Posted 10:14 pm Tuesday, June 03, 2008
Reducing Recidivism Key For Texas Prisons
It's not a crisis situation yet, but Texas prisons are filling up. Fresh approaches are needed, the Texas Public Policy Foundation's Marc Levin says, or the ever-increasing numbers of inmates will overwhelm the system.
"Texas' prison population has quadrupled over the last two decades, the cost to taxpayers has risen proportionally," Levin says.
In the broadest sense, the prison system is effective.
"Although warehousing works to the extent that inmates cannot commit another crime while in prison, 99 percent of inmates will ultimately be released - usually while still in their prime criminal years," Levin says.
But it doesn't break the cycle of crime and incarceration.
"Many of the same offenders are recycled through the system; 60 percent of Texas prison inmates are revoked probationers and parolees," Levin says. "The three-year re-incarceration rate of released Texas inmates has hovered around 30 percent over the last decade."
It's not a problem unique to this state.
"Leaders from the Texas Capitol to European houses of parliament are increasingly recognizing that reducing recidivism is critical to controlling both future incarceration costs and the incalculable human costs to victims and communities from criminal activity," Levin says. "This realization inspired a 111-page manifesto released in March by England's Conservative Party entitled 'Prisons with a Purpose: Our Sentencing and Rehabilitation Revolution to Break the Cycle of Crime.'"
"Leaders from the Texas Capitol to European houses of parliament are increasingly recognizing that reducing recidivism is critical to controlling both future incarceration costs and the incalculable human costs to victims and communities from criminal activity," Levin says. "This realization inspired a 111-page manifesto released in March by England's Conservative Party entitled 'Prisons with a Purpose: Our Sentencing and Rehabilitation Revolution to Break the Cycle of Crime.'"
The plan would use funding to encourage effectiveness.
"A basic tier of funding would keep the lights on at prisons and parole offices, while a second tier of funding would be based on performance, primarily measured by recidivism within several years of release," Levin reports.
There are challenges to such an approach.
"Here, inmates are frequently shuttled between prisons due to capacity pressures, disrupting the continuity of educational, vocational, and rehabilitation programs and effectively precluding the assignment of responsibility for outcomes to a single unit or warden," Levin says.
"Here, inmates are frequently shuttled between prisons due to capacity pressures, disrupting the continuity of educational, vocational, and rehabilitation programs and effectively precluding the assignment of responsibility for outcomes to a single unit or warden," Levin says.
But the British blueprint could be a guide for Texas' approach to private prisons, he adds.
"About 15,000 Texas inmates are in facilities operated by private companies with state contracts," he says. "These inmates tend to stay at one location until release."
That will require a change in how the state deals with those private operators.
"Texas' current prison contracts specify every aspect of operations, essentially making these facilities cookie-cutter replicas of state-run prisons," Levin says. "The contracted rate is a flat per diem with no ties to inmate outcome measures. Instead, these contracts should give private operators freedom to innovate, offering bonuses based on outcomes such as reduced recidivism and the percent of inmates who earn a GED or occupational certificate; educational and vocational progress is highly correlated with reduced recidivism."
The same principle can apply to probation.
"Since 2005, $55 million in state probation funding has been incentive-based," Levin says. "Departments are eligible if they adopt progressive sanctions and pledge to reduce their technical revocations - prison referrals that result from missing meetings, failing drug tests, and other probation violations not related to a new conviction. Progressive sanctions prior to a technical revocation include increased reporting, community service, curfews, electronic monitoring, mandatory treatment, and shock-nights in jail."
"Since 2005, $55 million in state probation funding has been incentive-based," Levin says. "Departments are eligible if they adopt progressive sanctions and pledge to reduce their technical revocations - prison referrals that result from missing meetings, failing drug tests, and other probation violations not related to a new conviction. Progressive sanctions prior to a technical revocation include increased reporting, community service, curfews, electronic monitoring, mandatory treatment, and shock-nights in jail."
Participating departments have reduced their technical revocations by 16 percent, while non-participating departments increased technical revocations by 8 percent, Levin notes.
"Texas should build on the success of this initiative," Levin says.
Now is the time to try new approaches - not when the crunch becomes a crisis.
