Prison Spending Will Surpass Higher Ed in Two Years
Oregon now spends about the same amount of money to incarcerate 13,400 inmates as it does to eductate 438,000 college students. According to the Oregonian, in two years, we'll be spending more on prisons than higher education.
The trend results from more than a decade of explosive prison growth largely fueled by Measure 11, the 1994 ballot initiative that mandated lengthy sentences for violent crimes. Since then, the number of inmates has nearly doubled and spending on prisons has nearly tripled....
The Department of Corrections and Oregon Youth Authority budget is projected to grow 19 percent in the next two years, to $1.66 billion, under Gov. Ted Kulongoski's budget -- $174 million more than what Kulongoski proposes to spend on universities and colleges....
Why do prison costs soar beyond population growth? Since June 1995 after Measure 11 took effect, the prison population has grown from 7,539 to 13,401 inmates, including 5,387 Measure 11 offenders.
To keep them locked up, the state has built three prisons and expanded five others the past decade. Another new prison -- Oregon's 14th -- opens this fall. A 15th prison, probably in Medford, would open in 2012....
According to the U.S. Department of Justice, Oregon's annual per inmate cost of $24,665 made it the nation's 24th most expensive prison system to operate in 2005.
The increase in prison spending corresponds to a decline in the crime rate; in Oregon violent crime dipped from about five per 1,000 in the 1980s to just under three in 2005. However, the benefit of locking up yet more offenders will have a diminished on the crime rate, because most of the career criminals are already locked up--and the number of crimes prevented per each new inmate declines as the prison system grows:
After reviewing numerous studies of the link between incarceration and crime rates, the Vera Institute of Justice in New York said in a recent report: "Analysts are nearly unanimous in their conclusion that continued growth in incarceration will prevent considerably fewer, if any, crimes -- and at substantially greater cost to taxpayers."
This finding is supported by a recent study by the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission, which also found that the cost doesn't justify increasing the incarceration rate:
A recent study by the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission, a state agency, concluded that the number of crimes prevented each year by adding one inmate to the Oregon prison system has declined from nearly 30 per new inmate in 1994 to slightly more than 10 crimes in 2005.
The cost-benefit ratio of prison expansion has also diminished. In 1994, each additional $1 spent on incarceration yielded $3.31 in reduced crime costs, the study said. By 2005, the benefit per $1 spent was $1.03, barely above the break-even point.
Of course, that doesn't mean some people aren't trying to expand mandatory sentencing:
The chief sponsor of Measure 11 is Kevin Mannix, a former legislator and Republican candidate for governor. Mannix, a Salem lawyer, is gathering signatures for another ballot initiative that would expand mandatory minimum sentences from 14 months to 36 months for eight types of drug and property crimes, from selling methamphetamine to burglary.
The state reports that about 3,700 offenders a year were convicted of crimes listed in the Mannix initiative in recent years, and more them half of them were placed on probation....
Mannix argues that Measure 11 reduced violent crime, and his new version will do the same for property crime.
Discuss.
|
April 24, 2007
Posted in in the news 2007. |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Apr 24, '07
One thing this article doesn't mention is that a significant number of prisoners are the mentally ill. Since we closed many of the institutions that used to treat them (many for good reason), they now frequently end up in jail / prison.
There are other factors involved here - taking cops off the street beat and putting them in cars, the reduced number of law enforcement personnel (and all services), getting rid of "neighborhood beats" (police assigned to a particular area, who get to know the neighborhood), etc.
Apr 24, '07
More criminals are locked up and the crime rate is down. That about says it all.
Here's a toast to keeping the animals locked away from lawful society.
5:06 p.m.
Apr 24, '07
Crime rates actually fell precipitously during Clinton's administration because of a booming economy, then started up again in 02-03, then began to drop again. Early 80s and in the 80s also greatly increased crime. It is a post hoc logical fallacy to make the ignorant causal linkage between incarnation rates and the rate of violent crimes being committed.
You will find there are more people behind bars now than under Clinton, and crimes are beginning to trend back up again from 05 levels.
5:14 p.m.
Apr 24, '07
"The increase in prison spending corresponds to a decline in the crime rate"
This doesn't necessarily indicate causality; unfortunately for those who oppose this trend in criminal justice, the timing of these two facts suggests causality.
8:25 p.m.
Apr 24, '07
To my knowledge, almost any and all programs to rehabilitate inmates have been cutback or closed. Most inmates get out eventually, except for those doing life without the possiblity of parole. By turning our prison system into a rotating door with little or no rehabilitation we make it more difficult to keep people from reoffending and more likely that those that get out fail.
My question is: Do we want to just throw people back in jail in a perpetual cycle or have them working and contributing to society?
Apr 24, '07
Alternative headline for the O's editorial - "Murderers and Rapists Spending Too Much Time in Prison" Please, folks, read the sentencing guidelines. The folks who are going away for Measure 11 sentences aren't "people who need help". They're hardened criminals who have mostly been through the system and had several chances before.
Apr 24, '07
More criminals are locked up and the crime rate is down. That about says it all.
Here's a toast to keeping the animals locked away from lawful society.
Meanwhile I'm taking classes so packed to the gills with other students that people sit on the floor and in buildings so outdated and outmoded that they are being considered for condemnation.
Cheers.
Apr 24, '07
So is anyone here actually advocating that the Democratic Party of Oregon should take up the postion of softening up Measure 11? Should Democrats be voting for bills in the state legislature that relax the sentencing guidelines of Measure 11? I can't think of a better way for us to become a minority party again than to mess with Measure 11...
Apr 25, '07
I don't have a problem with Measure 11 at all, unless it's implemented without any other changes to the system. If we put more people into the prison system, we're left with 2 choices: spend more money, or let other offenders out early. If they don't increase funding, then my prediction is that non-violent drug-related and property crimes will increase. We've cut treatment, we've reduced the number of corrections staff, the number of beds, redesigned the jails and prisons to be more energy efficient and cost effective - there's very little room left to improve the system. We would need to increase funding. If we're already about to spend more on incarceration than higher education, that seems to indicate we're setting ourselves up for an even bigger problem in the future.
Apr 25, '07
Meanwhile I'm taking classes so packed to the gills with other students that people sit on the floor and in buildings so outdated and outmoded that they are being considered for condemnation.
Considering the outrageous tuition costs and the huge amount of revenue the state gives to higher education, I would suggest you look into how all these funds are being spent, or should I say misspent?
Perhaps you would prefer a few murderers be let out of prison early so they could join you in class?
Apr 25, '07
I absolutely support tough sentences for violent offenders. If we want to reduce prison populations we should improve mental health and drug treatment programs.
Apr 25, '07
Perhaps, the basic problem is that we are a nation with screwed up priorities based on bumper sticker philosophies. To repeat an earlier comment, Aristotle said that poverty is the parent of crime and revolution, and despite 2500 years of historical evidence proving him right we still have policies and attitudes that consign a sizable portion of the population to poverty where most of the criminals are bred.
Like the subjects of Hans Christian Anderson's naked emperor a vast majorty of people gullibly buy into nonsense put out by their current emperor and his satraps. Hence, we had around 75% of the population supporting the war on Iraq despite sound reasons for questioning the propaganda they were fed. Now, despite the fact that more and more prisons have not resolved the crime issue many voters rally behind the emperor's mouthpiece calling for yet more prisons. We have young people growing up in impoverished neighborhoods getting into gangs and considering a prison sentence a right of passage. The recent movie, "Freedom Writers," was based on a true story and shows what can be done with young people at risk to turn them towards productive lives instead of prison.
Perhaps, if we used money more wisely for educating children and their parents (and some teachers) and wasted less in warehousing people in prisons we might be much better for it.
9:38 a.m.
Apr 25, '07
There are several questions here: balance and priorities jump out, as do questions about the big picture. Since 93% of the state budget goes to education, prisons, and social services, if you spend more on imprisonment, you spend less on the sick and uneducated. Many people here, with vengeful gusto, have expressed their priority. I personally think it's absurd to spend more on prisons than schools. That seems like a system grossly out of balance.
It also seems shortsighted to think of crime as an issue of imprisonment. Since the 70s, incomes have been flat. One of the strongest correlates to higher income is education. And educated, middle-income people commit fewer crimes. Then there's the issue of treatment--mental health and substance abuse. If the only answer we have to crime is imprisonment, we have an impoverished sense of possibilities.
Whenever this discussion fires up, I wonder to what extent the orientation toward vengeance motivates the pro-prison mindset. For many people, the language doesn't seem to be about crime at all, but punishment.
Finally, Phil, you're just flatly wrong on the facts. Oregon funds higher ed at the fifth-lowest rate in the nation. In many cases, "public" universities get just 10-15% of their income from the state. The higher ed budget in '05-'07 was $755 million, out of a general fund of $11.5 billion (six percent, if my math's accurate). Bold your text all you want, it doesn't make it any more accurate.
Apr 25, '07
Considering the outrageous tuition costs and the huge amount of revenue the state gives to higher education
No need to go bold on me. There's no question that tuition costs are high, but in FY2005, Oregon placed 46th out of 50 states for post-secondary appropriations per student. The percentage change in appropriations per student between 1991 and 2005 was -41.4%, which is the biggest drop of any other state. Source: OUS.
I would suggest you look into how all these funds are being spent, or should I say misspent?
We have the 24th highest cost per prisoner in the country, and rank 46th when it comes to funding higher education per student. Perhaps greater emphasis should be placed on scrutinizing of the prison system rather than in higher ed? We also rank 45th out of 50 for average faculty salaries. Pretty soon the only people teaching at PSU will be adjunct faculty and part-timers.
Perhaps you would prefer a few murderers be let out of prison early so they could join you in class?
Oh, teh stupid. I'd rather see the roots of crime addressed and preventative measures taken like Matt and Dave outlined in their posts. Forcing judges to slap mandatory minimum sentences on criminals ties their hands as to how they would otherwise be able to deal with specific extenuating cases, and leads to a burgeoning prison population. By rubber-stamping offenders you are also sucking in potentially reformable criminals into a system that treats them as hardened criminals. See: net-widening.
Apr 25, '07
Oh, and thanks Jeff. I just read your post. Cheers.
Apr 25, '07
Let's just keep this clear - Measure 11 is for violent offenders. If you read the sentencing guidelines, no matter how bad a person's criminal history is, they will presumptively receive probation and treatment for possession of a personal use level of hard drugs. Basically, it's the same for property offenders. It's very difficult to get more than 19 months for any property offense.
Apr 26, '07
I'm posting anonymously, because I am a former prisoner, and I prefer not to be followed home by some of the compassionate liberals I have seen post here today. I was in prison for nine years for a violent crime. I was paroled eight years ago and have lived ever since as a law abiding citizen and today do volunteer work with prisoners in addition to my regular job.
Most convicts, including most of the violent ones, are people not too different from you. Criminal cycles generally begin with seemingly unimportant decisions that have unintended consequences. People with poor coping skills do not know how to handle those consequences and their lives gradually spiral out of control until they commit a crime and end up in prison. Five years before I went to prison, if you had told me what was to be, I would have accused you of being a nut-case. One thing of note, I was a vindictive concrete thinker in those days, with the same vengeful attitude as several who have posted here.
The best thing we can do for for prisoners is to educate them, teach them to identify and recognize the thinking errors that began their spirals, teach them healthy thinking, teach them the skills they need to survive. Recidivism in Oregon is currently over 60%. Once higher education was available to prisoners, and those prisoners who completed a four year degree behind bars have a recidivism rate of under 5%. The program was discontinued under Reagan, because Pell grants for prisoners were eliminated. Vengeful people said it's not fair to educate prisoners, when it was hard for law abiding people to get an education. That decision made you less safe.
Most prisoners will be released someday. They will live in your communities and be your neighbors. Currently, little is being done to enable them to live in free society. Warehousing them is only a temporary fix. As things stand now corrections means punishment, and we few volunteers who try to help are just a drop in the bucket. Punitive justice does not work. We need to change to restorative justice in which the prisoner takes responsibility for his crimes, and the community provides the help needed to restore the prisoner as a responsible citizen. I admit there are some prisoners who will refuse to change, and there is little we can do for them. Fortunately, the vast majority are redeemable. I know. I've been there. The best way to make our communities safer is to reduce recidivism by teaching prisoners to be citizens.
Apr 26, '07
"Posted by: Jeff Alworth | Apr 25, 2007 9:38:14 AM
There are several questions here: balance and priorities jump out, as do questions about the big picture. Since 93% of the state budget goes to education, prisons, and social services, if you spend more on imprisonment, you spend less on the sick and uneducated. "
Jeff, 93%?? Can you tell us where PERS fits?
Thanks.
Apr 26, '07
We need to improve funding of Oregon’s educational system, to ensure we have an educated workforce that will attract new businesses to the state. Since 2001, the state has under-funded community colleges, resulting in significantly higher tuition rates at Oregon’s 17 community colleges, and enrollment has declined 15% over the same time period. Additionally, Oregon ranks 43rd in the country for state and local spending on higher education, 45th for affordability of higher education and 46th in educational funding per student. Continuing current funding trends will have dire effects on Oregon’s economy. Visit http://www.richardriggs.com for more info.