Download Managing Corrections Costs - National Conference of State

Managing Corrections Costs
Managing Corrections Costs
Managing Corrections Costs
By Alison Lawrence
National Conference of State Legislatures
William T. Pound, Executive Director
7700 East First Place
Denver, Colo. 80230
(303) 364-7700
444 North Capitol Street, N.W., Suite 515
Washington, D.C. 20001
(202) 624-5400
www.ncsl.org
February 2014
Printed on recycled paper.
© 2014 by the National Conference of State Legislatures. All rights reserved.
ISBN 978-1-58024-712-2
2
National Conference of State Legislatures
Managing Corrections Costs
S
tates will spend $40 billion to incarcerate
and supervise offenders in fiscal year (FY)
2014, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures’ (NCSL) State Budget
Actions: FY 2013 & 2014. This is a modest 2.5
percent increase over FY 2013 costs, with corrections a shrinking portion of overall state
spending. In a growing number of states, legislatures have enacted policy shifts that make more
effective use of corrections dollars but that also
remain attentive to public safety.
Figure 2. Corrections Portion
of State General Fund Spending
5.3%
FYFY
2014
2014
projected
5.3%
FYFY
2013
2013
2008
FYFY
2008
6.3%
6.1%
2003
FYFY
2003
5.8%
1998
FYFY
1998
0
1
2 of NCSL
3
4
5 surveys
6
7
Source: Compilation
annual
of
legislative fiscal offices, 2998-2013.
This report examines corrections budget trends,
cost-conserving changes to sentencing and corrections policies, actions taken to operate prisons more efficiently, and federal initiatives that
provide support and assistance to states.
Budget Trends
Forty states, the District of Columbia and Puerto
Rico budgeted more in general funds for corrections in FY 2014 than in the previous fiscal year
(Figure 1, on page 4). Only six states—Connecticut, Maine, Mississippi, Nebraska, North
Dakota and Oklahoma—and Puerto Rico in40
creased spending by more than 5 percent. Nine
states—Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Nevada, 35
New Mexico, Ohio, Rhode Island, Virginia and 30
Wyoming—budgeted to spend less in the current fiscal year. Decreases range from .2 percent 25
in New Mexico to 8.4 percent in Wyoming.
20
Spending in New Jersey remains unchanged.
The four major state spending categories are
corrections, K-12 education, higher education
and Medicaid. Medicaid represents the greatest portion of general fund spending, at more
than 20 percent in FY 2014, and also is the
fastest growing category, up from 12 percent
in FY 2000. Since 2000, the portion of general fund spending devoted to higher education has declined from about 12 percent to
9 percent, and K-12 education has remained
relatively constant (Figure 3).
Figure 3. Major Components of State General Fund
Spending, FY 2000 vs. FY 2014
FY 201
36.6%
33.4%
32.6%
32.6%
FY 2000
FY 2014
20.4%
15
State budgets must accommodate corrections,
10
health care, education, social services, transportation, environment and other areas important to 5
residents’ lives. Since 2000, corrections budgets
0
have represented about 5 percent to 6 percent of
state general funds (Figure 2). In FY 2014, this
number is projected to be 5.3 percent.
8
12.2%
11.8%
9.1%
5.9% 5.3%
Corrections
Corrections
K-12
K-12 Education
Education
Higher
Education
Higher Education
Medicaid
Medicaid
Other
Other
Source: Compilation of NCSL annual survey of legislative fiscal offices,
1998-2013.
National Conference of State Legislatures
3
FY 200
Managing Corrections Costs
Figure 1. Percentage Change in Corrections General Fund Spending, FY 2013 to FY 2014
Maine
North Dakota
Mississippi
Nebraska
Puerto Rico
Connecticut
Oklahoma
Arkansas
Vermont
Tennessee
Alabama
South Carolina
West Virginia
New York
Massachusetts
South Dakota
North Carolina
Washington4
Pennsylvania
Kansas
Iowa
Hawaii
Minnestoa
Utah
Idaho
Florida
Alaska
New Hampshire
Delaware
Michigan
Montana
Oregon
Colorado
District of Columbia
California
Arizona
Texas
Maryland
Georgia
Missouri
Illinois
Wisconsin
New Jersey
New Mexico
Ohio
Kentucky
Rhode Island
Virginia
Nevada
Indiana
Louisiana
Wyoming -8.4
Maine
North Dakota
Mississippi
Nebraska
Puerto Rico
Connecticut
Oklahoma
Arkansas
Vermont
Tennessee
Alabama
South Carolina
West Virginia
New York
Massachusetts
South Dakota
North Carolina
Washington
Pennsylvania
Kansas
Iowa
Hawaii
Minnesota
Utah
Idaho
Florida
Alaska
New Hampshire
Delaware
Michigan
Montana
Oregon
Colorado
District of Columbia
California
Arizona
Texas
Maryland
Georgia
Missouri
Illinois
Wisconsin
New Jersey
-0.2
-0.4
-0.4
-0.5
-1.1
-2.1
-2.4
-5.2
12.8
8.2
7.6
6.4
5.8
5.7
5.5
4.7
4.6
4.6
4.5
4.4
4.3
4.3
4.2
4.1
4.1
4.0
4.0
4.0
3.6
3.4
2.8
2.4
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.2
2.2
2.1
1.9
1.8
1.7
1.5
1.2
1.2
1.1
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.8
0.01
0.0
New Mexico
Ohio
Kentucky
Rhode Island
Virginia
Nevada
Indiana
Louisiana
Wyoming
Source: NCSL survey of legislative fiscal offices, 2013.
4
National Conference of State Legislatures
Managing Corrections Costs
Unlike other areas of state spending, corrections is supported almost entirely by general
funds; in FY 2014, only about 2 percent of
corrections spending came from other sources.
Lawmakers’ policy and fiscal responsibilities
include making decisions about how to best
provide for public safety and, at the same
time, manage corrections costs.
Sentencing and Corrections
Policies
Since nearly $9 of every $10 spent on corrections goes to prisons, according to the Public
Safety Performance Project of The Pew Charitable Trusts, managing prison populations is
key to managing corrections costs. The largest
and potentially most sustainable reductions
have resulted from changes to sentencing and
corrections policies that have safely lowered
prison populations.
Prison populations are determined by who
goes to prison and how long they stay. After
reaching a high of more than 1.4 million in
2009, the total state prison population steadily
declined to 1.35 million in 2012, according to
the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS).
In South Carolina, the purpose of a 2010 omnibus act was to “ensure prison space exists for
high-risk, violent offenders,” improve community supervision and get “smart on crime,
reduce recidivism and provide fair and effective sentencing options.” The law added to
the list of violent crimes; expanded diversion,
treatment and prison good time; required evidence-based community supervision; and created alternatives for probation and parole rule
violations. These measures led to an 8 percent
decline in the prison population, according to
a December 2013 South Carolina Sentencing
Reform Oversight Committee report. Prison
space has been prioritized for violent offenders, who now make up 63 percent of the state’s
prison population, compared to 46 percent in
2002.
According to BJS, the portion of violent offenders in prison nationwide has increased
from 45 percent to 53 percent during the last
two decades. States have taken steps to prioritize prison space for the most dangerous
offenders by diverting some offenders from
prison, creating alternatives for probation and
parole violations, and expanding prison release
options.
Prison Admissions
States have decreased the number of offenders
who enter prison by expanding communitybased supervision and treatment and creating
alternatives to incarceration for probation and
parole rule violations.
Diverting low-risk offenders to community
supervision can reserve costly prison space
for the most serious offenders. A number of
states in recent years have enacted policies that
allow drug offenders, who would otherwise be
prison-bound, to be diverted into community
supervision and treatment. States also have
reviewed and revised drug classifications and
penalties. Since 2001, the number of drug offenders entering prison has declined by more
than 20 percent, according to BJS.
Leading this trend, New York’s decade-long
prison population decline has been driven in
part by changes to drug offender sentencing
laws. The Legislature has eliminated some
National Conference of State Legislatures
5
Managing Corrections Costs
all drug-crime convictions are used to support
assessment and community- and prison-based
treatment of offenders with substance-abuse
and/or mental health disorders. In FY 2013,
$14.1 million was spent on correctional treatment programs, and $16.7 million has been
appropriated for FY 2014, according to the
Colorado Correctional Treatment Board. The
board is responsible for allocating funds to the
state and local agencies responsible for supervising offenders.
mandatory minimum sentence requirements,
reduced the length of prison sentences for
drug crimes, and expanded community- and
prison-based treatment programs for drug and
property offenders who are drug addicts. Since
2009, prison sentences have decreased by 40
percent, while sentences to diversion programs, such as drug court, are up, according
to the New York Department of Corrections
and Community Supervision.
Since 2009, at least 12 states have authorized
diversion of lower-level drug offenders into
community supervision and treatment. Colorado has reduced the number of offenders sent
to prison as a result of changes to drug laws,
according to the state Division of Criminal
Justice, and used savings to fund communitybased treatment and related programs and
services. Laws in 2003 and 2010 lowered
penalties for low-level drug use and possession
offenses, decreasing the number of offenders sent to prison. Savings from decreased
prison admissions and a court surcharge for
6
Authorizing non-prison alternatives for offenders who break the rules of their supervision—known as technical violations—is
another way states have safely decreased prison
populations. From 2006 through 2011, the
number of inmates who entered prison for parole violations declined by 31 percent nationwide, according to BJS.
More than 20 states have authorized use of
graduated sanctions to respond to probation
and parole violations.
Graduated sanctions policies use clearly
established community-based sanctions or
short jail stays to quickly respond to technical
violations; the severity of the sanction is proportionate to the violation. Arkansas adopted
a graduated sanctions policy in 2011, and
within one year the total prison population
declined by 7 percent because fewer violators
entered prison. A similar policy adopted in
South Carolina in 2010 resulted in one-year
savings of $4.2 million due to a 20 percent
decline in revocations to prison.
National Conference of State Legislatures
Managing Corrections Costs
Length of Stay and Reentry
States have trimmed lengths of stay in prison
by accelerating the release date of certain inmates who participate in prison programming.
In addition, attention to reentry and more
information to parole boards have increased
parole release rates.
Awarding earned-time credits to certain
inmates who comply with prison rules and
complete self-improvement programs trims
the amount of time spent in prison. In 2008,
Pennsylvania created a Recidivism Risk
Reduction Incentive that allows certain nonviolent inmates to be eligible for a reduced
minimum sentence upon completion of treatment, education courses or other in-prison
programming. In three years, the state saved
a total of $37 million due to shorter stays, according to the corrections department.
Programs that help inmates better prepare for
release can lead to reduced crime and recidivism. In Connecticut, the prison population
has been steadily decreasing since 2008 due, in
part, to increased use of prison diversion and
reentry programs. A Risk Reduction Earned
Credit program created in 2011 is further
contributing to prison population declines
and has lowered recidivism rates. A preliminary analysis conducted by the state Office of
Policy and Management found that inmates
who earned such credit were 10 percent less
likely to be back in prison within 12 months,
compared to the general inmate population.
At least 38 states offer earned-time credits to
certain inmates who participate in or complete
prison programs.
Providing inmates with skills, services and
supervision as they reenter the community
has led parole boards in Michigan and Texas
to approve more inmates for release on parole.
Michigan established the Prisoner Reentry
Initiative in 2005. The program includes an
assessment of inmates when they enter prison
to identify factors that contribute to criminal
behavior and assign related in-prison programming. Inmates who are near their date
of release receive assistance to secure housing,
find a job, and access substance abuse and
mental health treatment and other health care.
Assessment results, program participation
records and release plans of Michigan inmates
go to the parole board to use when they consider whether an individual should be released.
The parole board credits the increase in the
number of paroles granted to the availability
of this inmate information. The state’s prison
population is down 15 percent from its peak
in 2007, according to the corrections department. Each year, some savings that result
from lower prison costs—$56 million in FY
2011—are invested in the reentry initiative.
National Conference of State Legislatures
7
Managing Corrections Costs
State-Local Supervision and Funding
In 2011, local governments spent more than $26 billion to detain and supervise criminal offenders,
according to BJS. The amount and type of responsibility assumed by state and local governments for
offender supervision vary among states. In 44 states, jails are locally operated. In six, the state oversees a
combined jail and prison system. Probation and parole supervision may be provided by local courts, local
or state community corrections departments, state corrections departments or parole boards, or a combination of these.
Some states have realigned state-local supervision responsibility in recent years. In response to a federal
court order, California lawmakers enacted legislation in 2011 to reduce the state prison population from
144,000 inmates to approximately 110,000. Under the law, offenders convicted of non-serious and nonsex offenses serve their sentences in local jails rather than state facilities. Local probation departments
supervise most inmates released to parole from jail and certain lower-level offenders released from state
prison, while the corrections department supervises higher-risk offenders. All offenders for whom parole
is revoked—except for those serving a life sentence—serve their time in county jails. As of January 2014,
the state inmate population was about 118,000, according to the California Department of Corrections
and Rehabilitation.
A 2011 North Carolina law transferred responsibility for housing most misdemeanor offenders from
the state corrections department to local counties. The law was designed to reduce prison costs and use
existing jail space. Counties with available jail space can participate and are reimbursed for housing and
transportation costs. As of June 2013, half the state’s counties were participating, according to the North
Carolina’s Sheriffs’ Association, which is required by law to manage the realignment. County reimbursement is funded through court costs and fees.
Local jails generally detain offenders whose sentences are less than one year or defendants who are awaiting trial. In several states, however, prison inmates also are held in local facilities due to lack of space in
state facilities or procedural delays related to inmate transfer. In 2012, 33 states were housing prison inmates in local jails, according to BJS. This can strain local resources and limit inmate access to treatment
and programming. Arkansas and Georgia are among states that have reduced jail backlogs in recent years
through changes to sentencing laws that lowered prison populations. Arkansas saved nearly $6 million in
FY 2013 because of reduced payments to counties for housing state inmates, according to NCSL budget
data.
States also have provided local supervision agencies with funds to support successful community supervision. One way states have done this is through “justice reinvestment” initiatives. For example, Georgia
allocated more than $11 million in FY 2013 for local accountability courts. For FY 2014, North Carolina
has appropriated $22 million for community-based treatment and additional probation officer positions.
Eight states have adopted “performance incentive funding” mechanisms that reimburse localities for successfully supervising some offenders in the community, rather than sending them to prison for supervision
violations. In California, probation revocations have declined by one-third over three years, resulting in
$535 million state savings; $220 million was distributed to counties that have contributed to the decline, according to the Administrative Office of the Courts. Four states—California, Illinois, Kansas and
Ohio—have awarded about $400 million to local supervision agencies for successfully diverting offenders.
8
National Conference of State Legislatures
Managing Corrections Costs
In Texas, improved parole supervision, expansion of community- and prison-based treatment, and a revalidated risk assessment tool
has led to a 7 percent increase in parole approval rates during the past five years, according to the state Board of Pardons and Paroles.
A valid risk assessment tool provides parole
boards with information about an inmate’s
risk of reoffending, program needs and readiness for release. Revalidating a risk assessment
ensures the continued quality of the tool and
can increase confidence in the results. Improved supervision and access to treatment
also increase the parole board’s confidence that
offenders will receive the appropriate amount
and type of supervision and services upon
release.
quarters of their corrections funds on secure
housing and care for inmates, employee salaries and benefits, and other operational costs.
To improve the cost efficiency of prisons,
some states have made changes to the number
and kind of prisons they operate. Others have
increased the cost-effectiveness of providing
inmate health care or addressed service contracts, inmate transportation and technology.
Operational Costs
In Pennsylvania, a lower prison population
prompted the corrections department to close
two older prison facilities and replace them
with one new one in 2013. The state will save
an estimated $35 million per year and reduce
Costs of operating prison facilities represent
the largest share of corrections budgets. BJS
reported that, in 2010, states spent three-
Facility Consolidations, Closures and
Repurposing
Since 2011, 17 states have closed or consolidated prisons, which can result in significant
savings (Figure 4). In at least nine states,
sentencing and corrections laws have lowered
prison populations enough to warrant closure
or consolidation.
Figure 4. States That Closed or Consolidated Prisons, 2011-2013
Sources: NCSL research, 2013, and the Sentencing Project, 2014.
National Conference of State Legislatures
9
Managing Corrections Costs
the operating capacity by 400 beds, according to the corrections department. The new
facility is more secure, requires fewer resources
to operate and can hold more inmates than
either of the older prisons. Nevada is also
among states that have closed older prisons
that generally are less efficient and more expensive to operate than newer facilities. Closing the 150-year-old Nevada State Prison in
2012 saved the state nearly $15 million during
the FY 2011-13 biennium, according to the
Legislative Counsel Bureau.
New York has closed 18 correctional facilities
during the last five years because of a declining prison population, according to the
corrections department. The state used $12
million in savings from two of the closures to
help offset costs for in-prison mental health
and sex offender programs. Savings also have
been used to provide economic development
assistance to communities where prisons have
closed. One prison will become a center for
crime victim support and offender reentry
services.
Like New York, a number of states are repurposing closed facilities, providing new opportunities for local communities. Colorado
recently repurposed a closed prison to provide
transitional housing and support services for
people who are homeless. According to the
Colorado Department of Local Affairs, this
helps fill a gap in services that may not be
available in a rural area of the state. The transitional housing center also will offer employment opportunities for former prison workers.
A 2013 law requires that at least 15 percent
of the employees at the repurposed facility be
former correctional facility employees.
10
Inmate Health Care
Nearly 20 percent of prison costs in 2008
were spent on inmate health care, according to
the State Health Care Spending Project of The
Pew Charitable Trusts. High rates of disease, a
growing elderly inmate population and prison
location contribute to the high cost associated with providing care. States have trimmed
prison spending by making changes to inmate
health care.
Prescription and overthe-counter drug costs are
increasing inside and out
of prisons. To control these
costs, states have centralized their prison pharmacy
services, purchased generic
drugs and taken advantage
of bulk purchasing discounts. Iowa’s pharmacy
costs are the second largest component of inmate
health costs, according to
the Legislative Services Agency. The recent
move to a centralized pharmacy system saved
the state a total of $1.2 million in FY 2013
and FY 2014, according to NCSL budget
data. Texas’ participation in the federal 340B
Drug Pricing Program allows the state to purchase drugs at reduced cost, which saved $50
million in FY 2012, according to the Legislative Budget Board.
Prisons often are located in remote, non-urban
areas, and transporting inmates for medical care can be not only costly, but also can
increase public safety concerns. In addition,
contracting with specialty care doctors to
travel to prisons can be expensive. Telemedicine uses video-conferencing technology to
National Conference of State Legislatures
Managing Corrections Costs
provide inmates with timely access to specialty
care. Over a 13-year period, the University of
Texas Medical Branch—one of two providers of inmate health care in the state—documented $780 million in savings due to use of
telemedicine. Michigan and Ohio also have
realized savings from use of telemedicine in
prisons.
Expansion of the federal Medicaid match also
may offer savings to corrections departments. A
1997 federal memo allows
Medicaid coverage for some
health care costs of inmates
if the care is provided at
a location other than the
correctional facility, the care
lasts longer than 24 hours,
and the inmate meets
Medicaid eligibility criteria. Under the 2010 federal Affordable Care Act, if
states choose to participate,
Medicaid eligibility will
be expanded to all those with incomes below
133 percent of the poverty level. At least six
states passed laws in 2013 that allow state or
local corrections departments to seek federal
Medicaid funds for certain inmate health care
services. According to NCSL budget data, a
2013 Arkansas law is estimated to save the
state $2.2 million in FY 2014. The California
Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates that, in
FY 2012-2013, the state saved nearly $30 million by obtaining federal funds; in FY 201415, savings could reach $70 million. More
inmates also will become eligible for Medicaid
after release from prison, providing states with
an opportunity to increase access to substance
abuse and mental health treatment and medical care immediately upon an inmate’s release.
Prison Management
The Vera Institute of Justice and the Association of State Correctional Administrators have
identified efficiency measures taken by corrections departments in recent years. Such measures include changes to food service or utilities contracts. Investing in new technology,
such as Internet-based information systems,
reduces administrative workload and manual
delivery of inmate files, court documents and
other records. Video-conferencing for parole
hearings or other inmate appearances has
reduced transportation costs in some states.
Federal Leadership and Support
State efforts have been supported by federal
initiatives, including those administered by
the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) in the
U.S. Department of Justice.
A public-private partnership of BJA and the
Public Safety Performance Project of The Pew
Charitable Trusts (Pew) leads national efforts
in justice reinvestment. BJA administers funds
that support a number of state and local efforts, while Pew provides technical assistance.
Support and assistance include analyzing data
and trends, developing strategies to improve
offender accountability, contain costs and
protect public safety. Once reforms have
been adopted, states become eligible for seed
funding that can be used for risk assessments
development, program implementation and
staff training. States also can receive help to
implement information systems that can track
and measure progress.
National Conference of State Legislatures
11
Managing Corrections Costs
At least 27 states have engaged in a “justice
reinvestment” process in recent years. A recent
study of 17 of these states by the Urban Institute found a collective projected savings of
$4.6 billion during the next five to 11 years.
To date, 12 states have reinvested $165 million of the savings into public safety initiatives
such as substance abuse and mental health
treatment, evidence-based offender supervision and use of risk assessments.
Since 2008, the federal Second Chance Act
has provided grants to state, local and tribal
governments and community-based organizations to establish innovative and evidencebased reentry programs, including those
related to employment, education, mentoring,
and substance abuse and mental health treatment. BJA has awarded nearly 600 grants for
programs such as reentry courts, family-based
treatment services, technology career training,
mentorship, and research and evaluation of
effective reentry programs.
Other BJA initiatives include support for a
variety of programs that address substance
abuse and mental health needs of offenders, including development and expansion of
12
drug, mental health, veteran and other problem-solving courts. Smart Probation grants
support development and implementation of
evidence-based probation programs aimed at
improving probation success rates.
Results
Good research and evidence are the foundation for many effective corrections policies
and programs. Evidence-based practices are
improving many areas of offender supervision
in the community. Federal resources such
as CrimeSolutions.gov provide information
about whether programs have undergone rigorous evaluation and show evidence of achieving goals. BJA’s National Training and Technical Assistance Center also offers a resource
for implementing evidence-based programs.
States are making more effective use of corrections dollars and are reaping the benefits.
They are safely decreasing prison populations,
reducing recidivism and improving public
safety. While each policy change may have a
modest or incremental effect, comprehensive
and sustainable reforms collectively can help
control corrections costs.
National Conference of State Legislatures
Managing Corrections Costs
Resources
National Conference of State Legislatures
www.ncsl.org
The National Conference of State Legislatures
(NCSL) is committed to the success of state
legislators and staff. Founded in 1975, it is a
respected bipartisan organization providing
states support, ideas, connections and a strong
voice on Capitol Hill. NCSL’s mission is to
improve the quality and effectiveness of state
legislatures; promote policy innovation and
communication among state legislatures; and
ensure state legislatures is a strong, cohesive
voice in the federal system.
Criminal Justice Program
www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminaljustice
The Criminal Justice Program is a resource
for state lawmakers and staff on a wide range
of topics that reflect the many aspects and
functions of criminal justice systems. Special
project work helps legislatures tap the best
research and information available on sentencing and corrections policies that meet both
public safety goals and fiscal objectives.
Fiscal Affairs Program
www.ncsl.org/research/fiscal-policy
The Fiscal Affairs Program provides information, research, and technical assistance to
legislators and legislative staff on a wide range
of fiscal, economic development and cultural
issues. The program also conducts regular budget and tax surveys that are released
as State Budget Updates, State Budget Actions and State Tax Actions reports. Bureau of Justice Assistance
www.bja.gov
The Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), a
component of the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Justice Programs, disseminates
state-of-the-art knowledge and practices across
America’s justice systems and provides grants
at the national, state, local and tribal level to
fund the implementation of these crime-fighting strategies. BJA provides leadership and
services on many crime prevention, recidivism
reduction and justice improvement efforts that
are guided by the principle “to reduce crime,
recidivism, and unnecessary confinement, and
promote a safe and fair criminal justice system.”
Bureau of Justice Statistics
www.bjs.gov
The Bureau of Justice Statistics, a component
of the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office
of Justice Programs, collects, analyzes, publishes and disseminates information on crime,
criminal offenders, victims of crime, and the
operation of justice systems at all levels of
government.
Public Safety Performance Project of The
Pew Charitable Trusts
www.pewstates.org/publicsafety
Pew’s Public Safety Performance Project helps
states advance data-driven, fiscally sound
policies and practices in criminal and juvenile
justice systems that protect public safety, hold
offenders accountable and control corrections
costs. The project provides expert, nonpartisan research, analysis and assistance to states
to help explore sentencing and corrections
reforms that will reduce reoffending and cut
costs. The project also conducts and publishes
National Conference of State Legislatures
13
Managing Corrections Costs
research on key criminal and juvenile corrections trends and highlights policies and
practices that demonstrate better outcomes at
less cost.
Urban Institute
www.urban.org
The Urban Institute gathers data, conducts
research, evaluates programs, offers technical assistance overseas, and educates Americans on social and economic issues to foster
sound public policy and effective government.
Urban’s Justice Policy Center conducts nonpartisan research and evaluation designed to
improve justice and public safety policies and
practices at the national, state and local levels. 14
Vera Institute of Justice
www.vera.org
The Vera Institute of Justice combines expertise in research, demonstration projects and
technical assistance to help leaders in government and civil society improve the systems
people rely on for justice and safety. Vera’s
Center on Sentencing and Corrections works
with government leaders to advance criminal
justice policies that promote fairness, protect
public safety, and ensure that resources are
used efficiently. The Cost-Benefit Analysis
Unit provides policymakers with clear, accessible information about the economic pros
and cons associated with criminal and juvenile
justice policies. National Conference of State Legislatures
Managing Corrections Costs
References
Association of State Corrections Administrators. Cutting Costs: How States Are
Addressing Corrections Budget Shortfalls.
Hagerstown, Md.: ASCA, November,
2008.
Bucklen, Bret, and D. Lorraine Russell. Recidivism Risk Reduction Incentive: 2012
Report. Camp Hill, Pa.: Department of
Corrections, January 2012.
California Administrative Office of the
Courts. Report on the California Community Corrections Performance Incentives Act of 2009. San Francisco, Calif.:
AOC, April 2013.
California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation. Three-Judge Court Updates website. Sacramento, Calif.: CDCR,
Retrieved Jan. 17, 2014. from http://www.
cdcr.ca.gov/News/3_judge_panel_decision.html.
timore, Md.: U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services, Dec. 12, 1997. Letter to associate regional administrators.
Colorado Correctional Treatment Board. FY
2015 Funding Plan. Denver, Colo.: Judicial Branch, n.d.
Edwards, Aaron. The 2013-14 Budget: Obtaining Federal Funds for Inmate Medical
Care—A Status Report. Sacramento, Calif.: California Legislative Analyst’s Office,
Feb. 5, 2013.
Flick, Peg. H.B.10-1352 Savings Analysis Report: First Two Years of Implementation.
Denver, Colo.: Colorado Department of
Public Safety, Division of Criminal Justice,
Office of Research and Statistics, March
2013.
Fort Lyon Facility Conversion Task Force.
“Fort Lyon Presentation.” Denver, Colo.:
Colorado Department of Local Affairs,
n.d.
California Legislative Analyst’s Office. The
2013-14 Budget: California Spending
Plan. Sacramento, Calif.: LAO, November
2013.
Geisler, Gregory T. The Cost of Correctional
Health Care. Columbus, Ohio: Correctional Institution Inspection Committee,
Ohio General Assembly, Dec. 15, 2010.
Carson, E. Ann, and Daniela Golinelli. Prisoners in 2012: Trends in Admissions and
Releases, 1991-2012. Washington, D.C.:
Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. DOJ,
December 2013.
Haggerty, Todd. State Budget Actions: FY
2013 & FY 2014. Denver, Colo.: National
Conference of State Legislatures, November 2013.
Center for Medicaid and State Operations.
“Clarification of Medicaid Coverage Policy
for Inmates of a Public Institution.” Bal-
Illinois Adult Redeploy Illinois Oversight
Board. 2012 Annual Report to the Governor and General Assembly on the Implementation and Projected Impact of Adult
National Conference of State Legislatures
15
Managing Corrections Costs
Redeploy Illinois. Chicago, Ill.: Illinois
Criminal Justice Information Authority,
March 8, 2013.
Iowa Legislative Services Agency, Fiscal Services Division. Issue Review: Department
of Corrections Centralized Pharmacy. Des
Moines, Iowa: Iowa General Assembly,
Feb. 4, 2011.
Kansas Department of Corrections. SB14
2010 Report. Topeka, Kan.: Jan. 3, 2010.
Kyckelhahn, Tracey. Local Government Corrections Expenditures, FY 2005-2011.
Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice
Statistics, U.S. DOJ, December 2013.
LaVigne, Nancy, et al. Justice Reinvestment
Initiative State Assessment Report. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute, January
2014.
_____. Michigan Prison Reentry Initiative:
2010 Progress Report. Lansing, Mich.:
Public Policy Associates, 2010.
_____. Prison Population Projection Report.
Lansing, Mich.: DOC, Feb. 2013. Report
to the Legislature pursuant to P.A. 200 of
2012, section 401.
Naro-Ware, Wendy. “2012 Baseline Prison
Population Forecast & Act 570 Implementation Tracking.” Little Rock, Ark.:
JFA Institute, Sept. 25, 2012. Presentation
to the Arkansas General Assembly House
Judiciary Committee.
Nevada Legislative Counsel Bureau, Fiscal
Analysis Division. Nevada Legislative Appropriations Report, Seventy-Sixth Legislature, Fiscal Years 2011-12 and 2012-13.
Reno, Nev.: Nevada Legislature, November 2011.
Lawlor, Mike. “RREC—The Administration’s
Perspective.” Hartford, Conn.: Connecticut Office of Policy and Management,
Criminal Justice Policy and Planning Division, March 22, 2013. Presentation to the
Connecticut General Assembly Judiciary
Committee.
New York Department of Corrections and
Community Supervision. “2011 Prison
Closures.” Albany, N.Y.: DOCCS, January 2010.
_____ . State Corrections Expenditures, FY
1982-2010. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of
Justice Statistics, U.S. DOJ, Dec. 2012.
_____ .“DOCCS Fact Sheet.” Albany, N.Y.:
DOCCS, Jan. 1, 2014.
Michigan Department of Corrections. “Michigan Prison Reentry: A Success Story.”
Lansing, Mich.: MDOC, n.d.
16
_____. “2009 Drug Law Reform Update.”
Albany, N.Y.: DOCCS, June 2013.
_____ .“ Fact Sheet: 2009 Prison Closures.”
Albany, N.Y.: DOCCS, May, 2009.
National Conference of State Legislatures
Managing Corrections Costs
North Carolina Sheriffs’ Association. Statewide Misdemeanant Confinement Program, Annual Report, Fiscal Year 201213. Raleigh, N.C.: NCSA, Oct. 1, 2013.
Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction. Probation Improvement and Incentive Grants Report. Columbus, Ohio:
DRC, June 20, 2013.
Pellant, Keven. “SB 14.” Topeka, Kan.: Kansas
Department of Corrections, August 28,
2008. Presentation to the Kansas State
Legislature Joint Committee on Corrections and Juvenile Justice Oversight.
Pennsylvania Department of Corrections.
“Corrections to Save $23 Million by
Replacing Two Older Prisons.” Mechanicsburg, Pa.: DOC, Jan. 9, 2013. Press
Release.
Polycom. “Michigan Department of Corrections Reduces Costs with Polycom Solutions.” Pleasanton, Calif.: Polycom, 2009.
Porter, Nicole. On the Chopping Block 2013:
State Prison Closures. Washington, D.C.:
The Sentencing Project, January 2014.
Public Safety Performance Project. One in 31:
The Long Reach of Americans Corrections. Washington, D.C.: The Pew Charitable Trusts, March 2009.
_____. State Expenditure Savings Report.
Columbia, S.C.: South Carolina General
Assembly, Dec. 1, 2011.
State Health Care Spending Project. Managing Prison Health Care Spending. Washington, D.C.: The Pew Charitable Trusts,
October 2013.
Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles. Annual
Statistical Report: Fiscal Year 2012. Austin, Texas: TBPP, June 2013.
_____. Parole Guidelines Annual Report: Fiscal Year 2012. Austin, Texas: TBPP, June
2013.
Texas Legislative Budget Board. Legislative
Budget Board Fiscal Size-up: 2012-13
Biennium. Austin, Texas: LBB, January
2012. Submitted to the 82nd Texas Legislature.
Vera Institute of Justice. The Continuing Fiscal Crisis in Corrections: Setting a New
Course. New York, N.Y.: Vera, October
2010.
Vo, Alexander H. The Telehealth Promise:
Better Health Care and Cost Savings
for the 21st Century. Galveston, Texas:
University of Texas Medical Branch, May
2008.
South Carolina Sentencing Reform Oversight
Committee. State Expenditure Savings
Report. Columbia, S.C.: South Carolina
General Assembly, Dec. 1, 2011.
National Conference of State Legislatures
17
Managing Corrections Costs
State Laws
Federal Laws
Ark. HB 1351 (2013); Ark. SB 750 (2011);
Calif. AB 109 (2011); Calif. AB 117 (2011);
Colo. HB 1352 (2010); Colo. SB 318 (2003);
Conn. HB 6650 (2011); Del. SB 226 (2012);
Ga. HB 742 (2013); Ga. HB 1176 (2012);
Hawaii SB 2776 (2012); Hawaii HB 2514
(2012); Mo. HB 1525 (2012); N.C. SB 402
(2013); N.C. HB 642 (2011); N.Y. AB 156B
(2009); N.Y. AB 11895 (2004); N.Y. SB
5880 (2005); Okla. HB 3052 (2012); Pa. HB
4 (2008); Pa. HB 135 (2012); Pa. SB 100
(2012); S.C. SB 1154 (2010).
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,
Public Law 148. 111th Cong., 2nd sess.,
March 23, 2010.
18
Second Chance Act of 2007, Public Law 199.
110th Cong., 2nd sess., Jan. 3, 2008.
National Conference of State Legislatures
Managing Corrections Costs
This document was supported by Grant No. 2010-DB-BX-K030 awarded by the
Bureau of Justice Assistance. The Bureau of Justice Assistance is a component of
the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Statistics,
the National Institute of Justice, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention, the Office for Victims of Crime, and the Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering and Tracking. Points of view or
opinions in this document are those of the author and do not necessarily represent
the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
National Conference of State Legislatures
19
Managing Corrections Costs
The National Conference of State Legislatures is the bipartisan organization that serves the legislators and staffs of the
states, commonwealths and territories.
NCSL provides research, technical assistance and opportunities for policymakers to exchange ideas on the most pressing
state issues and is an effective and respected advocate for the interests of the states in the American federal system. Its
objectives are:
•
To improve the quality and effectiveness of state legislatures.
•
To promote policy innovation and communication among state legislatures.
•
To ensure state legislatures a strong, cohesive voice in the federal system.
The Conference operates from offices in Denver, Colo., and Washington, D.C.
20
National Conference of State Legislatures