Save CA Tax Money
QUESTION: ARE THERE SUBSTANTIAL SAVINGS TO BE FOUND IN THE CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONS SYSTEM?
ANSWER: Yes, a lot of money (up to $900 Million annually) can actually be saved by implementing changes that have been proposed several times. None of the following five changes would reduce public safety and only one involves simply transferring resources and costs. Implementing these long overdue changes would not only save substantial money but would result in an improved corrections system.
WHAT CHANGES WOULD RESULT IN BOTH SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS AND SAVE SUBSTANTIAL MONEY?
1. Pass a law authorizing the State to contract with counties to provide parole supervision for inmates committed from their jurisdiction.
Estimated Savings: $200 - $600 Million annually.
Parole supervision and violations would be handled via the local justice system, the same as felony probation violations are handled. (The Legislative Analyst recommended this change a couple years ago, a proposal that probably was rejected due to Legislative opposition.) Providing local prosecution and disposition of technical violations in the same way felony probation violations are handled would probably return technical violation rates to the “expected” historical levels. There was a 1:1 RTC/WNT ratio in the 1970’s, a 2:1 in the 80’s, a 2.6:1 in the 90’s and a 4.7:1 in the 2000’s.
The increase in the RTC/WNT ratio is not the result of changes in parolee behavior but primarily due to a shortage of county jail beds and the need to immediately move parolees to a State Prison for a violation hearing. This change would dramatically reduce the number of prison beds occupied by technical parole violators, would save many millions annually and improve parole services at the same time.
The solution for the incredibly expensive parole revocation system was proposed in the 1970’s as the major recommendation of the California Correction System Study that parole be transferred to the county level.
Parole supervision and violations would be handled via the local justice system, the same as felony probation violations are handled. (The California Legislative Analyst considered this change a couple years ago, a proposal that probably was rejected due to Legislative opposition.) Providing local prosecution and disposition of technical violations in the same way felony probation violations are handled would probably return technical violation rates to the “expected” historical levels. There was a 1:1 RTC/WNT[1] ratio in the 1970’s, a 2:1 in the 80’s, a 2.6:1 in the 90’s and a 4.7:1 in the 2000’s. During this period, the county felony probation success/failure ratio remained 1:1. County level prosecutors/public defenders/probation officers and courts would simply do a better and more consistent job of dealing with technical parole violations.
Due to the current shortage of bed space, it would be necessary to allow the County Sheriff to either accept a parole violator to serve a term in the county jail or to transfer the violator to the State Prison to serve the revocation term. The State would pay counties the per capita cost for parolee supervision plus associated jail costs (FY 2004 Avg. yearly cost: per parolee, $3,364/per inmate, $30,929). The savings would results from the RTC/WNT ratio for parolees returning to the “expected” historical 1:1 level.
[1] RTC refers to a return to prison for a technical parole violation (Return To Custody); WNT refers to a return to prison for a felony conviction (With New Term).
2. Pass a law authorizing the release of non-violent inmates anytime during the last 30-60 (or even 90) days of completion of their term.
Estimated Savings: $10 - $100 Million annually.
This release feature was in place for many years prior to passage of the Determinate Sentence Law and widely used without any significant problems. This release window was used to develop a required residential and employment program prior to approval of the inmate’s release.
3. Reduce parole violation terms for simple drug use from 4.1 months to two months or even one month.
Estimated Savings: Eliminating the need for one to two prisons could save $100 million to $200 million annually.
This cost savings could be achieved by the Governor simply directing the Board of Prison Terms to reduce the average term for parolees returned to prison for drug to an average of two months or even one month. It is doubtful that many (if any) drug users are committed to county jail by local courts for simple drug use for such a lengthy term on a routine basis.
4. Eliminate the Civil Addict Board.
Estimated Savings: Program cost data not available but probably significant savings.
This program has been obsolete for about 20 years and is probably only retained because it provides an opportunity for a few political appointments.
5. Pay counties to incarcerate selected convicted offenders sentenced to serve less than a year in state prison.
Estimated Savings: Possibly little or no annual cost savings; Would make the Prison System more manageable.
The State prison population could gradually be reduced to return the total inmate population to the historical 50% State Prison/50% County Jail split or to about 120,000 State Prison inmates. Although it is difficult to identify future cost savings, there would probably be some cost savings. It would make the Department of Corrections a more manageable entity. Such a reduction in population would allow for the closure and sale of San Quentin, a very valuable property, providing a substantial amount of money for the State.
ETIMATED TOTAL ANNUAL SAVINGS: $310 TO $900 MILLION
(Details for each change available by emailing: richmck@starstream.net .)
ANSWER: Yes, a lot of money (up to $900 Million annually) can actually be saved by implementing changes that have been proposed several times. None of the following five changes would reduce public safety and only one involves simply transferring resources and costs. Implementing these long overdue changes would not only save substantial money but would result in an improved corrections system.
WHAT CHANGES WOULD RESULT IN BOTH SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS AND SAVE SUBSTANTIAL MONEY?
1. Pass a law authorizing the State to contract with counties to provide parole supervision for inmates committed from their jurisdiction.
Estimated Savings: $200 - $600 Million annually.
Parole supervision and violations would be handled via the local justice system, the same as felony probation violations are handled. (The Legislative Analyst recommended this change a couple years ago, a proposal that probably was rejected due to Legislative opposition.) Providing local prosecution and disposition of technical violations in the same way felony probation violations are handled would probably return technical violation rates to the “expected” historical levels. There was a 1:1 RTC/WNT ratio in the 1970’s, a 2:1 in the 80’s, a 2.6:1 in the 90’s and a 4.7:1 in the 2000’s.
The increase in the RTC/WNT ratio is not the result of changes in parolee behavior but primarily due to a shortage of county jail beds and the need to immediately move parolees to a State Prison for a violation hearing. This change would dramatically reduce the number of prison beds occupied by technical parole violators, would save many millions annually and improve parole services at the same time.
The solution for the incredibly expensive parole revocation system was proposed in the 1970’s as the major recommendation of the California Correction System Study that parole be transferred to the county level.
Parole supervision and violations would be handled via the local justice system, the same as felony probation violations are handled. (The California Legislative Analyst considered this change a couple years ago, a proposal that probably was rejected due to Legislative opposition.) Providing local prosecution and disposition of technical violations in the same way felony probation violations are handled would probably return technical violation rates to the “expected” historical levels. There was a 1:1 RTC/WNT[1] ratio in the 1970’s, a 2:1 in the 80’s, a 2.6:1 in the 90’s and a 4.7:1 in the 2000’s. During this period, the county felony probation success/failure ratio remained 1:1. County level prosecutors/public defenders/probation officers and courts would simply do a better and more consistent job of dealing with technical parole violations.
Due to the current shortage of bed space, it would be necessary to allow the County Sheriff to either accept a parole violator to serve a term in the county jail or to transfer the violator to the State Prison to serve the revocation term. The State would pay counties the per capita cost for parolee supervision plus associated jail costs (FY 2004 Avg. yearly cost: per parolee, $3,364/per inmate, $30,929). The savings would results from the RTC/WNT ratio for parolees returning to the “expected” historical 1:1 level.
[1] RTC refers to a return to prison for a technical parole violation (Return To Custody); WNT refers to a return to prison for a felony conviction (With New Term).
2. Pass a law authorizing the release of non-violent inmates anytime during the last 30-60 (or even 90) days of completion of their term.
Estimated Savings: $10 - $100 Million annually.
This release feature was in place for many years prior to passage of the Determinate Sentence Law and widely used without any significant problems. This release window was used to develop a required residential and employment program prior to approval of the inmate’s release.
3. Reduce parole violation terms for simple drug use from 4.1 months to two months or even one month.
Estimated Savings: Eliminating the need for one to two prisons could save $100 million to $200 million annually.
This cost savings could be achieved by the Governor simply directing the Board of Prison Terms to reduce the average term for parolees returned to prison for drug to an average of two months or even one month. It is doubtful that many (if any) drug users are committed to county jail by local courts for simple drug use for such a lengthy term on a routine basis.
4. Eliminate the Civil Addict Board.
Estimated Savings: Program cost data not available but probably significant savings.
This program has been obsolete for about 20 years and is probably only retained because it provides an opportunity for a few political appointments.
5. Pay counties to incarcerate selected convicted offenders sentenced to serve less than a year in state prison.
Estimated Savings: Possibly little or no annual cost savings; Would make the Prison System more manageable.
The State prison population could gradually be reduced to return the total inmate population to the historical 50% State Prison/50% County Jail split or to about 120,000 State Prison inmates. Although it is difficult to identify future cost savings, there would probably be some cost savings. It would make the Department of Corrections a more manageable entity. Such a reduction in population would allow for the closure and sale of San Quentin, a very valuable property, providing a substantial amount of money for the State.
ETIMATED TOTAL ANNUAL SAVINGS: $310 TO $900 MILLION
(Details for each change available by emailing: richmck@starstream.net .)
posted by cut cdc costs at 8:23 AM
0 comments
