1. Introduction
Ensuring public safety is one of the most fundamental functions of
government. Several important debates about how best to protect public safety
are occurring in the Legislature this year. The stimulus for these debates, in large
part, is the growing problem of overcrowding in our prisons and the significant
costs that go with it.
In this brief we provide information and perspectives that will help you judge
which proposals you think best promote public safety in Idaho. The brief
particularly examines the most cost effective ways of protecting our safety
given limited resources.
Two fundamental means of protecting public safety are to impose limits on
individuals who have harmed us, our property, or our communities through probation
and parole or through incarceration. At their most effective, these punishments
protect public safety in three ways. First, the threat of punishment deters
individuals from committing crimes in the first place. Second, punishment,
particularly incarceration, keeps individuals from committing more crimes
during the term of their sentence. Third, these punishments are intended to
correct or reform those individuals so that they won’t commit crimes again once
the punishment is over.
Soaring crime rates in the 1960’s and 1970’s produced an increasing emphasis on
incarceration, particularly on its functions of deterrence and restraining
further crime. “Tough on crime” reforms, enacted from the 1970s through the
present, mean that more individuals have been incarcerated or placed on
probation, and that more of these individuals have served longer sentences,
than ever before. In the last 35 years the number of adults in prison in the
U.S. has grown 700%. We now incarcerate more individuals than any other nation
(China, with its vastly larger population, comes in second) and at a higher
rate than any other nation (Russia and Cuba come in second and third).
Idaho has enacted its own tough on crime reforms and our prison population has
grown even faster than the national average with the number of adults in prison
increasing by 700% since 1980. As Governor Otter reported in his state of the
state address, one in 34 Idaho adult males is now in prison or on probation or
parole.
Research has confirmed that higher rates of incarceration and longer sentences
have improved public safety. However, research also indicates that the public
safety benefits of increasing incarceration has reached a point of diminishing
returns. While studies
demonstrate that for every 10% increase in incarceration, we’ve realized
between a 2% and 4% decrease in crime, recent research reviews
conclude that “analysts are nearly unanimous in their conclusion that continued
growth in incarceration will prevent considerably fewer, if any, crimes than
past increases did and will cost taxpayers substantially more to achieve."
In spite of evidence of diminishing returns, the prison population in the U.S.
is projected
to increase at several times the rate of population growth in coming years. The
incarcerated population is projected to increase even more rapidly in Idaho.
It’s projected
that in the next four years the Idaho prison population will grow by more than
20% even though our overall population will grow by less than 8%. If the prison
population projections are accurate, we will be tied (with Alaska, following
Montana and Arizona) as the state with the third highest incarceration growth
rate in the nation. Idaho’s longstanding trend of rapid growth of prisoners has
recently abated, however. For five months now the prison population in Idaho
has defied projections and has not increased. We’ll discuss the possible
reasons for this later.
Besides tough on crime sentencing and parole practices, at least two additional
factors contribute to projections that Idaho’s prison population will continue
to grow faster than most states. First, our population is growing faster than
the nation at large (7.7% as compared to 4.5%). Second, Idaho, like other
states in the West, Midwest, and South, is experiencing an epidemic of crimes
related to the use of methamphetamine.
The growth of our prison population has also dramatically increased our
corrections costs. In the current year, the state will spend $201 million
dollars from the general fund for adult and juvenile corrections, a 943%
increase over the $19.3 million it spent 20 years ago. If current trends
continue, the day is not far away when the state will spend more on corrections
than on higher education. Nevertheless, the current cost of incarcerating a
prisoner in Idaho is much lower than the national average. At a cost of about
$55 per day, or $20,075 per year, Idaho has the 43rd lowest operating cost in the
nation.
With the growth in our prison population we’ve also filled our prisons to
overflowing. Currently, the state incarcerates 494 prisoners out of state,
which costs more than housing them here. Given growth projections, Idaho will
need to incarcerate an increasing number of inmates out of state or invest in
other options.
We are at a corrections crossroads. Current overcrowding and projections of a
steadily increasing prison population mean that we must make an immediate
investment in our corrections system. But what investments should we make? One
obvious option is to invest in building more prisons. A recent study projects that
Idaho will need to undertake the construction of an additional 5,560 beds at a
cost of just under $1 billion over the next ten years if we maintain our
current approaches to public safety.
There is a range of other options that emphasize investing in reducing the
number of people who need to be sent to prison. First, by investing in proven
prevention and diversion programs, many suggest, we can provide greater public
safety for less money, not to mention improving the lives and productivity of
those who would otherwise go to prison. Many of the prevention and diversion
efforts most frequently identified address Idaho’s pronounced drug abuse
problems. Between 2002 and 2005, Idaho had the fourth highest rate
of methamphetamine abuse in the nation. Fifty-two percent of Idaho inmates
being released on parole report that their incarceration was the result of
methamphetamine abuse and 85% report that they have some kind of substance
abuse problem.
A second option that might reduce the need for new prisons involves increased
emphasis on the corrective or reform functions of incarceration. Effective
programming can have more inmates ready for parole sooner and can reduce the
chances that they’ll be re-arrested and return to prison after they’re
released.
Third, we could change our sentencing and parole practices so that fewer people
are sent to prison and so that those who are sent to prison stay there for a
shorter time. Fourth, there are options for improving the coordination between
parts of the corrections system that might reduce the need for more prisons.
Most who take a serious look at our corrections system agree that the problem
will require investment in all or most of these approaches. But what
combination specifically? In the following pages, we review the options. We
start by examining the options for building more prison capacity.
2 . Prison Construction
Almost everyone agrees that Idaho must invest in building at least some
additional prison capacity. While there is wide consensus that construction is
needed, there is much debate surrounding the details.
Two debates deserve particular attention. The first regards funding, ownership,
and management options. On one end of the range is the option of a prison that
is privately built, owned, and managed from which the state rents beds. On the
other end is an entirely public facility—a prison built, owned, and operated by
Idaho itself. Other options have a private-public mix.
The second debate regards prison capacity. Should construction on 2,000 or more
prison beds start immediately or should we build fewer beds and focus more of
our resources on other approaches to the problem?
In the following discussion we’ll consider construction options that will
shortly come before the Legislature as well as modifications of these options
that have attracted interest. We review these options surrounding private vs.
public prisons and ideal prison capacity with an eye towards which options give
the best public safety return on tax payer dollars.
Private vs. Public Prisons
Corrections Corporation of America
(CCA), the largest corrections management provider in the country, has been
energetically arguing the benefits of a privately-owned and managed
correctional facility. The Governor and Board of Corrections have been
supportive of this approach. Together, CCA, the Governor, and the Board of
Corrections have been pushing legislation that would allow for a
privately-owned and managed correctional facility in Idaho. Currently,
private prisons are prohibited by state law. Supporters have argued that
there are three main benefits to a private prison.
First, they argue that a private company can build a prison of the same quality
more quickly and economically than the state because it is not bound by state
procurement practices and because of other efficiencies of private enterprise.
There is also an economic advantage because with a private prison the state
doesn’t start paying any costs until prisoners are actually housed there.
On the other hand, with a public prison, the state starts incurring expenses as
soon as construction is under way, although the prison may not be ready for
prisoners for three or four years. Since we already have to pay the higher costs
associated with sending almost 500 prisoners out of state, proponents argue,
the increased speed of construction is a major advantage. CCA reports that a
typical prison built by the private sector can be constructed in 12-18 months,
compared to an average of three to four years for publicly built prisons.
Second, private