Our view on hard-times budgeting: States releasing prisoners early may pay for it later

6-8-2009 National:

High recidivism means short-term cuts won’t equal long-term savings.

In any context, cost cutting in times of economic stress tends to produce shortsighted solutions. But several states struggling to cope with the recession have settled on one approach that is a certain recipe for long-term trouble. They are releasing large numbers of "non-violent" offenders from prison.

Exhibit A is what has been going on in Kentucky. Last year, in a bid to save $30 million over two years, the Legislature started granting early releases to inmates. Only after 2,500 prisoners were on the way out the door did the legislators realize that in their rush, they had unleashed violent felons and sex offenders along with less dangerous prisoners.

At least 154 violent felons have been released, as well as 25 sex offenders. Four were inadvertently released even though they had already been indicted for other crimes. Only a few months into the effort, five had returned to prison sporting new felony convictions. The state Supreme Court is poised to decide whether budget cutting zeal went too far.

Elsewhere, Mississippi, New York, Ohio, Florida and North Carolina are also looking to prison budgets to plug gaping deficits. And after California's budget plan was rejected by voters last month, the Legislature is considering parole for more prisoners than all the other states combined.

Not only are states releasing prisoners in a rush, they're watching released prisoners less closely once they're out. For instance, Washington state is abandoning enhanced supervision of its worst juvenile offenders, while Wisconsin plans to dump the electronic monitoring of sex offenders. Utah is trying to find money to reverse cuts in the number of probation and parole officers.

Recidivism rates suggest the budget cuts are more like a shell game. The majority of non-violent inmates released from state prison are rearrested within three years, the bulk of them within 12 months, according to the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). More than a quarter of non-violent offenders will end up back behind bars and back on the state budget.

A 2004 BJS study of released non-violent offenders shows they can be dangerous, too. It found that hundreds of thousands of released non-violent offenders — one in five — were rearrested for violent crimes, including murder.

Michigan is one state that has been doing it right. It invests heavily in helping former prisoners rejoin society before it starts returning them to the streets. Yet this year's new state budget is far heavier on cuts to prison spending than it is on investments in keeping newly released inmates out of trouble.

Granted, Michigan and other states face difficult choices. The recession is reducing their revenue, and unlike the federal government, they can't print money or borrow without limit. Further, concentrating criminal justice resources on violent offenders is a sensible idea. But distinguishing the violent offenders from the non-violent ones isn't so easy, or cheap. It's something best handled case by case, not with a legislative cookie cutter.

So far, the early-release programs don't even look like honest budgeting. They only stop the flow of red ink temporarily, potentially replacing it with something else the same color — blood. ..Source.. by USA TODAY