Resolving Overcrowded Prisons

Resolving Overcrowded California Prisons

Since the early 1990’s, California has tripled the capacity of its prisons, increasing the number of prisoners faster than any other state. In fact, California’s incarceration rate is 51% higher than the national average. However, in spite of the massive increase in prisoner incarceration, the crime rate has not declined as much as in other states: our state crime rate is 24% higher than the national average. Still, California’s state prison population continues to grow and as long as current policies stay the same, we are expected to exceed current prison capacity by nearly 11,000 beds in just over three years. To accommodate for this, officials with the Department of Criminal Justice have asked for two new prisons вЂ" which will cost taxpayers $711.5 million in building expenses and $72 million in annual operation expenses, for a total of $2.151 billion over 20 years (Smith, Roger). This request is not only costly but unsustainable: there is not a sufficient amount of time to meet the projected prisoner surge, as construction of the prisons would take several years, and there are not enough prison guards to meet the current demand. New and effective strategies must be put into action to solve California’s prison overcrowding problems. The government must join in the effort to implement smarter and sustainable solutions that will save taxpayers dollars, reduce the risk of individuals re-offending, and provide those who are re-entering society with tools for personal responsibility. Probation must be strengthened and programs that focus on reducing risk, such as treatment and reintegration, must be fully funded and implemented in order to resolve the problems associated with our prisons.

Probation revocations contribute to as many as a third of prison admissions annually. The cause for these high levels of revocation lies in the purpose of probation programs across the state: they are generally modified to monitor compliance with court mandates rather than to promote rehabilitation and reduce recidivism. In fact, probation departments receive little resources, and current funding structures вЂ" which depend heavily on probationers’ fees as a means of income вЂ" create incentives to keep probationers on probation too long (Fabelo, Tony). Another problem is the inefficient supervision which causes high levels of recidivism and revocation. Because risk-level diagnostics are used inconsistently, probationers are routinely given improper levels of supervision. But high rates of revocations also stem from non-criminal violations of probation rules, the penalties for which are extremely disciplinary and ultimately contribute to California’s over-incarceration crisis. Given that the cost of incarcerating an individual is $44.01 per day, the state should spend more money on effective, community-based treatment programs and other alternatives to incarceration: adopt a risk-reduction strategy and mandate accountability to verify progress (Allen, Ethan).

Probation must be structured with an overriding risk-reduction strategy that aims to change the behavior of offenders to decrease their likelihood of re-offending; probation should not operate only to oversee the judge-ordered requirements mandated to probationers. Instead of maintaining long, ineffective probation terms, departments should focus probation officer resources where they are needed most. Specifically, supervision should be heaviest during the early critical period (the first 6 months) of probation terms. In addition, terms should be limited to periods when supervision is most effective (5 years or less), and early release should be used as an incentive for good probationer performance. Resources must be distributed to probation departments based on need and effectiveness. Departments should be monitored routinely to ensure that they do not over classify the risk level of probationer for the purpose of obtaining additional funding (Fabelo, Tony). Each department’s financial incentive for applying long supervision periods should be eliminated by increasing basic budget funding to compensate for decreased probationer fees.

Supervision and oversight of probation at the statewide level should be strengthened to ensure that local departments are adopting best practices and correctly implementing them, while still being given the flexibility to fit their programs to their probationers’ needs. To ease the adoption of best practices over time, technical assistance should be given to departments by providing them with expert consultants that can assist them in the execution of new, proven programs. Local departments should be required to submit evidence-based program proposals to the Community Justice Assistance Division (CJAD) before being given program funding. Technical assistance and grants should be provided for (a) organizational change, (b) supervision strategies, (c) accountability and auditing of programs, and (d) program improvements supporting risk reduction (Levin, Marc). To secure renewed funding, programs should be subject to periodic review based on a cost-benefit analysis of outcome measures of risk reduction, including recidivism and probationer success rates. CJAD should compile an annual report to be distributed to judges and probation directors that assesses the successes and failures of all programs using the outcome measures of completion and recidivism rates of program participants. Post-completion program evaluations should include an examination of rates of probationer recovery, employment, and educational attainment in order to verify progress.

Currently, thousands of individuals who suffer from drug addiction and/or mental illness are in California prisons. Meanwhile, California has an inadequate number of substance abuse treatment providers, both in and out of prison walls, to deal with their addictions and related crime. In order to enhance public safety by decreasing drug use related crime, California must curb drug abuse and drug dependence. Every crime reduction strategy should include a solid drug treatment plan in order to break the cycle of drug use, addiction, and crime as early as possible. Specifically, non violent drug users entering the criminal justice system should be guaranteed access to effective, professionally supervised treatment and rehabilitation programs, as well as programs designed to enhance employability and personal responsibility. Furthermore, in-prison treatment must be coupled with community-based aftercare to