficial for violent crimes, it also showsthat expecting huge reductions in violent crime occurring with increased imprisonment alone isunrealistic. Because we rightfully place a high value on human life, incarceration for offendersconvicted of murder, homicide and rape (along with other crimes against the person), are alwayscost beneficial. Moreover, incarcerating less serious offenders who have minor or no criminalhistories, may adversely affect communities through severed ties to families, schools, and labormarkets.
Prison Works
Ben Wattenberg, a nationally syndicated columnist and a scholar at the American EnterpriseInstitute, stated, “A thug in prison can't shoot your sister.”5 Wattenberg and other criminal justiceprofessionals believe that while incarceration satisfies the public's need for retribution, deterrence,and even rehabilitation, it has an enormous, and immediate, impact on preventing crimes prisonerswould commit if allowed to be free. Sentencing policies that keep violent and repeat criminalsbehind bars greatly contribute to reductions in crime. For the group advocating prison as the mostimportant factor in crime reduction, they primarily base the argument in economics.
The U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics has reported that 94 percent of state prisoners havecommitted one or more violent crimes or served a previous sentence in jail or on probation.6Between 1980 and 1993, violent offenders were the greatest contributors to state prisonpopulation growth. Even so, today more convicted violent offenders are serving time onprobation and parole than in prison. About a third of violent crime arrestees are on probation,parole, or pretrial release at the time of their arrest. A 1998 fact sheet from the National Centerfor Policy Analysis estimates that most prisoners commit between twelve and twenty-one seriouscrimes a year when on the loose.
From 1980 to 1992, the aggregate violent-crime rate in the ten states where incarceration climbedthe most decreased by 8 percent.7 However, between 1994 and 1995, the violent crime ratedropped just 1.7 percent in those states.8 In fact, Mississippi, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Arizonahad net increases in violent crime during that period.9 In the ten states with the lowest increasesin incarceration, violent crime rates did increase.10 Between 1994 and 1995, the violent crimeindex in these states increased only slightly, approximately 4.7 percent.11
Nationally, state prisoners convicted of violent crimes in 1985 could expect to serveapproximately 36 percent of their sentence before being eligible for release. Those sentenced in1990 served an average of 54 percent of the sentence. In 1990, the average sentence for seriouscrimes fell by eight months but the minimum time served before release consideration rose byseven months. Violent offenders released from state prisons in 1995 will have served, on average,65 percent of their time.12 As a whole, all prisoners released in 1988 served an average of 33percent of their sentences in confinement. All prisoners released in 1995 had served an average of39 percent of their time behind bars.13
Prior felons accounted for 40 percent of the prison admissions in 1995. Parole and Probationviolators each accounted for 18 percent of 1995 admissions.14 The remaining 24 percent ofadmissions are assumed to be new crimes. This slow but steady increase in incarceration is theresult of a nationwide trend toward tougher sentencing policies, and has reportedly sparedmillions of Americans from criminal victimization.
Another factor adding to the population increase is that prison releases for both violent and non-violent offenders has declined over the last five years. During 1991, 23 percent of violentoffenders were released from prison. Three years later, 19.1 percent were released. Preliminaryestimates for 1995 suggest the rate has increased slightly (20.1%), but still remains below the1991 release percentage. Releases for property offenders has declined over this period as well. Forty-six percent of inmates serving time for property offenses were released in 1991. In 1995,that rate declined to just under 38 percent.15
Assault on Parole
Parole is based on the idea that rehabilitation is the primary reason for incarceration. Opponentsof parole argue that holding the objective of rehabilitation above the deterrent, retributive andincapacitation factors of imprisonment, diminish their individual importance and by association thepublic will. Anti-parole forces claim that mandatory minimums and truth in sentencing workssimply because offenders in prison are not likely to commit future criminal acts. Simple benefit-cost studies are used to illustrate this point. In 1995, the National Institute of Justice published areport stating that crime costs the American public $105 billion annually in lost wages and medicalcosts. When “pain and suffering” are added to the equation, the total climbs to just less than $450billion.
No opponent of parole, (or proponents of increasing the mandatory time prisoners spend behindbars), denies the fact that increasing the prison population will result in more prison construction. These people simply state that it is more cost effective to incarcerate than develop programs thatallow offenders to be released from prison. Some criminologists have offered evidence thatsuggests crimes like arson, (as one example) cost citizens $54,000. Compare that figure with thecost of incarcerating a prisoner ($25,000 to $30,000 a year), and the benefits clearly outweigh thecosts.16
Whether the criminal activity/cost-to-society figures are accurate or not, simply building moreprisons is not an option for many states. Four out of every five dollars of prison operating costsgo for employee salaries and facility maintenance.17 According to the Correctional Association ofNew York, as debt service to finance prison building is added to the cost of construction, theoriginal cost of prison bed construction triples. The necessity to divert funds to meet the demandsfor more prison space adversely influences programs designed to prevent crime and offeralternatives to incarceration, not to mention education, job training and health care. For example,between 1987 and 1993, national corrections spending outpaced higher education spending by 41percent.18
Criminal justice professionals simply do not agree on whether increased incarceration effectivelyreduces crime. What many criminologists can agree upon is that by incarcerating seriousoffenders, society enjoys a net financial benefit. On the other hand, incarceration of non-seriousoffenders, those that could be placed in alternative programs without endangering communities, isanything but cost-effective.
Rehabilitation No Longer Important
Corrections is a system of extremes - incapacitating prisons vs. ineffective probation/ parole. Inessence, it would be like asking a physician for relief from a headache, and being told there areonly two treatments - an aspirin or a lobotomy. More often, it is like going to the same doctorwith heartburn or a broken arm and being told the same two treatments, an aspirin or a lobotomy,are all that is available.19 Criminal behavior and punishment are no less simple than any medicalailment. Narrow treatment options suggest the likelihood of successful intervention into criminalbehavior diminish dramatically. The more choices available to corrections officials andcommunities ensure that treatment programs can reach the people they need to assist.
On January 18, 1989, the U.S. confirmed the abandonment of rehabilitation in corrections Supreme Court. In Mistretta v. United States, the Court upheld federal “sentencing guidelines”which remove rehabilitation from serious consideration when sentencing offenders. They will fromnow on sentence defendants strictly for the crime, with no recognition given to such factors asamenability to treatment, personal and family history, previous efforts to rehabilitate oneself, orpossible alternatives to prison. The Court outlined the history of the debate: “Rehabilitation as asound penological theory came to be questioned and, in any event, was regarded by some as anunattainable goal for most cases.” The Court cited a Senate Report that “referred to the'outmoded rehabilitation model' for federal criminal sentencing, and recognized that the efforts ofthe criminal justice system to achieve rehabilitation of offenders had failed.”20
Successful rehabilitation is less a matter of merely offering alternatives, but how and wherealternatives are delivered. When an organization can create a system that encourages a variety ofintensive options and strong alternatives, recidivism could be lowered. Where there is little choicein treatment options, recidivism would likely remain similar to rates experienced in prisonsfocused on deterrence, incapacitation and retribution.
In 1985, Lamar Empey, a University of Southern California sociologist offered that theory afterevaluating a program known as the Provo Project. The project showed that recidivism rates fellsignificantly for youthful offenders placed in community-based programs, when compared withyouth in state institutions. Harvard's Center for Criminal Justice reiterated it a decade later, whenresearchers studied recidivism among youthful delinquents placed in community treatment asopposed to state reform schools. Serious delinquents placed in the community with no treatmentshowed no lower rates of recidivism than reform school youth, and in many cases did worse.21The intensity and integrity of the treatment were crucial to lowering recidivism rates.
What Are the Alternatives?
There is mixed evidence that sentencing reforms, as implemented, have led to reductions in crime.While violent crimes such as murder have decreased recently, imprisonment is but one reason.Stabilization of drug markets, community policing efforts, and aggressive enforcement ofbehaviors perceived as threatening also has contributed to the declines in murders and otherviolent crimes.
Rather than continuing to pursue expanding the use of imprisonment for more classes of offendersand increasing its use for drug and other nonviolent offenders, punishment policies need to bedevised to meet three objectives: (1) punish offenders; (2) relieve the negative consequences ofpast policies; and (3), for nonviolent criminals, address the underlying economic motivations andthe problems of chemical dependency. Clearly, severe punishments for serious and violentoffenders need to be maintained. For less serious property offenders and low-level drug crimes, astrategy of intermediate sanctions connected to effective community treatment opportunities isneeded. For persons falling into nonviolent criminal classes, intermediate sanctions will reduce theunintended damage of incarceration, i.e., such as reductions in wages and earnings and the socialfabric of the communities. Finally, these sanctions and programs can be tailored to meet the needsof the individual communities; absent specific state mandated standards.
This is not to say that incarceration is not a useful and appropriate sanction. After an suitable riskassessment is completed, violent and repeat offenders may place too great a risk on thecommunity if sentenced to alternative programs. Incapacitating these persons makes sense, butexpecting huge reductions in violent crime by increasing the length of their time in prison may notbe realistic. For property offenders and low-level drug offenders, incarceration diminishes anoffender's capacity to engage in legitimate work after release. Without proper prison treatmentprograms, incarceration merely increases the likelihood that the released prisoner will reoffend.Conversely, by placing these offenders in the community for their punishment their attachment tothe community will be strengthened. Incarceration severely limits an offenders earnings potentialand thus their ability to make victim restitution.
What sanctions can be implemented that punish, produce cost-effective reductions in crime, anddo not damage communities? Alternative sanctions such as community corrections or intermediatepunishments such as intensive supervision, work release, community service, house arrest withelectronic monitoring, and even boot camps may be more cost effective than incarceration for lessserious offenders. To operate as effective alternatives to prison, intermediate sanctions need to beused for persons who, in their absence, would have been sent to prison. Now, such sanctions areused for persons who otherwise would have received probation. When used as an alternative toprison, intensive supervision programs seem attractive alternatives for first-time drug offenders.22Successful management of these programs requires a fiscal commitment to allow for sufficientsupervision to ensure positive community support. Without that commitment, judges can onlychoose between probation with no monitoring or prison, which may be inappropriate for lessserious offenders. Research on the effectiveness of these programs is not widespread, but will nodoubt be required before lawmakers commit to these types of alternatives.
Good News?
The National Conference of State Legislatures reports that national corrections spending growthhas slowed. Between 1986 and 1996, corrections spending went from $ 7 billion to $20 billion, athreefold increase.23 From 1996 to 1997, fiscal forecasters predicted the spending increase wouldbe 6.7 percent. However, spending increased just 2 percent during that time.24 Much of thatdecline can be attributed to prison building states reaching the end of their building cycles, but asdebt service payments and increasing facility maintenance costs come due, large spendingincreases might once again become the norm.
Two western states, Colorado and Idaho, have not witnessed slower corrections spending, andare facing serious crowding problems as a result of stricter mandatory sentencing. In Idaho, theproportion of non-violent prisoners accounts for 61 percent of the total inmate population. Sixyears ago, that group of prisoners made up 55 percent of the total population. In the past tenyears, drug offenders and persons convicted of driving under the influence have replaced two ofthe most violent offenders--murders and those convicted of assault--among the top five reasonsinmates are in prison. A 1997 Rand Corporation study argued that incarcerating nonviolent drugoffenders under mandatory minimum sentencing structures were so expensive that it would bemore cost effective to spend more money on prevention. As a result, the Governor of Coloradorecommended the state review the current sentencing statutes and reduce prison time fornonviolent criminals.
As states struggle to manage corrections' costs relative to their individual fiscal situations, moreeffort is being placed on evaluating alternatives. Whether they be in the form of increased judicialsentencing discretion or creating sentencing guidelines that allow for shorter or alternativesentences for nonviolent offenders, the end result is the awareness that state's can no longer fightthe “war on crime” using traditional weapons and expect to maintain fiscal integrity.
As a final note, the Survey Research Program at the College of Criminal Justice, Sam HoustonState University, administered a nationwide corrections oriented public opinion poll in 1996. Theresults to a series of questions regarding the goals of prison, prison over-crowding, and prisonalternatives may surprise some policy makers.
Question 1: “Once people who commit crimes are in prison, which of the following doyou think should be the most important goal of prison?”
Rehabilitation
Punishment
Deterrence
National
48.4%
14.6%
33.1%
West
51%
13.3%
30.9%
Question 2: “Would you favor or oppose the following measures that have beensuggested as ways to reduce prison overcrowding?”
(Percent responding favor)
A. Shortening Sentences B. Good Time/Work Programs
National 7.5%National 63.2% West 7.5% West 71.4%
C. Local Programs for D. More Parole releases Non-violent offenders
National 89.2% National 20.3% West 88.4% West 21.1%
E. Increase Taxes for Prison Construction
National 31.4% West 33.2%
Question 3: “To reduce crowding in prisons, state officials use various alternatives to prisons. How effective do you think the following alternatives are at protecting citizensagainst crime?
Very Effective Somewhat Not Very Not at all
Regular Probation 15.6% 49.6 21.0% 10.9%
Electronic Monitoring 24.7% 43.2% 14.6% 10.5%
Probationer Restitution 43.3% 38.5% 9.9% 5.7%
Probationer Community Service 28.3% 46.7% 15.3% 6.8%
ISP 18.8% 51.1% 16.7% 8.2%
Question 4: “Please tell me how much confidence, you, yourself have in your stateprison system?”
Great Deal Quite a lot Some Very little
National 7.9% 17.6% 42.2% 32.3% West 6.1% 18.0% 42.5% 33.3%
Finally, The Gallup Report conducts regular polling and collects responses concerning whatAmericans feel to be the most pressing problem in the country today. In January 1985, 3 percentof the nation believed crime to be the most important problem facing the nation. By January1997, 23 percent of those polled believed that crime was the number one issue facing our country,and since 1994, no other issue ranks as importantly among respondents.
So, even though crime rates seem to be declining, people are still concerned about how crimeimpacts their lives. However, with evidence that the public believes rehabilitation plays animportant role in criminal justice, policy makers should begin to encourage local governments toinvest more of their resources in solving local problems.
l55 8117ghxb.
Footnote: 11 Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1997. It should be noted that the NCVS methodologies differ significantly from the Uniform Crime Report, published by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The UCR surveys law enforcement officials across the country to analyze crime. From 1991 through 1995, the UCR reported that violent crime fell 9.7 percent, while all crime fell 10.5 percent.Footnote: 22 The total prison population includes those persons residing in local jail facilities. Prisoners in 1996, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1997Footnote: 33Prisoners in 1996, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1997 Footnote: 44 Yearend 1995 and 1996 totals. Prisoners in 1996, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1997Footnote: 55 Miller, Jerome G., The Debate on Rehabilitating Criminals: Is it True Nothing Works?, 1995 . Written statement for congressional symposium.Footnote: 66Prisoners in 1996, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1997Footnote: 77 The ten states include: Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Nevada, Mississippi, Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, and California. National Center for Policy Analysis , 1998 Footnote: 88 Uniform Crime Reports 1996, Federal Bureau of Investigation. Footnote: 99 Uniform Crime Reports 1996, Federal Bureau of Investigation. Footnote: 1010 The states include: North Dakota, Minnesota, Maine, Vermont, West Virginia, New Hampshire, Nebraska, Utah, Rhode Island and Iowa. National Institute of Justice, 1995 Footnote: 1111 Vermont witnessed the largest increase in violent crime rates during this period (23%), which noticeably impacts the aggregate total. Uniform Crime Reports 1996, Federal Bureau of Investigation.Footnote: 1212Prisoners in 1996, Bureau of Justice Statistics-1997 Footnote: 1313 These percentages reflect all prisoners sentenced to a term of one year or more. The Corrections Yearbook, 1996. Criminal Justice Institute, Inc.Footnote: 1414 The Corrections Yearbook, 1996. Criminal Justice Institute, Inc. Footnote: 1515 Violent offenses include: murder, manslaughter, rape, other sexual assault, robbery, assault, and other violent crimes. Inmates convicted of murder had the lowest release percentage, 8.8 percent in 1991 and 5.8 percent in 1995. Property offenses include: burglary, larceny, vehicle theft, fraud, and other property offenses. Prisoners in 1996, Bureau of Justice Statistics-1997.Footnote: 1616 National Institute of Justice, 1995Footnote: 1717 Bureau of Justice Statistics, Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics-1993, 1994.Footnote: 1818 "Anti-crime Wave Shackles State Educational Spending”, Christian Science Monitor, February 1995.Footnote: 1919 Miller, Jerome G., “ The Debate on Rehabilitating Criminals: Is it True Nothing Works?”, 1995. Written statement prepared for the National Center on Institutions and Alternatives. Footnote: 2020 Miller, Jerome G., “ The Debate on Rehabilitating Criminals: Is it True Nothing Works?”, 1995. Written statement prepared for the National Center on Institutions and Alternatives. Footnote: 2121 Desktop Guide to Good Juvenile Detention Practice, October 1996. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Internet Research Report. Footnote: 2222 Petersilia, Joan, and Susan Turner. 1993. "Intensive Probation and Parole," In Crime and Justice: A Review of Research Footnote: 2323 "The Cost of Corrections”, State Legislatures, National Conference of State Legislatures , February 1998Footnote: 2424 Pg.30
Provided by Montana Legislative Services
Please email comments or suggestions about this web page to Lisa Mecklenberg Jackson, Legislative Librarian
