Public safety has become an issue as state budgets tighten. Illinois Governor Pat Quinn's early release program recently came under fire after reports surfaced that some criminals who got out were arrested for new offenses. Notwithstanding, a number of other states including Colorado, Washington, Kentucky, Oregon and California have opted to release state prisoners to reduce budget expenditures.
According to the Idaho Statesman, Idaho isn't interested in early release of prisoners even though it's trying to slash about $130 million more from Gov. C.L. "Butch" Otter's proposed budget. Department of Correction Director Brent Reinke's budget has already been cut to just $168 million, down from nearly $200 million in 2008.
Construction of a $50 million mental health prison has also been delayed until at least 2011 because Idaho officials are unsure if there will be enough money to staff the facility or cover bond payments to pay for the new prison.
To read the entire article: www.idahostatesman.com/531/story/1085069.html
Friday, February 19, 2010
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Prison Treatment: Political Cover or Enlightened Leadership
Lock'em up is no longer the mantra of Florida's criminal justice system. Governor Charlie Christ might not yet be ready for the Criminal Defenders Association man of the year award, but Christ has made a radical departure form his previous position on crime and punishment.
In previous posts, I have detailed California's questionable decision to cut prison treatment and education programs as well as Texas' ongoing debate about closing some of its 112 state prisons. Texas and Florida have earned hearty reputations as law and order states. Their change of direction with regard to prisons is nothing short of astonishing.
Early in his political career, Governor Christ earned the moniker "Chain Gang Charlie" for his support of re-instituting chain gangs in Florida. He presides over a state that has 60 prisons, 41 work/forestry camps, one treatment center, 30 work release centers and five road prisons. The prison population has grown to over 100,0000. Today, Florida has the nations third largest prison population behind only California and Texas.
That is why the recent report in the St. Petersburg Times is so surprising. The state has backed away from plans to build more prisons and will instead invest in re-entry services and prison diversion programs. Governor Christ's proposed budget includes no money for new prisons.
Not everyone is on board in the Sunshine State. The Times reported that a key player, the chairwoman of the house criminal justice budget committee is opposed. Representative Sandy Adams said, "I don't believe we need to let criminals out of institutions just for budget purposes."
My Take
Governor Christ's change in direction has little to do with a more enlightened way of governing. It has everything to do with tight budgets. According to the Times, each inmate in Florida cost about $20,000 a year. With more than 100,000 inmates and a projected increase of 15-percent over the coming years Florida's prison system is unsustainable.
Treatment can be done on the cheap and provides cover for politicians who have no choice but to let more people out of prison, put fewer offenders in prison while trying to maintain a tough on crime persona.
Meaningful, evidence-based treatment is a different story. It must be implemented with well trained facilitators in sufficient dosage to make an impact. Florida can do more harm than good if policymakers use treatment as political cover and not as a tool to reduce recidivism.
In previous posts, I have detailed California's questionable decision to cut prison treatment and education programs as well as Texas' ongoing debate about closing some of its 112 state prisons. Texas and Florida have earned hearty reputations as law and order states. Their change of direction with regard to prisons is nothing short of astonishing.
Early in his political career, Governor Christ earned the moniker "Chain Gang Charlie" for his support of re-instituting chain gangs in Florida. He presides over a state that has 60 prisons, 41 work/forestry camps, one treatment center, 30 work release centers and five road prisons. The prison population has grown to over 100,0000. Today, Florida has the nations third largest prison population behind only California and Texas.
That is why the recent report in the St. Petersburg Times is so surprising. The state has backed away from plans to build more prisons and will instead invest in re-entry services and prison diversion programs. Governor Christ's proposed budget includes no money for new prisons.
Not everyone is on board in the Sunshine State. The Times reported that a key player, the chairwoman of the house criminal justice budget committee is opposed. Representative Sandy Adams said, "I don't believe we need to let criminals out of institutions just for budget purposes."
My Take
Governor Christ's change in direction has little to do with a more enlightened way of governing. It has everything to do with tight budgets. According to the Times, each inmate in Florida cost about $20,000 a year. With more than 100,000 inmates and a projected increase of 15-percent over the coming years Florida's prison system is unsustainable.
Treatment can be done on the cheap and provides cover for politicians who have no choice but to let more people out of prison, put fewer offenders in prison while trying to maintain a tough on crime persona.
Meaningful, evidence-based treatment is a different story. It must be implemented with well trained facilitators in sufficient dosage to make an impact. Florida can do more harm than good if policymakers use treatment as political cover and not as a tool to reduce recidivism.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Good Time versus Smart Time
Governors around the country are struggling with ever tightening budgets and ever expanding prison costs. Michigan is looking to reinstate "good time" to help save money. "Good time" rewards inmates who have not misbehaved in prison. In Michigan, an inmate would receive five-days credit for each misconduct free month in the first two-years and gradually increases over time.
"Good time" was phased-out over a period of twenty-years, beginning in 1978. According to the Detroit Free-Press, bringing back "good time" will be daunting. Michigan voters overwhelmingly voted to repeal "good time" in 1978 and 75-percent of the legislature would have to vote in favor of reinstating "good time."
Does "good time" increase recidivism? In 2003, the Washington Legislature increased earned time from a maximum of 33 percent to 50 percent for eligible nonviolent offenders. The Oregonian reported that the Washington State Institute for Public Policy analyzed the impact of the changes. The institute reported that the law has been effective: criminal recidivism has not increased and taxpayer costs are lower. There was no statistically significant effect on violent criminal recidivism, but a statistically significant decrease for nonviolent crimes. Overall, 39 percent of offenders released under the new law were convicted of a new felony within three years compared with 42-percent under the prior statute.
My Take
The flaw with "good time" is that it rewards only good behavior. A component of "good time" should include successful completion of treatment. An inmate who merely has good conduct without any intervention is really no different than when he entered prison. "Good time" would be more effective if it included treatment and education making it "smart time" not just "good time."
"Good time" was phased-out over a period of twenty-years, beginning in 1978. According to the Detroit Free-Press, bringing back "good time" will be daunting. Michigan voters overwhelmingly voted to repeal "good time" in 1978 and 75-percent of the legislature would have to vote in favor of reinstating "good time."
Does "good time" increase recidivism? In 2003, the Washington Legislature increased earned time from a maximum of 33 percent to 50 percent for eligible nonviolent offenders. The Oregonian reported that the Washington State Institute for Public Policy analyzed the impact of the changes. The institute reported that the law has been effective: criminal recidivism has not increased and taxpayer costs are lower. There was no statistically significant effect on violent criminal recidivism, but a statistically significant decrease for nonviolent crimes. Overall, 39 percent of offenders released under the new law were convicted of a new felony within three years compared with 42-percent under the prior statute.
My Take
The flaw with "good time" is that it rewards only good behavior. A component of "good time" should include successful completion of treatment. An inmate who merely has good conduct without any intervention is really no different than when he entered prison. "Good time" would be more effective if it included treatment and education making it "smart time" not just "good time."
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Prison Treatment Victim of California Budget Woes
California is in the midst of an unprecedented budget crisis. The corrections budget has been slashed by $1.2 billion. The state is under federal court order to reduce the number of prison inmates.
California has a 70-percent recidivism rate, the highest in the nation. As well as approximately 170,000 inmates, the most in the nation. So what will California do to address dwindling prison resources?
The corrections department is cutting treatment programs, education programs and vocational programs. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, more than 20,000 inmates will be denied programming. In fact, San Quentin Prison will shut-down 13 of 19 programs.
California appears to be moving in the opposite direction of most states. Texas is contemplating closing prisons as a result of recent investments in prison treatment. Texas attributes reductions in recidivism to their aggressive treatment efforts. Bill Sabol of the U.S. Justice Department told the Houston Chronicle that Texas was one of two states showing the biggest drop in imprisonment rates. The number of people imprisoned per 100,000 population decreased by 30, going from 669 to 639 per 100,000.
Between 1985 and 2005, the state prison population grew 300 percent and Texas spent $2.3 billion adding 108,000 beds. The Chronicle reported that by 2005, Texas had reached a turning point: Either spend half a billion dollars to house 17,000 new prisoners or spend less than half that amount to reduce the prison population through treatment programs. The result was 10,000 beds were set aside for substance abuse and mental programs for probationers, parolees and prisoners.
My Take
A study conducted to determine if treatment would pay for itself in California suggested that every dollar spent on treatment would save taxpayers seven dollars in costs associated with re-incarceration. Savings are primarily attributed to reduced crime and increased employment earnings.
A recent study by the Cognitive Behavior Treatment Review found that cognitive-behavioral programming could reduce recidivism by as much as 21-percent.
In spite of compelling research California has opted to ignore evidence-based research to save a short term buck at the expense of the long term safety of its residents. In classic doublespeak, Corrections Secretary Matthew Cate suggests that the reductions in treatment funding are, "Landmark achievements that will reduce crime."
California has a 70-percent recidivism rate, the highest in the nation. As well as approximately 170,000 inmates, the most in the nation. So what will California do to address dwindling prison resources?
The corrections department is cutting treatment programs, education programs and vocational programs. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, more than 20,000 inmates will be denied programming. In fact, San Quentin Prison will shut-down 13 of 19 programs.
California appears to be moving in the opposite direction of most states. Texas is contemplating closing prisons as a result of recent investments in prison treatment. Texas attributes reductions in recidivism to their aggressive treatment efforts. Bill Sabol of the U.S. Justice Department told the Houston Chronicle that Texas was one of two states showing the biggest drop in imprisonment rates. The number of people imprisoned per 100,000 population decreased by 30, going from 669 to 639 per 100,000.
Between 1985 and 2005, the state prison population grew 300 percent and Texas spent $2.3 billion adding 108,000 beds. The Chronicle reported that by 2005, Texas had reached a turning point: Either spend half a billion dollars to house 17,000 new prisoners or spend less than half that amount to reduce the prison population through treatment programs. The result was 10,000 beds were set aside for substance abuse and mental programs for probationers, parolees and prisoners.
My Take
A study conducted to determine if treatment would pay for itself in California suggested that every dollar spent on treatment would save taxpayers seven dollars in costs associated with re-incarceration. Savings are primarily attributed to reduced crime and increased employment earnings.
A recent study by the Cognitive Behavior Treatment Review found that cognitive-behavioral programming could reduce recidivism by as much as 21-percent.
In spite of compelling research California has opted to ignore evidence-based research to save a short term buck at the expense of the long term safety of its residents. In classic doublespeak, Corrections Secretary Matthew Cate suggests that the reductions in treatment funding are, "Landmark achievements that will reduce crime."
Monday, February 15, 2010
Texas Closing Prisons?
Texas is considering closing prisons. That may not seem surprising at first blush. There are a number of states that have closed prisons including Michigan, Virginia and Missouri to name a few.
The lone star state has reveled in its reputation as America's leader in law and order. In the modern era of the death penalty Texas has executed 449 killers. Virginia is second with 105. In 1990, there were 35,000 inmates in Texas state prisons. Today, there are approximately 153,000 offenders in state prisons. Texas has 112 state prisons to house those inmates. Just a couple of years ago closing prisons in Texas would have been unthinkable.
The unthinkable is now on the table in Texas according to the Austin American-Statesman. "Closing prisons? It's absolutely on the table," said House Corrections Committee Chairman Jim McReynolds. "As tight as our budget situation looks, we cannot unravel the fledgling system of diversion and treatment programs that are paying big dividends now for the states. And there's only one other place to look — prison operations."
Not everyone agrees. "We certainly can't compromise public safety, and I'm opposed to closing prisons just to save a buck," said Senate Criminal Justice Committee Chairman John Whitmire.
Regardless of the action Texas takes it still appears to be a harbinger of what is to come as state budgets tighten and prisons continue to grow.
The lone star state has reveled in its reputation as America's leader in law and order. In the modern era of the death penalty Texas has executed 449 killers. Virginia is second with 105. In 1990, there were 35,000 inmates in Texas state prisons. Today, there are approximately 153,000 offenders in state prisons. Texas has 112 state prisons to house those inmates. Just a couple of years ago closing prisons in Texas would have been unthinkable.
The unthinkable is now on the table in Texas according to the Austin American-Statesman. "Closing prisons? It's absolutely on the table," said House Corrections Committee Chairman Jim McReynolds. "As tight as our budget situation looks, we cannot unravel the fledgling system of diversion and treatment programs that are paying big dividends now for the states. And there's only one other place to look — prison operations."
Not everyone agrees. "We certainly can't compromise public safety, and I'm opposed to closing prisons just to save a buck," said Senate Criminal Justice Committee Chairman John Whitmire.
Regardless of the action Texas takes it still appears to be a harbinger of what is to come as state budgets tighten and prisons continue to grow.
Sunday, February 14, 2010
New York's Crime Decline Rings True
A recent survey of retired New York City police commanders suggests that the NYPD commonly downgrades crime to improve the city's reputation in fighting crime. Last week the New York Times revealed a survey conducted by John A. Eterno and Eli B. Silverman.
The researchers surveyed 323 former NYPD commanders and administrators and found that throughout the CompStat era the police "felt enormous pressure to downgrade index crimes."
CompStat is a crime tracking or mapping computer system that provides data for weekly meetings where crime fighting strategy is established and where the 76 precinct commanders are held accountable for fluctuating crime rates in their areas. Index crimes are those crimes that are reported by law enforcement agencies across the United States through the Uniform Crime Reports (UCR). The UCR focuses on homicide and non-negligent manslaughter, robbery, forcible rape, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny/theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson.
With allegations of devaluing thefts so they would not appear on the UCR or police officers trying to persuade victims not to file complaints, New York is abuzz with the talk of a brewing scandal. Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg said, "I have an enormous amount of confidence in the data in terms of it being as accurate as you can possibly make it."
My Take
Bloomberg has every right to be confident. There are two obvious reasons why the survey results make no sense. First, the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). The NCVS collects data directly from victims. Respondents are asked if they have been victimized within the previous six-months. The NCVS shows crime drops parallel with the NYPD since the early 1990's.
Secondly, homicide is often looked at as the gold standard for interpreting crime rate trends. It is difficult to downgrade a murder or pretend like it never occurred. New York's astonishing decline in homicide speaks for itself. In 1990, there were 2,245 murders in New York City. In 2009 there were 461 murders.
While there may be some fudging of numbers, there is no question that the crime drop in New York has been nothing short of miraculous. Holding precinct commanders accountable may be unpalatable to the Captains Endowment Association, the group that represents retired police administrators,but it certainly has had an impact on New York's neighborhoods.
The researchers surveyed 323 former NYPD commanders and administrators and found that throughout the CompStat era the police "felt enormous pressure to downgrade index crimes."
CompStat is a crime tracking or mapping computer system that provides data for weekly meetings where crime fighting strategy is established and where the 76 precinct commanders are held accountable for fluctuating crime rates in their areas. Index crimes are those crimes that are reported by law enforcement agencies across the United States through the Uniform Crime Reports (UCR). The UCR focuses on homicide and non-negligent manslaughter, robbery, forcible rape, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny/theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson.
With allegations of devaluing thefts so they would not appear on the UCR or police officers trying to persuade victims not to file complaints, New York is abuzz with the talk of a brewing scandal. Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg said, "I have an enormous amount of confidence in the data in terms of it being as accurate as you can possibly make it."
My Take
Bloomberg has every right to be confident. There are two obvious reasons why the survey results make no sense. First, the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). The NCVS collects data directly from victims. Respondents are asked if they have been victimized within the previous six-months. The NCVS shows crime drops parallel with the NYPD since the early 1990's.
Secondly, homicide is often looked at as the gold standard for interpreting crime rate trends. It is difficult to downgrade a murder or pretend like it never occurred. New York's astonishing decline in homicide speaks for itself. In 1990, there were 2,245 murders in New York City. In 2009 there were 461 murders.
While there may be some fudging of numbers, there is no question that the crime drop in New York has been nothing short of miraculous. Holding precinct commanders accountable may be unpalatable to the Captains Endowment Association, the group that represents retired police administrators,but it certainly has had an impact on New York's neighborhoods.
Saturday, February 13, 2010
New Study: Treatment Reduces Crime Rates
A new study published in the Cognitive Behavioral Treatment Review may provides some insight into declining crime rates over the last 20 years. The study authored by Gregory L. Little, Ed.D. and Kenneth D. Robinson, Ed.D. is the first known 20-year recidivism comparison of a treatment program utilized in the criminal justice system.
The study followed nearly 1,500 offenders, some of whom participated in moral reconation therapy (MRT). In the late 1980's, MRT was introduced in correctional settings and provided for small groups of offenders to meet multiple times a week with a trained facilitator to participate in exercises and homework to influence changes in the offender's criminal thinking and behavior.
After 20 years, the authors compared the criminal history of those who participated in MRT and those who did not participate. Those offenders with MRT were 21-percent less likely to be reincarcerated. One in five MRT graduates had no criminal offenses over the 20 years. For those offenders without MRT, a little more 1 in 20 had clean records over 20 years.
Let's say one-million offenders received MRT over the last 20 years. Two-hundred-thousand of those offenders have since lived a crime free life. The state of Ohio provides another perspective on the impact of offender treatment. There are approximately 50,000 offenders housed in Ohio correctional facilities. If every inmate would participate in MRT, Ohio should expect a 21-percent reduction in the number of offenders returned to prison.
The accepted recidivism rate for offenders returning to prison within three years is 66-percent. A 21-percent reduction in recidivism due to MRT would decrease Ohio's prison population by nearly 7,000 inmates. At $24,000-a-year per inmate Ohio could save $160-million a year.
Crime has declined nationwide over the last 20 years. We have heard the decline attributed to better policing, more police officers, decline in crack cocaine use, easing of gun control regulations, fewer young people, better trauma care and even abortion. It appears that criminologists have overlooked the impact of offender interventions like MRT, substance abuse treatment and vocational training in reducing crime rates.
The study followed nearly 1,500 offenders, some of whom participated in moral reconation therapy (MRT). In the late 1980's, MRT was introduced in correctional settings and provided for small groups of offenders to meet multiple times a week with a trained facilitator to participate in exercises and homework to influence changes in the offender's criminal thinking and behavior.
After 20 years, the authors compared the criminal history of those who participated in MRT and those who did not participate. Those offenders with MRT were 21-percent less likely to be reincarcerated. One in five MRT graduates had no criminal offenses over the 20 years. For those offenders without MRT, a little more 1 in 20 had clean records over 20 years.
Let's say one-million offenders received MRT over the last 20 years. Two-hundred-thousand of those offenders have since lived a crime free life. The state of Ohio provides another perspective on the impact of offender treatment. There are approximately 50,000 offenders housed in Ohio correctional facilities. If every inmate would participate in MRT, Ohio should expect a 21-percent reduction in the number of offenders returned to prison.
The accepted recidivism rate for offenders returning to prison within three years is 66-percent. A 21-percent reduction in recidivism due to MRT would decrease Ohio's prison population by nearly 7,000 inmates. At $24,000-a-year per inmate Ohio could save $160-million a year.
Crime has declined nationwide over the last 20 years. We have heard the decline attributed to better policing, more police officers, decline in crack cocaine use, easing of gun control regulations, fewer young people, better trauma care and even abortion. It appears that criminologists have overlooked the impact of offender interventions like MRT, substance abuse treatment and vocational training in reducing crime rates.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
