-----------------
Response Report
March 21, 2012
County Attorneys Criticism of Reducing Incarceration Costs while Maintaining Public Safety:
GCI Response Evidence-Based Programs Work
Dave Wells, Ph.D.
Fellow, Grand Canyon Institute
Download this report:http://
Read the original study "Reducing Incarceration Costs While Maintaining Public Safety" http://
Subscribe to Grand Canyon Institute Emails: http://
The Grand Canyon Institute’s recent report “Reducing Incarceration
Costs while Maintaining Public Safety: from Truth in Sentencing to
Earned Release for Nonviolent Offenders,” and an op-ed that appeared on
behalf of the Institute in the Saturday, March 3 Arizona Republic by GCI Board Member Bill Konopnicki was criticized in an op-ed piece that appeared in the Saturday, March 17 Arizona Republic co-signed by five County Attorneys: Bill Montgomery (Maricopa County), Barbara LaWall (Pima County), Daisy Flores (Gila County), Sam Vederman (La Paz County), and Brad Carlyon (Navajo County).[1]
The Grand Canyon Institute appreciates our County Attorneys’
steadfast commitment to public safety. However, we wish they had taken a
bit more care to review our report before criticizing it, as the Grand
Canyon Institute purposely chose to focus on nonviolent offenders in the
“ultra low,” “very low” and “low” recidivism risk categories developed
by Darryl Fischer in his 500 page report that was released by the
Arizona Prosecuting Attorneys' Advisory Council.[2]
GCI would much rather see our County Attorneys as allies than
opponents in efforts to improve the efficiencies and outcomes of our
criminal justice system. Incarceration has a role in criminal justice,
but at a cost of $20,000 per year, for some nonviolent offenders, we
have better options that are at least as effective and at significantly
lower cost. Our County Attorneys are already heavily invested in
programs to divert offenders from incarceration, which we applaud. The
GCI report was intended to open a conversation about the structures of
incentive-based programs, who might be eligible, and how best to
structure the community supervision and drug treatment components that
would need to accompany them. We hope they see merit in these ideas,
and look forward to working with them constructively to reduce
incarceration costs while maintaining public safety.
Positive interventions are far more impactful than negative ones,
so earning release to community supervision has the potential to be a
powerful motivator for inmates to change behavior.
Recidivism rates are particularly challenging to lower. However,
the criminal justice field has embraced evidence-based practices, which
is what GCI encourages Arizona to adopt. For instance the HOPE (Hawaii
Opportunity Probation with Enforcement) program in Hawaii has been
particularly successful because it catches noncompliance well and
applies swift and certain sanctions. The sanctions do not need to be
severe, but they do need to be swift and certain. The HOPE program
targeted high risk individuals, the hardest group to impact, while GCI
had focused on low risk individuals. The results of the one-year
randomized trial of the HOPE program are noted below[3].
(source: National Institute of Jusice, April 23, 2010, http://www.nij.gov/topics/
Below are the Grand Canyon Institute’s responses to the concerns expressed by the County Attorneys in their op-ed.
County Attorneys Concern: Funding Education or Prisons is a false dichotomy
“Overwhelming evidence and history clearly
prove that we do not have to rob the criminal-justice system to cover
the legitimate costs of education. Both are constitutional duties and
responsibilities for Arizona.”
GCI response: Since 2002 the Department of Corrections budget
increased 75 percent, while state general fund investments in state
universities declined by 11 percent.
Between rigid sentencing
policies and a state fiscal crisis, universities were perceived as a
discretionary expenditure. However, every state agency should seek to
operate in the most cost-effective manner, including Corrections. GCI
examined cost efficiencies that would not harm public safety (details
below).
County Attorneys Concern: Konopnicki op-ed didn’t recognize the cause of prison population decrease.
“Konopnicki is correct in noting that
Arizona is seeing a decline in its prison population for the first time.
Yet this is not because we're releasing more prisoners. It's primarily
because fewer people are being sent back to prison for minor or
technical probation violations.”
GCI Response: Bill Konopnicki credited the Safe Communities Act
and evidence-based initiatives at the county probation level, especially
Maricopa County, as the cause of the prison population decrease.Reposted below:
“For the first time since we’ve kept
prison statistics, Arizona has experienced a modest decline in its
prison population. The reason has been evidence-based practices with
our probation population, reducing those sent to prison. The Safe
Communities Act of 2008, a bipartisan effort, sponsored by then State
Senator John Huppenthal (R) gave county probation agencies incentives to
reduce crime and violations rather than return offenders into state
custody. Under the law, offenders earn 20 days off of their probation
term for every month that they meet all of their obligations, including
payment of victim restitution if it was ordered. The Grand Canyon
Institute’s latest report “Reducing Incarceration Costs While
Maintaining Public Safety,” notes that in Maricopa County alone the drop
in probation revocations to prison saved taxpayers $27 million annually
over costs in 2008.”
County Attorneys Concern: Konopnicki and GCI advocated putting
felons “on the street” which would increase crime and negatively impact
public safety.
“Konopnicki ignores the reality that
putting inmates on the street would increase crime and the attendant
costs on society. His misguided idea also begs the question: Who should
be released? Konopnicki states that "nearly 20 percent of our prison
population are non-violent offenders." But he ignores the fact that this
"non-violent" population includes people convicted of drug trafficking,
multiple or aggravated DUIs, child molestation and other offenses
classified as Dangerous Crimes Against Children.”
GCI Response: Using classifications developed in a report for
the Arizona Prosecuting Attorneys' Advisory Council, GCI identified a
number of possible classifications of nonviolent offenders at low risk
for recidivism as candidates for diversion or earned release to
community supervision with drug treatment.
GCI didn’t advocate simply releasing
people to the street, but to place nonviolent felons into evidence-based
community supervision programs that would not impact public safety.
The targeted categories offered included;
- First-time nonviolent offenders who were considered in the Fischer report as “ultra-low”, “very low” or “low” risk of recidivism.
- Nonviolent offenders convicted of class 4 to 6 felonies serving sentences of two years or less who also fell in these recidivism categories
- All nonviolent offenders who fell in these recidivism categories.
Truth in Sentencing for nonviolent
offenders treats all offenders the same, when they are not. An inmate
who refuses work assignments, uses drugs in prison, gets in fights, and
enrolls in zero behavior modification programming serves practically the
same prison time as an inmate who goes to work every day, stays drug
free, attends all programming offered, has no disciplinary problems, and
gets a GED.
Earned release would reward the second-type of inmate, while also helping reduce the likelihood of recidivism.
The most common new crime committed by those released (violent and nonviolent were not separated by the Fischer report for this[4])
was Drug Possession and DUI, suggesting substance abuse issues remained
after release, which is why drug treatment was mandated in the GCI
recommendations for anyone with such a history who was released to
community supervision. Currently only about 1 in eight inmates with
significant substance abuse histories are receiving treatment in ADC.[5]
The GCI report lists evidence-based outcomes reproduced below that are
designed to reduce recidivism as reported by the Washington State
Institute for Public Policy, a research arm of the Washington
legislature.
Program
|
Percent Reduction in 8-year Recidivism[6]
(number of studies based on)
|
|---|---|
Adults Drug Courts
|
-10.7% (56)
|
In-Prison “therapeutic communities” with community aftercare
|
-6.9% (6)
|
In-Prison “therapeutic communities” without community aftercare
|
-5.3% (7)
|
Cognitive-behavioral drug treatment in prison
|
-6.8% (8)
|
Drug treatment in the community
|
-12.4% (5)
|
Drug treatment in the jail
|
-6.0% (9)
|
General and Specific cognitive –behavioral treatment for overall offender population
|
-8.2% (25)
|
Cognitive-behavioral treatment in prison for sex offenders
|
-14.9% (5)
|
Cognitive-behavioral treatment for low-risk sex offenders on probation
|
-31.2% (6)
|
Intensive Supervision: treatment-oriented program (w/o treatment, not impactful)
|
-21.9% (10)
|
Correctional industries in prison
|
-7.8% (4)
|
Basic adult education in prison
|
-5.1% (7)
|
Employment train and job assistance in the community
|
-4.8% (16)
|
Vocational education in prison
|
-12.6% (3)
|
County Attorneys Concern: Cost savings doesn’t include cost of additional crime.
“Research data compiled by the Arizona
Prosecuting Attorneys' Advisory Council found that Arizona's
strengthened sentencing statutes have led to the incarceration of an
estimated 3,100 additional offenders in Maricopa County since 2005 who
would not have otherwise been imprisoned. Based on cost-of-crime models
of leading crime economists, keeping these offenders off the streets
prevented 98,038 additional crimes and generated a cost savings of more
than $360 million dollars that would otherwise have been spent on
crime-related damages to people and property.”
This is a shortened version of what has
been written elsewhere: “The number of felonies by repeat offenders
averages just under one per month. Under Arizona's truth-in-sentencing
laws, the average prison sentence is 33 months. Thus we have prevented
approximately 98,038 additional crimes in Maricopa County alone.
Assuming 90 percent of those deterred crimes (88,234) are to property
with an average cost $1,900 each, that works out to a savings of $167
million. Assuming the remaining 10 percent (9,804) are violent offenses,
which are generally estimated to cost $20,000 each, that savings
approaches $196 million. Not only is this proof for the adage "crime
doesn't pay," it supports the corollary - "incarceration saves" - to the
tune of $363.7 million.”[7]
GCI Response: Repeat felony offenders committing crimes once a
month (and not always getting caught) does not sound like a group the Arizona
Prosecuting Attorneys' Advisory Council research report would classify
as “ultra low”, “very low” or “low” risk of recidivism. Incarceration
has its function, but what happens afterwards is equally important.
One of the primary functions of prison is
to incarcerate those who would otherwise be victimizing law abiding
citizens. However, an equally important question is what’s happening
after 33 months? Are these individuals returning to their life of
crime? Our guess is that absent systematic interventions to improve
their odds of success, this is crime that is temporarily avoided, not
permanently avoided.
County Attorneys Claim: Truth in Sentencing is why Arizona’s crime rate has dropped faster than the national average.
“Incapacitating these criminals is
certainly one reason Arizona is enjoying a much larger drop in crime
than the nation as a whole. Releasing prisoners will not save money. It
will not make us safer. And it will certainly not help our education
system. To argue otherwise is irresponsible and inconsistent with an
intelligent public-policy-making process.”
GCIresponse: The causality in this claim lacks merit;
the decline in Arizona’s crime rate occurred nine years after Truth in
Sentencing was adopted.
Of course, if you incarcerate more people,
they cannot commit more crimes. However, we don’t find that the states
with the highest incarceration rates have the lowest crime rates.
Truth in Sentencing was adopted in Arizona in 1994, yet it’s not until
2003 that Arizona experiences the first of a succession of years in
declining crime rates[8].
Despite that decline, Arizona’s crime rate still exceeds the national
average. The sources of that decline are definitely worth exploring,
but the prima face evidence does not suggest Truth in Sentencing,
especially for nonviolent offenders, is responsible.
Dave Wells holds a doctorate in Political Economy and Public Policy and is a Fellow at the Grand Canyon Institute.
Reach the author at DWells@azgci.orgor contact the Grand Canyon Institute at (602) 595-1025.
The Grand Canyon Institute is a centrist think thank led by a bipartisan group of
former state lawmakers, economists, community leaders, and
academicians. The Grand Canyon Institute serves as an independent voice
reflecting a pragmatic approach to addressing economic, fiscal,
budgetary and taxation issues confronting Arizona.
Grand Canyon Institute
P.O. Box 1008
Phoenix, AZ 85001-1008
GrandCanyonInstitute.org
[1]Konopnicki, Bill, “State can save money by reducing prison population,” My Turn, Arizona Republic, March 3, 2012, http://www.azcentral.com/
[2]Fischer,
Daryl, “Prisoners In Arizona Truth-In-Sentencing, Time Served and
Recidivism,” Arizona Prosecuting Attorneys’ Advisory Council, December
2011, pp. 340, 395, 396, 400, 410, 424 http://azsentencing.org/docs/
[3]“‘Swift
and Certain’ Sanctions in Probation Are Highly Effective: Evaluation of
the HOPE Program, National Institute of Justice, February 3, 2012, http://www.nij.gov/topics/
[4]
Fischer, Daryl, “Prisoners In Arizona Truth-In-Sentencing, Time Served
and Recidivism,” Arizona Prosecuting Attorneys’ Advisory Council,
December 2011, p. 278, http://azsentencing.org/docs/
[5]On
intake ADC reports 75 percent of inmates have significant substance
abuse histories, yet drug treatment was provided to about one-tenth of
the total number of inmates entering ADC in 2011. As other reports
indicate that substance abuse issues may be much higher than that, so
about one in eight who need treatment are receiving it. See Ryan,
Charles, “ADC Data and Information Fiscal Year 2011,” Corrections at a
Glance June 2011 at end of report after 13-6, http://www.azcorrections.gov/
[6]If
the 8 year recidivism rate were 50 percent, a 10 percent reduction
would be to 45 percent. Programs with no decrease are omitted from the
chart, but may still be cost-effective provided that program is cheaper
than the alternative (e.g., Intensive Supervision alone did not reduce
recidivism, but it’s significantly less expensive than incarceration, so
for the same result, the cost is less. Note when combined with drug
treatment intensive supervision is very impactful at less cost than
incarceration.). For full details, Aos, Steve, Marna Miller, and
Elizabeth Drake, Washington State Institute for Public Policy
“Evidence-Based Adult Corrections Programs: What Works and What Does
Not,” January
2006, p. 3 for specific table. http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/
[7]“Mandatory Sentencing is Working for Arizona, County Attorney Op-ed from Arizona Republic, Dec. 28, 2010, http://www.
[8]Fischer,
Darryl R., “Prisoners in Arizona: A Profile of the Inmate Population,”
Arizona Prosecuting Attorneys Advisory Council, March 2010, pp. 6, 8. http://apaac.az.gov/images/
----------from the AZ Republic----------
County attorneys: Releasing prisoners will not save money
Former state Rep. Bill Konopnicki presents a false choice based on
selective data in claiming Arizona's investments in public safety have
come at the expense of education ("State can save money by reducing
prison population," My Turn, March 3).
Overwhelming evidence and history clearly prove that we do not have
to rob the criminal-justice system to cover the legitimate costs of
education. Both are constitutional duties and responsibilities for
Arizona.
Konopnicki is correct in noting that Arizona is seeing a decline in
its prison population for the first time. Yet this is not because we're
releasing more prisoners. It's primarily because fewer people are being
sent back to prison for minor or technical probation violations.
In parroting the popular fallacy that releasing more prisoners would
free up funds for education, Konopnicki ignores the reality that putting
inmates on the street would increase crime and the attendant costs on
society.
His misguided idea also begs the question: Who should be released?
Konopnicki states that "nearly 20 percent of our prison population are
non-violent offenders." But he ignores the fact that this "non-violent"
population includes people convicted of drug trafficking, multiple or
aggravated DUIs, child molestation and other offenses classified as
Dangerous Crimes Against Children.
Apparently, Konopnicki is eager to welcome these people into his
neighborhood. But most Arizonans would shudder at the thought, which is
why there is strong support for truth-in-sentencing laws that keep these
offenders behind bars.
In focusing only on the cost of incarceration, Konopnicki overlooks
the tremendous savings Arizona has enjoyed by preventing repeat
offenders from committing additional crimes. Research data compiled by
the Arizona Prosecuting Attorneys' Advisory Council found that Arizona's
strengthened sentencing statutes have led to the incarceration of an
estimated 3,100 additional offenders in Maricopa County since 2005 who
would not have otherwise been imprisoned.
Based on cost-of-crime models of leading crime economists, keeping
these offenders off the streets prevented 98,038 additional crimes and
generated a cost savings of more than $360 million dollars that would
otherwise have been spent on crime-related damages to people and
property.
Reading Konopnicki's argument, one might conclude that prison is the
default for non-violent offenders in Arizona. In fact, our state has
been a leader in offering prison alternatives such as substance-abuse
treatment and diversion programs to most first- and second-time
offenders. Konopnicki has it backwards when he suggests we should follow
Mississippi's example in this regard. The reality is that Mississippi
is following ours.
The truth about Arizona's truth-in-sentencing laws is that they have
put the right people in prison for the right reasons: More than 95
percent of our incarcerated population are violent or repeat felony
offenders.
Incapacitating these criminals is certainly one reason Arizona is
enjoying a much larger drop in crime than the nation as a whole.
Releasing prisoners will not save money. It will not make us safer. And
it will certainly not help our education system. To argue otherwise is
irresponsible and inconsistent with an intelligent public-policy-making
process.
Signers to this column: Bill Montgomery, Maricopa County
attorney; Barbara LaWall, Pima County attorney; Daisy Flores, Gila
County attorney; Sam Vederman, La Paz County attorney; and Brad Carlyon,
Navajo County attorney.
No comments:
Post a Comment