What's new from Prisoners of the Census, http://www.prisonersofthecensus.org <http://www.prisonersofthecensus.org/>
a project of the Prison Policy Initiative:
* * *
This week we have a new report about prison-based gerrymandering in Massachusetts, a link to an excellent news article, and a request for Mac laptops.
* * *
NEW REPORT:
Importing Constituents: Prisoners and
Political Clout in Massachusetts
by Elena Lavarreda, Peter Wagner and Rose Heyer http://www.prisonersofthecensus.org/ma/ <http://www.prisonersofthecensus.org/ma/>
The press release is below.
* * *
NEWS COVERAGE
This article about our new report is an excellent introduction to the issues at stake when counting incarcerated people in the wrong place:
The Prison Town Advantage:
Inmates who can't vote nevertheless add to the power of the politicians who don't represent them
by Maureen Turner, Valley Advocate (Western Mass.), October 8, 2009
http://www.valleyadvocate.com/article.cfm?aid=10645 <http://www.valleyadvocate.com/article.cfm?aid=10645>
* * *
MAC LAPTOP NEEDED
The Prison Policy Initiative now has more volunteers than we have computers. Do you have a relatively recent Mac laptop you no longer need? If so, please contact me. Any gifts of equipment would be tax deductible.
* * *
Press release:
CENSUS BUREAU COUNTS MASSACHUSETTS PRISONERS IN WRONG PLACE; ACCESS TO DEMOCRACY DISTORTED
[URL: http://www.prisonersofthecensus.org/news/2009/10/08/ma_repor/ <http://www.prisonersofthecensus.org/news/2009/10/08/ma_repor/> ]
The 2010 Census is rapidly approaching, but an old error threatens the count, charges a new report by the non-profit Prison Policy Initiative. The report explains that the U.S. Census counts state and federal prisoners as residents of the prison location, and that creates big problems for democracy in Massachusetts. Crediting prisoners to the prison towns leads to unequal distributions of political power within the state.
Under Massachusetts law prisoners -- who can't vote -- are legal residents of their pre-incarceration homes. The Census Bureau counts these people in the wrong spot, and that will create a big problem when the state next updates its legislative districts after the 2010 Census. Legislative districts must be updated each decade to ensure that each district contains the same number of residents.
The report states that five Massachusetts House districts meet federal minimum population requirements only because they include incarcerated people as local residents. In these five districts, the presence of the prisons in the Census data enables every group of 95 residents near the prisons to claim as much political power in the State House as each group of 100 residents elsewhere. By using Census Bureau counts of prison populations to pad out legislative districts with prisons, Massachusetts is inflating the votes of residents who live near prisons in violation of the Supreme Court's "one person one vote" rule.
"How the Census counts people in prison is a little understood or noticed problem," said report author Elena Lavarreda, "but it's important that the public know how the Census is diluting their votes."
The report focuses on the harm to democracy caused by the 2000 Census, but warns that the Census Bureau intends to repeat the mistake of 2000. According to executive director of the Prison Policy Initiative, Peter Wagner, "The next Census is in 6 months, so unless the state acts fast, democracy will have to wait until the 2020 Census."
The report, "Importing Constituents: Prisoners and Political Clout in Massachusetts", is available at http://www.prisonersofthecensus.org/ma/ <http://www.prisonersofthecensus.org/ma/>
* * *
The Prison Policy Initiative depends on the support of the people who receive this newsletter. If you can help support our work with a tax-deductible contribution via Network for Good at http://www.prisonpolicy.org/donate.html <http://www.prisonpolicy.org/donate.html> or via a paper check sent to the address below, please do so today.
I welcome your feedback on the issue, the website, and this message.
And as always, if you prefer to not receive these messages, just let me know.
Best wishes,
Peter Wagner
--
Peter Wagner http://www.PrisonersoftheCensus.org <http://www.prisonersofthecensus.org/>
pwagner@prisonpolicy.org http://www.prisonpolicy.org <http://www.prisonpolicy.org/> Prison Policy Initiative PO Box 127 Northampton, MA 01061
Thursday, October 22, 2009
High Cost of Empty Prisons
October 12, 2009
Op-Ed Contributor
The High Cost of Empty Prisons
By ROBERT GANGI
LAST Wednesday, changes to New York’s notorious Rockefeller drug laws went into effect, allowing judges to shorten the prison terms of some nonviolent offenders. This measure will further reduce New York’s prison population, which has already declined, in the past 10 years, from about 71,600 in 1999 to about 59,300 today. (The state’s crime rate also dropped substantially during that time.)
Nevertheless, mainly because of opposition from the correction officers’ union and politicians from the upstate areas where most of our correctional facilities are, the state has been slow to close prisons. It was not until earlier this year that policymakers in Albany, confronted with fiscal crisis, mustered the will to shut three prison camps and seven prison annexes — a total of about 2,250 prison beds — in a move that is expected to save $52 million over the next two years.
But the state could go further. The prison system still has more than 5,000 empty beds in 69 prisons. What’s more, there are other ways to lower the prison population. For starters, state lawmakers could repeal the Rockefeller mandatory sentencing provisions that remain on the books. They could also increase the number of participants on work release. In 1994, more than 27,000 people were in this time-tested program that helps them manage the transition back to their communities. Today, about 2,500 are enrolled.
In addition, the state could reduce the number of people — last year, more than 9,000 — who are returned to prison for technical parole violations like missing a meeting with an officer or breaking curfew. Most experts agree that for about half of these people it would be safer and smarter to enroll them in re-entry programs or provide more supervision. Also, more prisoners with good institutional records could be given parole. And eligibility for so-called merit time, which reduces prison terms for inmates who complete educational and other programs, could be expanded to people convicted of violent offenses many years ago.
Taken together, these actions could cut the state’s prison rolls by 5,000 to 10,000 more, enabling the governor and the legislature to close at least four prisons the size of Attica, which holds 2,100 inmates, or a greater number of smaller facilities.
After New York passed the Rockefeller drug laws in 1973, a mandatory sentencing movement swept the country, raising the nationwide prison population to nearly 2.4 million, from 300,000. This experiment in mass incarceration was a failure. There is no conclusive evidence that it enhanced public safety, and some research suggests that time in prison makes people more prone to violence. It wasted billions of dollars a year. And it has devastated the low-income minority communities where most of our prisoners come from.
New York can now help point criminal justice in a more sensible and constructive direction — and show other states how to save money — by downsizing its prison system.
Robert Gangi is the executive director of the Correctional Association of New York, a nonprofit organization that monitors prison conditions.
Op-Ed Contributor
The High Cost of Empty Prisons
By ROBERT GANGI
LAST Wednesday, changes to New York’s notorious Rockefeller drug laws went into effect, allowing judges to shorten the prison terms of some nonviolent offenders. This measure will further reduce New York’s prison population, which has already declined, in the past 10 years, from about 71,600 in 1999 to about 59,300 today. (The state’s crime rate also dropped substantially during that time.)
Nevertheless, mainly because of opposition from the correction officers’ union and politicians from the upstate areas where most of our correctional facilities are, the state has been slow to close prisons. It was not until earlier this year that policymakers in Albany, confronted with fiscal crisis, mustered the will to shut three prison camps and seven prison annexes — a total of about 2,250 prison beds — in a move that is expected to save $52 million over the next two years.
But the state could go further. The prison system still has more than 5,000 empty beds in 69 prisons. What’s more, there are other ways to lower the prison population. For starters, state lawmakers could repeal the Rockefeller mandatory sentencing provisions that remain on the books. They could also increase the number of participants on work release. In 1994, more than 27,000 people were in this time-tested program that helps them manage the transition back to their communities. Today, about 2,500 are enrolled.
In addition, the state could reduce the number of people — last year, more than 9,000 — who are returned to prison for technical parole violations like missing a meeting with an officer or breaking curfew. Most experts agree that for about half of these people it would be safer and smarter to enroll them in re-entry programs or provide more supervision. Also, more prisoners with good institutional records could be given parole. And eligibility for so-called merit time, which reduces prison terms for inmates who complete educational and other programs, could be expanded to people convicted of violent offenses many years ago.
Taken together, these actions could cut the state’s prison rolls by 5,000 to 10,000 more, enabling the governor and the legislature to close at least four prisons the size of Attica, which holds 2,100 inmates, or a greater number of smaller facilities.
After New York passed the Rockefeller drug laws in 1973, a mandatory sentencing movement swept the country, raising the nationwide prison population to nearly 2.4 million, from 300,000. This experiment in mass incarceration was a failure. There is no conclusive evidence that it enhanced public safety, and some research suggests that time in prison makes people more prone to violence. It wasted billions of dollars a year. And it has devastated the low-income minority communities where most of our prisoners come from.
New York can now help point criminal justice in a more sensible and constructive direction — and show other states how to save money — by downsizing its prison system.
Robert Gangi is the executive director of the Correctional Association of New York, a nonprofit organization that monitors prison conditions.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
To Advocates for Justice in Virginia
-----To Advocates for Justice in Virginia
Mark your calendars to attend the "Organize for Advocacy!" Conference, Virginia C.U.R.E.'s 22nd Annual Conference on Saturday, October 17, 2009, 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. at United Methodist Family Services dining hall, 3900 West Broad Street, Richmond, Va 23230.
Free no hassle parking!
Time is running out!
It is time to pre-register for Virginia C.U.R.E.' s Annual Conference. A pre-registration form is attached. Please fill out the form and mail with the Conference fee to Sherry King. Full information is on the form.
The Conference fee is $20 for registrations received by Monday, October 10th. After October 10th the fee is $25 for 2009 Virginia C.U.R.E. members and Life members, and $35 for non-members. The fee includes coffee and pastries in the morning and luncheon.
Mark your calendars to attend the "Organize for Advocacy!" Conference, Virginia C.U.R.E.'s 22nd Annual Conference on Saturday, October 17, 2009, 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. at United Methodist Family Services dining hall, 3900 West Broad Street, Richmond, Va 23230.
Free no hassle parking!
Time is running out!
It is time to pre-register for Virginia C.U.R.E.' s Annual Conference. A pre-registration form is attached. Please fill out the form and mail with the Conference fee to Sherry King. Full information is on the form.
The Conference fee is $20 for registrations received by Monday, October 10th. After October 10th the fee is $25 for 2009 Virginia C.U.R.E. members and Life members, and $35 for non-members. The fee includes coffee and pastries in the morning and luncheon.
Monday, September 28, 2009
VA CURE Annual Meeiting
mark your calendar
Families of prisoners, former offenders
and concerned citizens
YOU ARE INVITED
…To a day to meet, network and learn at
Virginia C.U.R.E.'s 22nd Annual Meeting
Saturday, October 17, 2009
9:30 a.m. Registration
10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Program and Lunch
at
United Methodist Family Services
3900 West Broad Street
Richmond, Virginia 23230
The program will feature an organizing and advocacy workshop,
and speakers on advocacy by Virginia C.U.R.E. in 2009-2010
Learn where you fit in and where your voice will count!
$25.00 Registration fee - includes morning refreshments and luncheon
Application form on website: www.vacure.org - pre-registration is encouraged
(Limited number of discounts available)
Citizens United for Rehabilitation of Errants-Virginia, Inc.
Virginia C.U.R.E.
P.O. Box 6010, Alexandria, VA 22306-0010
Phone: 703-272-3624 or leave message at 703-765-6549
Website: www.vacure.org
Email: vacure1@cox.net
Please Share this Invitation with
Prisoner's Families & Friends and Concerned Citizens!
Contact C.U.R.E. to place program greetings and organizational announcements
Families of prisoners, former offenders
and concerned citizens
YOU ARE INVITED
…To a day to meet, network and learn at
Virginia C.U.R.E.'s 22nd Annual Meeting
Saturday, October 17, 2009
9:30 a.m. Registration
10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Program and Lunch
at
United Methodist Family Services
3900 West Broad Street
Richmond, Virginia 23230
The program will feature an organizing and advocacy workshop,
and speakers on advocacy by Virginia C.U.R.E. in 2009-2010
Learn where you fit in and where your voice will count!
$25.00 Registration fee - includes morning refreshments and luncheon
Application form on website: www.vacure.org - pre-registration is encouraged
(Limited number of discounts available)
Citizens United for Rehabilitation of Errants-Virginia, Inc.
Virginia C.U.R.E.
P.O. Box 6010, Alexandria, VA 22306-0010
Phone: 703-272-3624 or leave message at 703-765-6549
Website: www.vacure.org
Email: vacure1@cox.net
Please Share this Invitation with
Prisoner's Families & Friends and Concerned Citizens!
Contact C.U.R.E. to place program greetings and organizational announcements
antural Bridge Juvenile Correctional Center
The closure of an exemplary juvenile corrections center is a budget matter that lawmakers should not try to address piecemeal.
The Roanoke Times
Virginia lawmakers should resist the urge to call another special session of the General Assembly, this time to reverse Gov. Tim Kaine's decision to close the Natural Bridge Juvenile Correctional Center to save money.
The idea for a special session has been put forward by Republican Del. Ben Cline of Rockbridge County, who says Republican House Speaker Bill Howell has advised him it's "under consideration."
Democratic gubernatorial candidate Creigh Deeds, a member of the state Senate and of the governor's party, says he'd support a session limited to reconsidering correctional facility closures. Natural Bridge is not the only one lopped off by the budget-cutting ax.
What a pity that such a rare show of bipartisanship in the General Assembly is so ill advised.
The prison closures are among many painful spending cuts Kaine ordered earlier this month to balance the state budget, reductions he has not only the authority but the duty to make in light of continuing deep shortfalls in revenues as the national recession wears on.
Shutting down the Natural Bridge center is a particularly unfortunate repercussion. The decision, though, was the governor's to make in weighing another $1.35 billion in cuts to a general fund already slashed by billions of dollars in three earlier rounds that left no easy targets.
Kaine and his advisers looked at the general fund budget as a whole to come up with targeted cuts to close the revenue gap without proposing any tax increase.
Lawmakers would be unwise to tinker, thinking they can restore spending to one program without coming up with new money -- a nonstarter -- or doing unintended, and probably worse, damage elsewhere.
It's easy to understand the temptation. The juvenile center is a gem, by all accounts a model correctional program for guiding low-risk juvenile offenders into law-abiding, productive adult lives. The young inmates have educational opportunities and the chance to leave the campus-like grounds to take work-release jobs and attend community college. It is, Department of Juvenile Justice Director Barry Green acknowledges, an outstanding center, one "we're not pretending we can replicate." But one the department can no longer afford.
Lawmakers are right to want to hold on to success, even expand on it. The task, though, is larger than the patch work proposed. The General Assembly will have a chance to reorder its spending priorities in January, at its regular session, and grapple with the budget as a whole.
Says Green: "I wouldn't be surprised if the General Assembly made more cuts."
The Roanoke Times
Virginia lawmakers should resist the urge to call another special session of the General Assembly, this time to reverse Gov. Tim Kaine's decision to close the Natural Bridge Juvenile Correctional Center to save money.
The idea for a special session has been put forward by Republican Del. Ben Cline of Rockbridge County, who says Republican House Speaker Bill Howell has advised him it's "under consideration."
Democratic gubernatorial candidate Creigh Deeds, a member of the state Senate and of the governor's party, says he'd support a session limited to reconsidering correctional facility closures. Natural Bridge is not the only one lopped off by the budget-cutting ax.
What a pity that such a rare show of bipartisanship in the General Assembly is so ill advised.
The prison closures are among many painful spending cuts Kaine ordered earlier this month to balance the state budget, reductions he has not only the authority but the duty to make in light of continuing deep shortfalls in revenues as the national recession wears on.
Shutting down the Natural Bridge center is a particularly unfortunate repercussion. The decision, though, was the governor's to make in weighing another $1.35 billion in cuts to a general fund already slashed by billions of dollars in three earlier rounds that left no easy targets.
Kaine and his advisers looked at the general fund budget as a whole to come up with targeted cuts to close the revenue gap without proposing any tax increase.
Lawmakers would be unwise to tinker, thinking they can restore spending to one program without coming up with new money -- a nonstarter -- or doing unintended, and probably worse, damage elsewhere.
It's easy to understand the temptation. The juvenile center is a gem, by all accounts a model correctional program for guiding low-risk juvenile offenders into law-abiding, productive adult lives. The young inmates have educational opportunities and the chance to leave the campus-like grounds to take work-release jobs and attend community college. It is, Department of Juvenile Justice Director Barry Green acknowledges, an outstanding center, one "we're not pretending we can replicate." But one the department can no longer afford.
Lawmakers are right to want to hold on to success, even expand on it. The task, though, is larger than the patch work proposed. The General Assembly will have a chance to reorder its spending priorities in January, at its regular session, and grapple with the budget as a whole.
Says Green: "I wouldn't be surprised if the General Assembly made more cuts."
Prison Release
VIRGINIA C.U.R.E. NEWS 4U
chicagotribune.com
1,000 prisoners to go free as state looks to save money Move will release non-violent inmates By Monique Garcia Tribune reporter September 20, 2009
Gov. Pat Quinn is planning to release 1,000 inmates from prisons across Illinois in the next several months in an effort to save money.
An Illinois Department of Corrections prisons spokeswoman said that only "low-level, non-violent" offenders who are in the last year of their sentence will qualify for early release and will be fitted with electronic monitoring devices.
Officials with the corrections agency and the Quinn administration declined to provide specifics, however.
Corrections spokeswoman Januari Smith said the bulk of those to be released and placed on supervised parole will be drug and property crime offenders. Smith said inmates who have been convicted of murder, sex crimes, domestic violence or who have active orders of protection against them do not qualify for release.
Releasing prisoners is estimated to save about $5 million a year, Smith said, though Quinn also is giving the prison agency an extra $2 million to monitor those who are let out. Each will be assigned a parole officer and provided drug treatment and other rehabilitative programs.
The early release is another symptom of the state's dire financial situation and is coupled with Quinn's plan to lay off about 1,000 prison workers.
Quinn also gave the department an extra $2 million to help divert offenders from state prisons. That money will go toward drug treatment and other community-based alternatives to reduce the number of people who receive short prison sentences. Prison officials say 47 percent of offenders released from custody each year serve six months or less.
In a statement, Quinn said the changes are focused on "protecting the public while also modernizing and improving the state's correctional system."
Quinn waited to announce the decision until late Friday afternoon and buried it near the bottom of a news release. His Democratic primary opponent, Comptroller Dan Hynes, seized on that.
"He's trying to sneak one through as people across Illinois take off for the weekend," Hynes campaign spokesman Matt McGrath said. "He can't hide the fact that he has no plan and no vision to lead our state forward."
Prison reform advocates said releasing non-violent offenders close to the end of their sentences will free up resources to allow prison officials to focus on rehabilitative programming for those with longer sentences, and in turn reduce the rate of inmates who often return to jail.
"We should be using tax dollars wisely to be locking people up who present a physical threat to the community," said Hanke Gratteau, executive director of the John Howard Association and a former Tribune managing editor. "But to just lock people up to punish them without programming doesn't make any sense."
The money comes out of a $1.2 billion discretionary fund lawmakers gave Quinn to use as he sees fit to boost funding for state agencies.
--JEAN
chicagotribune.com
1,000 prisoners to go free as state looks to save money Move will release non-violent inmates By Monique Garcia Tribune reporter September 20, 2009
Gov. Pat Quinn is planning to release 1,000 inmates from prisons across Illinois in the next several months in an effort to save money.
An Illinois Department of Corrections prisons spokeswoman said that only "low-level, non-violent" offenders who are in the last year of their sentence will qualify for early release and will be fitted with electronic monitoring devices.
Officials with the corrections agency and the Quinn administration declined to provide specifics, however.
Corrections spokeswoman Januari Smith said the bulk of those to be released and placed on supervised parole will be drug and property crime offenders. Smith said inmates who have been convicted of murder, sex crimes, domestic violence or who have active orders of protection against them do not qualify for release.
Releasing prisoners is estimated to save about $5 million a year, Smith said, though Quinn also is giving the prison agency an extra $2 million to monitor those who are let out. Each will be assigned a parole officer and provided drug treatment and other rehabilitative programs.
The early release is another symptom of the state's dire financial situation and is coupled with Quinn's plan to lay off about 1,000 prison workers.
Quinn also gave the department an extra $2 million to help divert offenders from state prisons. That money will go toward drug treatment and other community-based alternatives to reduce the number of people who receive short prison sentences. Prison officials say 47 percent of offenders released from custody each year serve six months or less.
In a statement, Quinn said the changes are focused on "protecting the public while also modernizing and improving the state's correctional system."
Quinn waited to announce the decision until late Friday afternoon and buried it near the bottom of a news release. His Democratic primary opponent, Comptroller Dan Hynes, seized on that.
"He's trying to sneak one through as people across Illinois take off for the weekend," Hynes campaign spokesman Matt McGrath said. "He can't hide the fact that he has no plan and no vision to lead our state forward."
Prison reform advocates said releasing non-violent offenders close to the end of their sentences will free up resources to allow prison officials to focus on rehabilitative programming for those with longer sentences, and in turn reduce the rate of inmates who often return to jail.
"We should be using tax dollars wisely to be locking people up who present a physical threat to the community," said Hanke Gratteau, executive director of the John Howard Association and a former Tribune managing editor. "But to just lock people up to punish them without programming doesn't make any sense."
The money comes out of a $1.2 billion discretionary fund lawmakers gave Quinn to use as he sees fit to boost funding for state agencies.
--JEAN
States Earned Time Policies
Hello all,
Time to report on a look across all the states regarding earned time credits. Two recent sources that I think you are aware of and copies were forwarded are Cutting Corrections Costs: Earned Time Policies for State Prisoners. The report was released in July 2009 by the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) and was funded by the Pew Foundation. The author was Alison Lawrence, a policy specialist with NCSL. The second report is a set of notes from Lawrence's research that I downloaded from "Grits for Breakfast", a site that deals with Texas issues. On page two of the August 20 Grits letter they had a Google link to Statues Related to Good Time/Earned Time dated June 2009. It is a 27 page document and had references to state legislative codes regarding criminal justice.
As Bill correctly recognized, and I summarized below in my note to Nicole, the real question is how far have states gone beyond what Virginia currently has on the books and implicitly what are earned time credits and how do they differ from good time allowances. After going through a search of the codes for the various states and also trying Google searches on good time, earned time and other stabs I ended up in a sloppy fashion of concluding that this arena is at best messy and may not have a lot to offer in terms of clear cut things we can push for in Virginia. Good time may relate to serving time with good behavior and participating in various prison work programs. But often for many states, including Virginia it includes credits for educational (GED and college) and other programs that are designed to improve personal behaviors and deal with substance abuse. In other states the term earned time or variation thereof includes educational programs, self improvement programs, meritorious service and deeds etc.
With few relatively few exceptions states have fairly generous reductions in time served in local jails for good behavior and participation in programs. Since the offenders are serving time for less serious misdemeanor or short felony crimes, frequently involving substance abuse, the credits are liberal. At the state level credits may be generous for "lower" or less serious classes of offenders as opposed to say level II and III prisoners. The most serious crimes, homicide in the lst degree, may not allow for any credits. In effect Bill's summary of the situation is correct. The exceptions seem to be few.
The 85 percent rule seems to be generally in use for the most serious violent crimes. There is no uniformity that is readily apparent across states in terminology, definitions of non-parole eligible or violent crimes, and in terms of earned time policies for education, vocation, rehabilitation, work, disaster/conservation, meritorious or other credits for participation or completion of programs. It would take a lot of research to come up with a list of items to include in a list of items for improving Virginia earned time credits.
I will list a few items of interest and include some attachments that may be of interest but my results are not overly rewarding or clear cut. Perhaps this is not a surprise but it may also suggest the whole country is somewhat equally punitive in their approaches to criminal justice for felons.
Arkansas has a 70 percent rule for less serious offenders.
Hawaii had a number of 2009 proposals to provide credits that did not make it into legislation
Iowa Category A felons not subject to 85 percent rule
Kansas 80 percent rule for drug offenders 3 and 4.
Maine recently increased good time credits for most all crimes
Maryland has improved some credits in the past year of two.
Nevada has statutory good time, worth a glance at a long and complex document
New Jersey or is it New Hampshire, geriatric parole codes are interesting
New Mexico is liberal in attitude, worth a look.
Washington State has liberalized in some areas but not for serious offenses.
Everyone else generally in line or even more conservative then Virginia.
This is all likely a bit frustrating but I go back to Bill's original observation that earned time credits may not have a lot of promise. If it is alternative sentencing, drug courts, and budget initiatives to cut costs than this could be a different story.
Comments and input welcome and I likely missed some things but I did want to get you a summary without further delay.
Bob
Time to report on a look across all the states regarding earned time credits. Two recent sources that I think you are aware of and copies were forwarded are Cutting Corrections Costs: Earned Time Policies for State Prisoners. The report was released in July 2009 by the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) and was funded by the Pew Foundation. The author was Alison Lawrence, a policy specialist with NCSL. The second report is a set of notes from Lawrence's research that I downloaded from "Grits for Breakfast", a site that deals with Texas issues. On page two of the August 20 Grits letter they had a Google link to Statues Related to Good Time/Earned Time dated June 2009. It is a 27 page document and had references to state legislative codes regarding criminal justice.
As Bill correctly recognized, and I summarized below in my note to Nicole, the real question is how far have states gone beyond what Virginia currently has on the books and implicitly what are earned time credits and how do they differ from good time allowances. After going through a search of the codes for the various states and also trying Google searches on good time, earned time and other stabs I ended up in a sloppy fashion of concluding that this arena is at best messy and may not have a lot to offer in terms of clear cut things we can push for in Virginia. Good time may relate to serving time with good behavior and participating in various prison work programs. But often for many states, including Virginia it includes credits for educational (GED and college) and other programs that are designed to improve personal behaviors and deal with substance abuse. In other states the term earned time or variation thereof includes educational programs, self improvement programs, meritorious service and deeds etc.
With few relatively few exceptions states have fairly generous reductions in time served in local jails for good behavior and participation in programs. Since the offenders are serving time for less serious misdemeanor or short felony crimes, frequently involving substance abuse, the credits are liberal. At the state level credits may be generous for "lower" or less serious classes of offenders as opposed to say level II and III prisoners. The most serious crimes, homicide in the lst degree, may not allow for any credits. In effect Bill's summary of the situation is correct. The exceptions seem to be few.
The 85 percent rule seems to be generally in use for the most serious violent crimes. There is no uniformity that is readily apparent across states in terminology, definitions of non-parole eligible or violent crimes, and in terms of earned time policies for education, vocation, rehabilitation, work, disaster/conservation, meritorious or other credits for participation or completion of programs. It would take a lot of research to come up with a list of items to include in a list of items for improving Virginia earned time credits.
I will list a few items of interest and include some attachments that may be of interest but my results are not overly rewarding or clear cut. Perhaps this is not a surprise but it may also suggest the whole country is somewhat equally punitive in their approaches to criminal justice for felons.
Arkansas has a 70 percent rule for less serious offenders.
Hawaii had a number of 2009 proposals to provide credits that did not make it into legislation
Iowa Category A felons not subject to 85 percent rule
Kansas 80 percent rule for drug offenders 3 and 4.
Maine recently increased good time credits for most all crimes
Maryland has improved some credits in the past year of two.
Nevada has statutory good time, worth a glance at a long and complex document
New Jersey or is it New Hampshire, geriatric parole codes are interesting
New Mexico is liberal in attitude, worth a look.
Washington State has liberalized in some areas but not for serious offenses.
Everyone else generally in line or even more conservative then Virginia.
This is all likely a bit frustrating but I go back to Bill's original observation that earned time credits may not have a lot of promise. If it is alternative sentencing, drug courts, and budget initiatives to cut costs than this could be a different story.
Comments and input welcome and I likely missed some things but I did want to get you a summary without further delay.
Bob
Friday, September 25, 2009
Reentry Task Force Report, July 2009
Forwarded by Virginia C.U.R.E.
---thanks to Keith for forwarding this information
The Virginia Reentry and Innovative Prevention Task Force Report, July 2009 <http://peerta.acf.hhs.gov/index.cfm?event=viewTopic§ionTopicId=4&topicId=4&tabtopic=4§ionId=1&nav=4> is now available on the Welfare Peer Technical Assistance website.
---thanks to Keith for forwarding this information
The Virginia Reentry and Innovative Prevention Task Force Report, July 2009 <http://peerta.acf.hhs.gov/index.cfm?event=viewTopic§ionTopicId=4&topicId=4&tabtopic=4§ionId=1&nav=4> is now available on the Welfare Peer Technical Assistance website.
Closing a juvenile correction center
---------- Forwarded by Virginia C.U.R.E. - thanks to Sherry for sharing This is such an important issue—please contact your state representatives in the House of Delegates and State Senate to voice your view of closing such an important facility for our young people to reduce the state budget.
information@sov.state.va.us
hinformation@house.state.va.us
Editorial
The Virginian-Pilot
Closing a juvenile correctional center to save $1.2 million was a bad choice among nothing but bad choices in the latest round of cuts to the biennial budget. As part of the fourth round of cuts, Gov. Tim Kaine announced he would shutter the Natural Bridge Juvenile Correctional Center, eliminate its 68 jobs and sell the 100-acre property in the Jefferson National Forest.
The center's closing is horrible news for Rockbridge County, which for decades has embraced the staff and residents and been a key part of the teens' rehabilitation. But it's worse news for troubled boys who need discipline, structure, schooling and job skills, and for the state, which is drifting away from smaller, rehabilitation-focused correctional centers to large, punishment-oriented prisons.
The shift flies in the face of research, which shows that youths punished in places that mimic adult prisons learn to survive by fighting and joining gangs, and that they typically return to crime once they're released.
In contrast, the system used at National Bridge teaches the youths how to work, and the advantages and responsibilities of citizenship, and holds them accountable for their choices. Those who come out of the Natural Bridge center are more likely to finish school and less likely to commit another crime than youths from traditional facilities.
A mother of one of the residents at Natural Bridge said her son, now 17, arrived at the center nearly a year ago after he was charged in a series of burglaries. He was rudderless, a follower with no self-confidence who wasn't doing well in school.
At Natural Bridge, the staff is no nonsense, the mother told The Pilot in a phone interview. "They aren't touchy-feely. They're stern disciplinarians." He worked for privileges. He delivered food to people in the community who couldn't afford it. He worked with a counselor. He took an auto mechanics class, wasn't particularly good at it but found he was really good at math. He followed the mantra taught at the campus: Be responsible for your actions, be a good citizen and role model, change your thinking and your behavior and maintain hope.
In the past nine months, he has earned his GED and is taking philosophy and English classes at the community college. He's a teacher's assistant whose dream is to become a math teacher. His hope, his mother said, was to come back to the Natural Bridge juvenile center one day and tell the boys that he used to be there, and he's proof they can make something of themselves.
The teen who, like all other residents, is set to be transferred to a more restrictive facility in the next few weeks, is due to be released in December.
His mother believes he has turned a corner and won't be back in court. But she worries about the others. "I would like the satisfaction that the state is doing something about juvenile crime," she said, rather than sending kids to places where they'll mix with seasoned criminals and likely be repeat offenders.
The governor may not be able to fix this problem during this financial crisis. But whoever wins that job in November must reverse the trend of closing the programs that do the most good. Assemble juvenile justice experts. Look at what has worked, both in Virginia and across the country.
Consider not just the costs of counseling, drug treatment and job training, but the long-term costs of not providing them: Building more prisons for kids who become hardened criminals rather than productive citizens.
information@sov.state.va.us
hinformation@house.state.va.us
Editorial
The Virginian-Pilot
Closing a juvenile correctional center to save $1.2 million was a bad choice among nothing but bad choices in the latest round of cuts to the biennial budget. As part of the fourth round of cuts, Gov. Tim Kaine announced he would shutter the Natural Bridge Juvenile Correctional Center, eliminate its 68 jobs and sell the 100-acre property in the Jefferson National Forest.
The center's closing is horrible news for Rockbridge County, which for decades has embraced the staff and residents and been a key part of the teens' rehabilitation. But it's worse news for troubled boys who need discipline, structure, schooling and job skills, and for the state, which is drifting away from smaller, rehabilitation-focused correctional centers to large, punishment-oriented prisons.
The shift flies in the face of research, which shows that youths punished in places that mimic adult prisons learn to survive by fighting and joining gangs, and that they typically return to crime once they're released.
In contrast, the system used at National Bridge teaches the youths how to work, and the advantages and responsibilities of citizenship, and holds them accountable for their choices. Those who come out of the Natural Bridge center are more likely to finish school and less likely to commit another crime than youths from traditional facilities.
A mother of one of the residents at Natural Bridge said her son, now 17, arrived at the center nearly a year ago after he was charged in a series of burglaries. He was rudderless, a follower with no self-confidence who wasn't doing well in school.
At Natural Bridge, the staff is no nonsense, the mother told The Pilot in a phone interview. "They aren't touchy-feely. They're stern disciplinarians." He worked for privileges. He delivered food to people in the community who couldn't afford it. He worked with a counselor. He took an auto mechanics class, wasn't particularly good at it but found he was really good at math. He followed the mantra taught at the campus: Be responsible for your actions, be a good citizen and role model, change your thinking and your behavior and maintain hope.
In the past nine months, he has earned his GED and is taking philosophy and English classes at the community college. He's a teacher's assistant whose dream is to become a math teacher. His hope, his mother said, was to come back to the Natural Bridge juvenile center one day and tell the boys that he used to be there, and he's proof they can make something of themselves.
The teen who, like all other residents, is set to be transferred to a more restrictive facility in the next few weeks, is due to be released in December.
His mother believes he has turned a corner and won't be back in court. But she worries about the others. "I would like the satisfaction that the state is doing something about juvenile crime," she said, rather than sending kids to places where they'll mix with seasoned criminals and likely be repeat offenders.
The governor may not be able to fix this problem during this financial crisis. But whoever wins that job in November must reverse the trend of closing the programs that do the most good. Assemble juvenile justice experts. Look at what has worked, both in Virginia and across the country.
Consider not just the costs of counseling, drug treatment and job training, but the long-term costs of not providing them: Building more prisons for kids who become hardened criminals rather than productive citizens.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
New Parole Numbers
After making a few attempts at getting the parole data organized in a useful summary form I hopefully have it in good order. It is on an excel spreadsheet so can be updated monthly. It could be a good item for our website.
The numbers have been carefully checked but it still is possible I made a mistake somewhere. If you see any problems please let me know. Excluded from the data is anyone in the CP or DIS category. There usually are one or two per month. My thank you to Bill Richardson for clarifying that CP stands for "continued on parole" for inmates who are out and don't get a clean bill of health yet it allows them to stop reporting to their parole officer. DIS is "discharged from parole". For our purposes neither category appears relevant to prisoners being granted or not granted parole.
The numbers for 2009 are showing an interesting pattern in that the rate of granting parole so far is running fairly consistently ahead of 2008. Also in 2008 the number of parole revocations was almost double the number of persons that were granted parole. In 2009 the number of revocations is consistently below last year and the cases where parole is being revoked trails the numbers of inmates being granted parole. The interesting question is does this reflect some differences in attitude toward granting parole and more tolerance regarding minor violations of parole conditions once inmates are released.
All for now but comments and corrections welcome.
The numbers have been carefully checked but it still is possible I made a mistake somewhere. If you see any problems please let me know. Excluded from the data is anyone in the CP or DIS category. There usually are one or two per month. My thank you to Bill Richardson for clarifying that CP stands for "continued on parole" for inmates who are out and don't get a clean bill of health yet it allows them to stop reporting to their parole officer. DIS is "discharged from parole". For our purposes neither category appears relevant to prisoners being granted or not granted parole.
The numbers for 2009 are showing an interesting pattern in that the rate of granting parole so far is running fairly consistently ahead of 2008. Also in 2008 the number of parole revocations was almost double the number of persons that were granted parole. In 2009 the number of revocations is consistently below last year and the cases where parole is being revoked trails the numbers of inmates being granted parole. The interesting question is does this reflect some differences in attitude toward granting parole and more tolerance regarding minor violations of parole conditions once inmates are released.
All for now but comments and corrections welcome.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)