As states continue to deal with unprecedented fiscal strain, most are taking steps to reduce their inmate populations and costs while protecting public safety and holding offenders accountable. In the current fiscal climate, states are increasingly forced to do more with less and make difficult decisions about competing priorities. The National Conference of State Legislatures recently reported that corrections and public safety spending were above budgeted levels in seven states, including Alaska, where corrections spending exceed the state’s $258 million corrections budget by $9 million.

While funds to manage expensive prison systems have lessened, so too have resources for services such as treatment for substance abuse and mental health. For example, Minnesota lawmakers recently considered a significant reduction of funding for a model in-prison treatment program that has been shown to reduce recidivism by 25 percent. Thus, the viability of alternatives to incarceration programs and reentry services may be compromised in the current environment.

One out of every one hundred adults in America is incarcerated, a total population of approximately 2.3 million. By contrast, according to a report published in The Economist, the number of imprisoned adults in America in 1970 was only one out of every 400. The United States has 5% of the world’s population, but 23% of the world’s reported prisoners. It is not clear, however, that these high rates of imprisonment are leading to safer communities. One study by two professors at Purdue University and Rutgers University has estimated that were we to increase incarceration by another ten percent, the subsequent reduction in crime would be only 0.5%. The state of Florida provides a useful example. Over the past thirteen years, the proportion of prisoners who were incarcerated for committing non-violent crimes rose by 189%. By contrast, the proportion of inmates who committed violent crimes dropped by 28%. For this benefit, Americans are paying dearly – between $18,000 and $50,000 per prisoner per year depending upon the state. The nation is also reaching a point where it simply does not have the capacity for so much incarceration. In 2009, the number of federal inmates rose by 3.4%, and federal prisons are now 60% over capacity. (Source)

A pair of reports filed with Congress in recent months say the federal prison system isn’t keeping pace with the influx of inmates. A January 22 report by the Congressional Research Service found that overall “the federal prison system was 39% over its rated capacity in FY2011” and that medium security male facilities are even more crowded – 55 percent over capacity. A General Accounting Office report filed late last year made the reached the same conclusions. However, it also revealed a federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) “staffing shortage in excess of 3,200.” Those are thousands of jobs that aren’t being filled because of federal budget cuts. (Source)

State taxpayers pay, on average, 14 percent more on prisons than corrections department budgets reflect. the aggregate cost of prisons in FY2010 was $39 billion, $5.4 billion more than their corrections budgets reflected. When all costs are considered, the annual average taxpayer cost in these states was $31,286 per inmate. (Source)

Costing $2 billion annually, the Michigan Department of Corrections continues to take a big bite out of Michigan’s budget. Today, 43,365 prisoners are in the Michigan system. That’s roughly 15 percent fewer than the 51,500 who were in the system in 2006. The MDOC budget for 2006 was about $1.9 billion, roughly $100 million less than the $2 billion Gov. Rick Snyder is recommending for the upcoming fiscal year. Despite fewer prisoners and employees, the budget has increased — mostly because of increased employee costs. (Source)

Budget woes have impacted state corrections departments in large and small ways. For instance, state budget cuts have eliminated the positions of the five individuals who handled the Illinois Department of Corrections canine unit. While the workers landed other jobs within the state’s sprawling prison system, the dogs were let go. (Source)

Today, the government of the city of Philadelphia spends seven cents out of every tax dollar on holding people in its jails. That is more than it spends on any other function besides police and human services and as much as it spends on the streets and health departments combined. Its spending on jails is nearly as high as that of Cook County, Illinois, even though Cook County, which includes the city of Chicago, has more than three times as many residents as Philadelphia. Over the last 10 years, the departmental budget has more than doubled, reaching $240 million in the current fiscal year. That figure, however, understates the true cost of prison operations, as it does not include employee benefits. With benefits, the number is about $290 million. (Source)

The budget challenges impacts counties as well as states. The crisis in jail funding that racked up a $5 million shortfall is sapping the Pierce County, WA budget this year and into 2014. The Pierce County Council is to decide whether to lay off 16 corrections deputies as part of a $3 million cut in the county jail’s budget for 2013. County Executive Pat McCarthy recommends filling the rest of that gap with $2 million from reserves and increased sales tax revenue. At the same meeting, McCarthy will present her proposed budget for 2014. It would add another $2 million from increased property and sales tax dollars to offset the jail’s shortfall for next year. Her new budget isn’t expected to require laying off more corrections deputies next year as long as the jail’s budget is cut this year. The jail’s deficit outlook turned even bleaker last week. Undersheriff Eileen Bisson said the Sheriff’s Department expects jail contract revenue to drop next year by $706,000 more than previously projected. (Source)

The strategy of closing prison facilities to cust costs brings challenges of its own. Governor Quinn’s decision to close Illinois prisons has raised overcrowding problems to epic proportions. It all began In December 2009 when the Associated Press reported that IDOC had released about 2,000 prisoners early through a program called MGT (Mandatory Good Time) Push. At least one inmate released early committed murder after his release. As a result Governor Quinn stopped MGT Push and all other prisoner early release programs. In February 2012, Governor Quinn presented a remedy to Illinois budget issues by closing 14 prisons and juvenile justice facilities. The closings, according to Quinn’s budget office, will result on saving the state nearly $62 million. The Illinois prison system, originally built to handle approximately 33,000 inmates (before closings), is currently housing over 48,000 inmates. The legislature had previously sent Quinn a budget that included enough money to run the prisons and other health facilities, but the governor vetoed that money. In December 2012, an Alexander county judge lifted an injunction which gave the governor the go ahead to begin the prison closures. Unions that represent the prison guards as well as civil liberty watch dog groups stated that the judge disregarded obvious safety concerns that will arise from added overcrowding due to closures. (Source)

To help address these funding shortfalls, prisons can no longer count on federal grant programs. The federal grant funds are shrinking, however. Overall funding for Department of Justice grant programs has dropped by 43 percent since 2010.

As a result, prison systems large and small are looking for new sources of funding. One traditional source of funding has been prison payphone commissions. However, due to a recent FCC decision, this source of funds is expected to shrink, with further cuts expected to come as the FCC targets other calling types beyond the long distance rates targeted in this order.

Increasingly prisons are to offering “optional” services to prisoners and their families such as email service and mp3 players to help generate revenue. Only those who can afford the service will purchase. However, the revenue to the prison can be significant and reoccurring given the ongoing nature of these service offerings. The meshDETECT secure prison cell phone solution is another such optional service that can offered to raise revenue. In addition to reducing the value of contraband cell phones in prison, commission earnings can be an alternative to the burden of imposed fees on those least likely to be able to pay.

The post Prison Budget Blues appeared first on meshDETECT® Blog.

This editorial on impact of budget problems in the State of South Carolina on the prison system highlights the resulting lack of resources. We have written about the search for new sources of revenue by prison systems around the country.

It has been shown that one of the key factors in recidivism reduction is frequent contact with family and loved ones. One means of doing so, and raising additional funds, is to provide increased access to telecommunications services between visits. The meshDETECT secure prison cell phone solution addresses this opportunity. By providing each prisoner with a secure cell phone, more and higher quality phone contact will result and recidivism will be reduced.

Public safety is a fundamental responsibility of state government, and that includes the safe operation of the state prison system. Unfortunately, South Carolina is falling down on the job, as a Post and Courier news investigation published Sunday and Monday made all too clear.

Mainly, the problem is caused by a lack of resources from the state Legislature. Without adequate funding for corrections officers, the state isn’t able to attract the best candidates for those demanding and dangerous jobs. It isn’t able to provide them with all the training they need. And it isn’t able to retain those officers.

Currently, one-third of the state’s prison guards leave the Corrections Department each year — one of the highest turnover rates in the nation. Small wonder, with a starting salary of $24,300 and difficult working conditions.

The lack of funding has resulted in inadequate staffing levels — the vacancy rate for corrections officer slots is 15 percent. Our report cited one guard who told of being solely responsible for more than 100 inmates on the night shift.

The lack of staffing is largely responsible for the high rate of prisoner assaults on guards — twice the average rate in the Southeast.

Meanwhile, there isn’t adequate funding for education and rehabilitation programs for inmates. That’s particularly unfortunate at present, with a proven reformer as director of the Corrections Department.

Former Judge William Byars was able to reduce recidivism by 40 percent at the Department of Juvenile Justice through a combination of education, job training and counseling services, as well as alternatives to incarceration.

Some of Corrections’ recent budget problems can be blamed on the economic downturn that generally forced cuts throughout state government over the last 3½ years. But the department was already getting short shrift from the Legislature before the recession hit.

Former Corrections Director Jon Ozmint dealt with the financial constraints through a range of economies during his eight years on the job. He cut administrative duplication and stretched resources for prisoner education and food production to the limit. When Mr. Ozmint left as head of the prison system in early 2011, the state’s daily cost of feeding inmates was the lowest in the nation, at $1.51 per prisoner.

The prison system, however, has limited flexibility on the budget front. It has to take the prisoners sent to it by the courts, and has to make do with the money allocated by the Legislature. In the 2010-11 fiscal year, the department was forced to run a $27 million deficit. It wasn’t the result of budget extravagance.

The Legislature’s reluctance to give the Corrections Department adequate funding isn’t hard to explain. Legislators like to appear tough on crime, and that translates into being tough on those who have been sent to prison. Moreover, there isn’t a major constituency for those who have been incarcerated. Certainly inmates don’t vote.

But there is a major constituency for public safety that includes every resident and taxpayer of the state. Public safety requires that prisons are adequately staffed and that corrections officers make a decent wage.

It means that inmates should have meaningful educational and other rehabilitation opportunities. The large number who enter prison with serious substance abuse problems should get the necessary treatment.

After all, most of those who are doing prison time eventually will be released. Rehabilitation can help prepare inmates for useful employment in the working world. Reducing recidivism improves public safety and cuts prison costs over the long term.

Another essential reform can only occur with the help of the Federal Communications Commission, which has the authority to approve blocking technology for cell phone use in prisons. A valuable contraband, cell phones are used for criminal enterprises by inmates.

At the state level, the Legislature needs to give the Corrections Department the budget support it needs to sustain itself. The state’s improving revenue outlook should encourage the prospect.

This year, however, the House-approved budget now before the Senate is roughly the same as last year. And a department spokesman reports that funding from the federal government and other sources, including prison industries, will be about $2.5 million less next fiscal year.

The Senate could improve the department’s budget prospects by agency reorganization. Senate Corrections Committee Chairman Mike Fair, R-Greenville, says merging the Department of Probation, Pardon and Parole Services with the Corrections Department would streamline operations and result in administrative savings.

At last estimate, the savings would be $5.8 million a year. That’s not enough to solve the budget problems of the Corrections Department, but it’s a start.

At least it would demonstrate that the Legislature is aware of the problems the agency faces, and is committed to make the necessary improvements in security and for its fiscal well-being.

Source

The post Don’t Shortchange Prisons appeared first on meshDETECT® Blog.

As we have written before, MP3 players and other revenue raising services are increasingly being introduced into prisons. The services not only help address stretched prison budgets, but also act as tools to manage prisoner behavior
.

The Federal Bureau of prisons is moving in this direction with its recent announcement that it will be proving MP3 players to its detainees. Providing prisoners with a secure prison cell phone service is another means of raising revenue and rewarding good behavior.

The music industry will soon have another chart to keep track of: jailhouse rock. The Bureau of Prisons plans to allow many of its 200,000+ federal inmates to own MP3 players and pick their own soundtrack to prison life, USA Today reports. The devices will be sold in prison commissaries, and though inmates won’t be allowed to access the Internet, they will be allowed to choose from an approved list of around a million songs. Songs with obscene or racially charged lyrics will be banned, officials say, as will songs that “may disrupt the good and orderly running” of prisons.

The MP3 program, currently being tested at a women’s prison in West Virginia “is intended to help inmates deal with issues such as idleness, stress, and boredom associated with incarceration,” a bureau spokeswoman says, adding that “keeping inmates constructively occupied is essential to the safety” of staff and inmates. The program, she says, won’t cost taxpayers anything. Among the detractors: Sen. Chuck Grassley, who warns that it’s “difficult to see how all of the necessary safeguards can be put into place to stop prisoners from using MP3 players as bargaining chips or other malicious devices.”

Source

The post MP3 Players In Federal Prison appeared first on meshDETECT® Blog.

Today’s blog posting if from guest blogger Miranda Brown. In this essay, she discusses the shortcomings of the existing telephone service in the Texas prison system and the potential for improved rehabilitation of prisoners through the introduction of a secure and monitored cell phone solution.

Over ten years the look of the world can change significantly. Cell phones have gained significant popularity over the last decade. With all of the technological advances in our evolving society, it would be extremely difficult if someone had been removed from society for ten or more years. The cultural shock is something most newly released inmates experience. The shock serves the purpose of retribution, but is counter productive for rehabilitation. Rehabilitation is necessary to keep Criminal Justice costs under control. It is not enough to expect success just because prison should have been harsh enough that they do not want to go back. It is necessary to do more to reduce the cultural shock upon release. Providing inmates with monitored cell phones will help prepare them to be successful upon their release and relieve some of the financial burden on taxpayers.

People generally have an angry and vengeful attitude towards the incarcerated population. Most inmates first went to prison as young adults, early twenties or late teens. They are our future neighbors, our friend’s unknown family members, military service men and women, brothers, sisters and parents. Of course there are bad people in prison, but that is not the majority of the population. The majority of the population is just like the rest of us; they just made a mistake and are paying for it. People go to prison as their punishment; they do not go to prison to receive additional punishment. Almost all of the people in prison will return to our neighborhoods one day. Who do we want living next to us? Do we want someone that was borderline tortured and treated like an animal for several years or someone that has been rehabilitated? It costs a great deal of tax money to house an inmate. If they are not reformed we will keep housing them for years to come. The most reliable indicator of an inmate’s success is not the torture or mistreatment they received in prison, but the support they have upon their release. It is easier to live in a harsh, familiar environment with people you know than to adjust to a society you are unfamiliar with and have no support in. The more communication and support from loved ones the more likely the inmate will succeed. The longer an inmate is incarcerated, the more likely support will be lost and success will not be found upon release. Offering continuous communication with loved ones will strengthen the bond that will lead to their success. It will help the inmate realize day to day the reason they must succeed as an inmate and then as a member of society.

Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) completed the installation of their first phone system in 2010. Most of the phones were installed in high traffic areas where it is difficult to carry on a conversation. It is not uncommon to find them in the dayroom under the television. It is difficult for most to have an uninterrupted conversation due to the location of the phones. A cell phone would allow more personal and frequent communication, while being monitored by TDCJ. The calls on the current system are funded by the people receiving the call and the model could be carried over to a cell phone program. A portion of the funds are designated for victim relief funds. There are cell phone companies for children that allow only certain numbers to be dialed. Phones can easily be restricted and restrictions are limitless. Carriers offer family allowance systems. The same idea could be followed for the inmate phones. Inmates are assigned custody levels that are dependent upon their behavior, length of sentence and time served. Only inmates of similar custody levels are to be housed in the same areas. This housing rule would make it easy to identify which inmates are permitted to have a TDCJ issued phone and which are not.

Currently there are numerous unmonitored illegal cell phones in the prison system. Last year there were almost a thousand phones confiscated in Texas prisons. That is only the confiscated phones and only is a very small fraction of what is really in the prisons. People are paying five hundred dollars or more per phone. Then they pay approximately fifty dollars a month for a prepaid plan. The state could be receiving that revenue and could alleviate the burden on taxpayers. TDCJ has reported they are prepared to invest five hundred thousand to 1.5 million dollars per unit for cell phone jammers and/or locators. There are over one hundred TDCJ units. The money will need to be added to an already strapped budget. We need to spend smarter. By investing in a monitored system the state will receive a return in the investment. People are paying for the inmates to have cell phones. If TDCJ charges a monthly access fee of fifteen dollars and has ten percent population participation that would be over two hundred thousand dollars a month in revenue. The inmate families would be responsible for the additional monthly air time fees. Carriers would be eagerly competing to obtain the contract. The inmates could have more continuous, personal contact with their families and more importantly their children.

Prisons that focus more on rehabilitation and support programs that encourage continued family support have found that inmates are more successful than those in an abusive environment. As a society we need to determine if our desire for retribution is great enough to continue funding massive incarceration at the cost of our education system or if we are prepared to invest in making the inmates more successful upon release. A monitored cell phone program in prisons is achievable and will have measurable positive results.

The post Prison Cell Phones and Rehabilitation appeared first on meshDETECT® Blog.