I trust you will find this news release useful.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: June 2, 2010
Contact: Adam Ratliff – 202-558-7974 x.306 / aratliff@justicepolicy.org
Jason Fenster – (202) 558-7974 x300 / jfenster@justicepolicy.org,
States can safely reduce prison populations and save money, new brief says
Reducing prison populations and maintaining public safety can both be accomplished while allowing state taxpayers to save money with more effective programs, group says.
WASHINGTON, D.C. — States should use innovative and evidence-based strategies to trim their prison populations, reduce the likelihood that a released person will return to prison and send fewer people to prison in the first place according to research released today by the Justice Policy Institute (JPI). With many states facing budget crises, important decisions are being made about where money will and will not be spent. JPI found that increasing opportunities for parole and improving parole release decisions, improving parole supervision and ensuring access to support and treatment services are cost-effective means of cutting extraneous spending while maintaining public safety. In FY2008, states spent $52 billion on corrections, money that could be spent on infrastructure, education, housing and job creation, the group says.
“Increasing the availability of parole and making better decisions about who is released is smart policy,” said Tracy Velázquez, executive director of JPI. “Options such as medical parole and geriatric release would yield tremendous monetary benefits, ensure people receive the services they need and would not be a detriment to public safety. States could in turn refocus savings toward crucial social services to help prevent people from entering prison in the first place.”
According to For Immediate Release: How to Safely Reduce Prison Populations and Support People Returning to Their Communities, released today by JPI, incarceration costs significantly less than parole supervision and some states are using innovative methods of supervision that are yielding positive results. As spending more time in prison does not equate to more public safety, releasing people early with appropriate supervision can be an effective way of reducing prison populations.
Velázquez added, “The notion that there is a public safety trade-off when shifting public dollars from prisons to positive, pro-social investments is false and has contributed to destructive policies that have given the United States the world’s largest incarceration rate and continue to disproportionately impact communities of color. Releasing people deemed ‘low risk’ to community supervision and providing adequate treatment and support services will improve outcomes and strengthen families and communities.”
The Justice Policy Institute (JPI) is a Washington, D.C.-based organization dedicated to reducing society’s use of incarceration and promoting just and effective social policies.
To read JPI’s report, “For Immediate Release” CLICK HERE. For other analysis on safe, effective means of saving money and ensuring public safety, please visit our website at www.justicepolicy.org.
Inserted from <Justicepolicy.org>
As excellent as these ideas are, many of them cannot be instituted here in Oregon, because mandatory minimum sentencing does not permit it. The cost in human suffering promses to be high.
Gov. Ted Kulongoski said today he would implement most of the across-the-board spending cuts proposed by state agencies two weeks ago to eliminate a projected $577 million shortfall in tax collections.
“With limited options to balance the budget, and growing uncertainty about federal assistance, the longer we wait to implement these reductions, the deeper the cuts will have to be to bring the budget into balance,” he said after meeting with agency directors earlier today.
Read the report: List of Oregon State agency reductions.
The cuts amount to about 9 percent of spending from the tax-supported general fund for the second year of the state’s two-year budget cycle, which starts July 1. Some layoffs are likely.
Although Kulongoski rejected proposals to close three small prisons and cut deeply into community corrections grants for counties, he let stand proposals to eliminate Oregon Project Independence, halve in-home care for 10,500 seniors and cut federally funded personal care for 1,500 seniors, and others offered by agencies.
“I know these cuts are significant and will impact the lives of thousands of Oregonians across the state,” he said. “But we have to operate with the reality of today and we simply do not have the revenue to fund the level of services approved in the current budget.”
The governor invoked his authority under a 1951 law to cut spending across the board from the tax-supported general fund to eliminate the projected shortfall… [emphasis added]
Inserted from <Statesman-Journal>
Innocent seniors are not the only ones who will lose services, because Oregon’s mandatory minimum initiatives tie our state government’s hands, forcing them to incarcerate many who could safely be released. While I disagree with Kulongoski’s decision, the way he has to juggle to balance the budget would be easier, were he not constrained by these measures.