Oregon: Testimony of Senate Bill 435 for Earned Time Expansion

My name is Brigette Sarabi and I am here to testify in support of SB 435.

I am the Executive Director of Western Prison Project, a regional, non-profit organization that works for safe and sensible criminal justice policies that can save taxpayer dollars, reduce recidivism and keep the public safe. Our membership is made up of people who have been directly affected by crime and the criminal justice system—survivors of crime, people convicted of crime, and the families of both. As a survivor of a serious and violent crime, I can tell you that we take the issue of safety very seriously. And as the mother of a formerly incarcerated woman who has successfully re-entered the community, I am here to urge your support of a very moderate reform that could save us millions of dollars and still protect public safety.

Senate Bill 435 would expand the possibility of “earned-time” sentence reductions from 20 to 33% for those new prisoners who would be eligible for earned-time under current statutes. These will be people who are convicted of the least serious charges people can be sent to prison for: things like minor assault, burglary, theft and drugs. I do not mean to imply that these are not serious offenses—they are. But let’s be clear, this bill expands earned time only for those new people coming into the system whose crimes are under the threshold of Measure 11. It is the most moderate reform we can make and still have a significant fiscal impact.

The primary objective of SB 435 is to save tax dollars in a responsible way by making it possible to increase early release for lower-level offenders who have shown a commitment to rehabilitation. The question the committee has to ask is “if not this legislation, then what strategies can we adopt to reduce the unsustainable growth of our prison system?”

I’d like to point out that earned-time is not automatic. It is up to the Department of Corrections to award earned-time based on an individual’s behavior while incarcerated. We can assume that only those individuals who show a real commitment to rehabilitation would be awarded the full 33% earned-time this bill would authorize. According to figures from the Criminal Justice Policy Research Institute, a quarter of Oregon prisoners eligible for up to 20% earned-time are receiving 15% or less. Clearly, the DOC has the authority and the will to deny earned-time to prisoners who are not making a sincere effort at rehabilitation.

SB 435 is a very moderate proposal that would save millions of dollars. As such, it is in keeping with reforms pursued by several other states that have pursued “smart on crime” policies that protect public safety and free-up resources for other urgent needs. For example, in 2003 the Washington legislature increased early release eligibility for non-violent offenders, increasing time credits off their sentence to fifty percent. This legislation was estimated to reduce the Washington prison population by 550 prisoners and save $40 million over two years.

Many states have taken a hard look at the competing needs for tax dollars and made some responsible decisions to control corrections costs. Oregon has the chance to do the same. Given the proposed 34% increase in general fund dollars for the DOC budget, an increase that this state can ill afford, SB 435 offers a responsible cost-savings. By increasing earned time for those new prisoners who would be eligible for earned-time, we can save 415 prison beds and $16 million in the next four years, according to figures provided by the Department of Corrections. If the legislature were willing to amend SB 435 to make it retroactive to include currently incarcerated people convicted of similar crimes, people who are already eligible for up to 20 percent earned-time, the savings would be vastly greater.

There are those who would argue against expanding earned-time. Some may believe that it sets us on a path that could jeopardize public safety. Many of these folks work within the system, and I understand that it is their role to advocate for funding for their areas of responsibility—just as it is the role of school administrators to advocate for education funding. The truth is, we cannot fund everything at the desired level, and must look at responsible ways to economize. So I urge you to take a look at this bill with both an open mind and a sense of the fiscal constraints this state is facing. Many, many other critical needs are going unmet in Oregon. And yet the corrections budget continues to grow significantly. It’s time we look at slowing this growth, so that we can continue to invest in the many other services Oregonians need and want. SB 435 is a modest and responsible way to begin to tackle this issue, and I urge your support.

You will find attached to my testimony two handouts. One addresses how we can responsibly reduce the prison population in this state and manage the existing population so that we don’t have to take on hundreds of millions of dollars in debt and start-up costs for a new prison. The second is a report by nationally recognized researcher Judith Greene on Crime Trends & Incarceration Rates in Oregon.

Thank you very much for this opportunity to share my thoughts on this important bill.

This testimony was presented to the Oregon State Senate Judiciary Committee in April, 2005.