States Get Smart

Article by Shannon Wight

At the Vera Institute of Justice’s Third Annual Justice Address in July 2009, Attorney General Eric Holder stated that our country needs to get smarter on crime. He noted, “To begin with, high rates of incarceration have tremendous social cost…And, of course, there also is the matter of simple dollars and cents, and the principle of diminishing marginal returns…For while prison building and prison spending continue to increase, public safety is not improving.” America’s first African American attorney general is bringing national attention to what many of us have known all along – America needs to get smarter on crime. In his speech, Holder talks about prevention, evidence-based practices that truly improve public safety, and that “being smart on crime means understanding that our work does not end when prison time begins.”

For Partnership for Safety and Justice, being smart on crime means promoting policies that:

• Increase public safety
• Strengthen services that build safe, sound, and healthy communities
• Save the state money

During the 2009 legislative session, Oregon passed House Bill 3508 to save money in the corrections budget and maintain funding for essential programs and services. While we opposed some aspects of the bill, most notably the section that lengthened the time between parole board hearings, the bill was a huge step in the right direction for Oregon sentencing policy. The policies we support in HB 3508 are the increase in earned time for people in prison; the delay of Measure 57 (and therefore delay of prison construction), earned time for probationers and a limit on the number of days a person can serve on a probation violation that does not involve new criminal activity. When considered with the 2005 omnibus bill to address the methamphetamine crisis (another smart bill that addressed the roots of addiction and meth production) there is reason to be optimistic that Oregon is getting smarter on crime.

Oregon is not alone in its approach. Other states are also finding ways to create savings in corrections while maintaining public safety. Much like the states we wrote about in the Justice Reinvestment article (Justice Matters, Spring 2009), the massive and ever-increasing corrections budgets are unsustainable and take away from essential services like schools, child abuse prevention and drug and alcohol treatment. In addressing the fiscal crisis, several states have taken steps to reduce or slow down corrections costs by implementing effective crime reduction tactics. Now, rather than getting pulled into the false tension between being tough or soft on crime, states can rely on data-driven and evidence-based best practices to implement policies that save money and keep our communities safe.

Both the Vera Institute of Justice (The Fiscal Crisis in Corrections: Rethinking Policies and Practices) and PEW Center on the States (Policy Framework to Strengthen Community Corrections) have reported on the state changes and best practices for reform. The following is a summary of the some of the state-based reforms taken from the Vera and PEW research.

Increase in Earned Time

Earned time rewards prisoners who comply with prison rules by adding days off of their time. In Oregon the increase in earned time added 10% to the population who previously were eligible for 20% earned time. Colorado also enacted a modest increase for certain prisoners, allowing them to earn 12, rather than 10 days off their sentence per month. Ohio estimates it could save $11 million if it enacts legislation being considered that would allow 7 days off for every month a person participates in programs or treatment. Washington State increased earned time for low-level offenses from 33% to 50% and found reduced incidents of violent recidivism at a great savings to the state.

Earned Time for Probationers

Under House Bill 3508, Oregon allows people on probation for certain offenses to earn up to 50% off of their active probation time for compliance with the terms of probation. Arizona passed similar legislation that allows probationers to reduce their sentence by up to 20 days for every month they are in compliance with the terms to their probation and are on time with their victim restitution payments. Like earned time for people in prison, probationers are given an added incentive to meet the terms of their release.

Limit Time for Probation Sanctions

HB 3508 limited the number of days a person can be sentenced to jail when they are on probation to 60 days, if no new offense has been committed. PEW Center of the States recognizes this as an important strategy in reducing the number of people pouring into prisons and jails for failing on community supervision. The high rate at which people fail on supervision demands that community supervision be strengthened in other areas as well. Illinois’s Crime Reduction Act would implement a continuum of reforms aimed at improving community supervision practices through developing individual case plans, using a risk assessment tools to determine supervision levels, providing training to staff and implementing graduated sanction to respond to supervision violations.

Delaying Prison Construction

If it had been fully implemented, Measure 57 would have created the need for additional Oregon prisons. House Bill 3508 delayed implementation and that, combined with the budget crisis, has put plans to build a new prison in Junction City, Oregon on hold. Colorado and Alaska have either delayed prison expansion or the opening of new prisons to create savings. According to Vera’s Fiscal Crisis in Corrections, more than 20 states have either slowed prison growth or closed prisons recently. Delaying prison building or closing prisons can save significant funds for state budgets but can only be a part of a successful long-term savings strategy if community based services are well funded.

Re-Entry Planning

House Bill 3508 did not address re-entry issues but many states have acknowledged that the transition out of prison is critical in determining a person’s future success. In 2007, Governor Kulongoski created a Governor’s Re-Entry Council to examine re-entry barriers and develop policy proposals to better support people when they are released from prison. Numerous states have prioritized funding for re-entry, recognizing that investing to help people when they are released can help save money and reduce recidivism in the long run. Colorado estimates that the $9.5 million investment made for reforms in the Crime Prevention and Recidivism Reduction Package will save the state $380 million over five years. According to the Vera report, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, Michigan, Missouri, Montana and Texas all passed recent legislation that increased funding or services for re-entry programs.

Other Reforms

States across the country are looking for ways to slow their ever-expanding corrections budgets. Several states are looking at decreasing medical costs by releasing elderly or medically infirm prisoners. During the last year, New York, Washington and Wisconsin implemented new medical parole laws. Other states have set up sentencing commissions or task forces to develop total system reform including Colorado, Nevada, New York and Vermont.

Possibly the most critical component of successful reform and long-terms savings is an investment in community corrections and community-based programs. States need to implement comprehensive reforms that used evidence-based best practices and offer a continuum of graduated sanctions, along with services, to ensure that the system is effective in controlling costs and maintaining public safety.

What Happens When the Fiscal Crisis is Over?

The fiscal crisis has provided a reason for state policymakers to be bold in trying new approaches to public safety. Many of the reforms highlighted here are ones that have been proven effective and can reduce crime and recidivism while saving money. Oregon, and the other states across the country, will need to study, fine tune and continue reforms to achieve the savings and crime reduction that we know we can attain.

This article originally appeared in the Fall 2009 issue of Justice Matters.