As we saw in Chapter 2, public safety spending accounts for about 6 percent

Transcription

1 Public Safety Expenditures CHAPTER 9 As we saw in Chapter 2, public safety spending accounts for about 6 percent of all state and local government spending in Minnesota. Unlike other major spending categories, Minnesota spends significantly less per capita on public safety than the national average. While public safety spending in Minnesota has not increased much faster than the state s overall spending between 1982 and 1992, the public safety category includes corrections, one of the fastest growing categories of spending in both Minnesota and other states. This chapter presents an analysis of the growth in spending in public safety. In particular, we address the following questions: How has public safety spending in Minnesota changed over time? How do public safety spending patterns in Minnesota differ from those for the nation overall? What are the major factors causing changes in corrections spending? We examined data from federal and state authorities. National data are drawn largely from two sources: (1) the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) and (2) the Bureau of the Census. The BJS reports present detailed information addressing almost every aspect of the criminal justice system but have the drawback of not being very timely. Census data are available on an annual basis but do not support a detailed analysis of the individual components of public safety spending. We used Census data to describe trends, and the more detailed BJS data to explain and interpret trends indicated by the Census data. For more up-to-date information on issues relating to workload in Minnesota, we also used data from the Minnesota Department of Corrections, the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines Commission, and the Criminal Justice Statistical Analysis Center of Minnesota Planning.

2 130 TRENDS IN STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT SPENDING SPENDING TRENDS Public safety, as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau, includes police protection, corrections, fire protection, and protective inspection and regulation services. 1 In Minnesota, police protection was the largest single category with $510 million in expenditures in This category alone accounted for 46 percent of total public safety spending. Corrections was the second largest category at $298 million, or 27 percent of the total. Fire protection totaled $171 million, or 16 percent of the total, and protective inspection was the smallest category with $122 million, or 11 percent of total public safety expenditures. Between 1982 and 1992, overall public safety spending per capita rose 34 percent in constant dollars in Minnesota. 2 This increase was only slightly higher than the 31 percent increase for all state and local government expenditures in Minnesota. Table 9.1 shows that: Most of the public safety expenditure growth since 1982 was due to increases in spending on corrections and police protection. Much of the spending growth for public safety has been for corrections and police protection. Table 9.1: Public Safety Expenditures per Capita, Minnesota and the United States, 1982 and 1992 Dollar Percentage 1982 a 1992 Growth Growth MINNESOTA Corrections $43 $67 $24 56% Police Protection Fire Protection Protective Inspection and Regulation Total $183 $246 $63 34% UNITED STATES Corrections $55 $113 $58 105% Police Protection Fire Protection Protective Inspection and Regulation Total $224 $328 $104 46% Source: U.S. Census Bureau. a Spending was adjusted for inflation using the PGSL. 1 These categories will be familiar to the reader with the possible exception of protective inspections and regulation, which is defined to include "regulations and inspection of private es tablishments for the protection of the public or to prevent hazardous conditions not classifi ed under another major function." Examples include building codes and inspections, bank regulations, licensing of taxicabs and professional occupations, and enforcement of liquor laws. 2 Trends in spending relative to personal income were investigated and found to be similar. Exceptions are noted.

3 PUBLIC SAFETY EXPENDITURES 131 Together, these two areas accounted for 73 percent of Minnesota s growth in spending per capita in the public safety category from 1982 to Spending per capita on corrections rose 56 percent in constant dollars over this 10-year period and alone accounted for about 38 percent of the growth in public safety spending. The 24 percent growth in police protection spending per capita was lower than the average growth in public safety spending in Minnesota. However, police protection accounted for a little more than one-third of the growth in public safety spending, because it has been the largest component of the public safety category. In Minnesota, the fastest growing component of public safety was protective inspections and regulation. Minnesota s per capita expenditures on protective inspections and regulation increased 80 percent in constant dollars between 1982 and However, this relatively small component accounted for only 19 percent of growth in public spending spending per capita, because it was only about one-tenth of all public safety spending in Minnesota. Fire protection increased the slowest of the four public safety components and accounted for only 8 percent of the growth in spending per capita on public safety. Corrections and overall public safety spending grew faster nationally than in Minnesota. Public safety spending increased faster nationwide than in Minnesota between 1982 and Spending per capita grew 46 percent throughout the nation compared with 34 percent in Minnesota. As Table 9.1 shows: The nation s faster growth in public safety spending was largely due to higher increases in corrections spending than experienced in Minnesota. While Minnesota s per capita corrections expenditure increased 56 percent between 1982 and 1992, corrections spending per capita more than doubled nationwide. Corrections accounted for more than half of the public safety spending growth for state and local governments throughout the nation. Judicial and legal services is a Census category containing some spending that is closely related to the criminal justice aspects of the public safety category. Judicial and legal services spending includes expenditures for criminal and civil courts, public defenders, probate activities, and prosecuting and district attorneys. Table 9.2 shows that judicial and legal expenditures per capita doubled both in Minnesota and throughout the nation between 1982 and Unfortunately, it is not possible to separately analyze the criminal justice portion of this category and compare that growth with the increases in corrections and police protection spending. NATIONAL COMPARISONS In 1992, Minnesota s expenditures in the four categories of public safety totaled $1.1 billion, or an average of $246 per capita. As shown in Table 9.3:

4 132 TRENDS IN STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT SPENDING Table 9.2: Judicial and Legal Expenditures per Capita, Minnesota and the United States, Year Minnesota United States 1982 $30 $ Growth 100% 106% Note: Includes both civil and criminal case related expenditures. Spending was adjusted fo using the PGSL. r inflation Source: U.S. Census Bureau. Minnesota spends 25 percent less than average on public safety. Table 9.3: Public Safety Expenditures per Capita, Minnesota and United States, 1992 Difference from National Average Minnesota United States Dollars Percentage Corrections $67 $113 $(-46) (-41)% Police Protection (-21) (-16) Fire Protection (-18) (-32) Protective Inspection and Regulation Total $246 $328 $(-82) (-25)% Source: U.S Census Bureau. Minnesota s spending per capita on public safety was 25 percent below the national average. Minnesota spent 41 percent less than average on corrections and 16 percent less than average on police protection. Minnesota s spending on fire protection was 32 percent below the national average, while spending on protective inspection and regulation was the only component of public safety spending which was above the national average. Overall, we found:

5 PUBLIC SAFETY EXPENDITURES 133 More than half of the difference between Minnesota s spending on public safety and the national average was accounted for by differences in corrections expenditures. Minnesota s lower corrections spending accounted for about 56 percent of the overall difference between Minnesota s spending per capita and the national average for public safety. Police protection and fire protection spending each explained more than 20 percent of the difference. We also found that: The principal source of Minnesota s lower than average spending on corrections appears to be its lower than average percentage of population in prisons and jails. Table 9.4 shows that Minnesota had 72 percent fewer adults per capita in prison than the national average for state and local governments in In addition, Minnesota had less than half the number of adults in jail per capita when compared with the national average. In contrast, Minnesota had a significantly larger percentage of its population on probation. Minnesota has fewer inmates in prison and jail than the nation as a whole. Table 9.4: Adult Correctional Populations per 10,000 Population, Minnesota and the United States, 1993 Percentage Difference from Minnesota United States National Average Prison (-72)% Jail (-55) Probation Parole (-81) Total % Note: Based on one-day inmate counts. Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics and U.S. Census Bureau. Overall, Minnesota had slightly more adults per capita under the control of the correctional system. However, Minnesota had a significantly lower number of adults in higher-cost institutional settings and a higher number under less expensive probation supervision in communities. Only 9 percent of Minnesota s correctional population was incarcerated in prisons and jails, compared with 27 percent nationally. It is difficult to make national comparisons of the average correctional costs per individual under the control of the correctional system. Data are not available on the correctional costs for jail, probation, or parole by state. Available data suggest that operating costs per prison inmate are twice as high in Minnesota as the

6 134 TRENDS IN STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT SPENDING Minnesota has lower than average crime rates. national average. 3 This comparison is, however, difficult to interpret. Some of the difference in average prison costs may be due to differences in policies about how many prisoners are placed in a cell. But, Minnesota correctional officials suggest that much of the difference is due to the type of prisoners. Minnesota s prisons only house offenders serving more than one year, while prisons elsewhere house some less serious offenders who would be more likely to be in jail in Minnesota. 4 As a result, Minnesota prisons have higher than average security features and more costly programs for long-term incarceration. Minnesota s lower than average spending on corrections and police protection reflect Minnesota s low crime rates. Figures 9.1 and 9.2 show that: Minnesota s rate of serious property crimes was 13 percent lower than the national average in The violent crime rate was 54 percent lower in Minnesota than throughout the nation. Figure 9.1: Part I Property Crimes per 100,000 Population, Minnesota vs. the National Average, ,276 4,904 Figure 9.2: Part I Violent Crimes per 100,000 Population, Minnesota vs. the National Average, MN Source: Minnesota Planning. US MN Source: Minnesota Planning. US Minnesota s crime rates have generally been below national averages. Since 1980, the number of property offenses per capita has been about 10 to 15 percent lower in Minnesota than the national average. Property offenses include burglary, larceny, auto theft, and arson. The violent crime rate in Minnesota has, however, been substantially less than the national average. Since 1980, the violent crime rate has been about 50 to 65 percent lower in Minnesota than nationally. Violent crimes include murder, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. 5 3 In 1990, Minnesota spent $30,300 in operating costs per prison inmate, compared with a na - tional average of $15, Data from BJS indicate that a smaller share of correctional spending in Minnesota occurs at the state level than elsewhere. In 1988, state government directly accounted for 45 percent of Mi nnesota s correctional spending, while the average share nationwide was 65 percent. 5 Together, serious property offenses and violent crimes are referred to as Part I crimes. Les ser offenses are referred to as Part II crimes. We do not present comparisons of Part II crime rates,because data were not available for all states.

7 PUBLIC SAFETY EXPENDITURES 135 Lower crime rates explain, in part, Minnesota s lower corrections and police protection spending. The substantial difference in violent crime rates also suggest why there is a bigger difference between Minnesota and the national average for corrections than there is for police protection. Furthermore, the difference in violent crime rates provides an explanation for Minnesota s much smaller incarcerated populations. Minnesota s historical preference for community-based responses such as probation may also explain Minnesota s lower rates of incarceration. CORRECTIONS TRENDS Adult correctional populations doubled between 1985 and For the most part, it appears that the increase in corrections spending in Minnesota has been primarily the result of an increase in the number of individuals under the control of correctional authorities. Table 9.5 shows that adult correctional populations per capita doubled between 1985 and The strongest growth was in probation populations, although prison and jail inmates per capita increased at least 60 percent. Since correctional spending per capita increased 56 percent between 1982 and 1992, these data on correctional populations suggest that much of the spending increase was due to growth in correctional populations rather than in the cost per person under correctional control. 6 Table 9.5: Adult Correctional Populations per 10,000 Population, Minnesota, Percentage Change Prison % Jail Probation Parole Total % Note: Based on one-day inmate counts. Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics and U.S. Census Bureau. This finding is similar to one reached at the national level and reported by the Center for the Study of the States. The Center s report concluded: "States are spending more on corrections because they have more prisoners, not because it costs more to house them." 7 6 A definitive conclusion cannot be reached, since the data do not include other aspects of cor rectional spending such as programs for juvenile offenders. In addition, the years for which pending s data are available are not the same as the years for which data are available on the number of adult offenders. 7 State University of New York, Center for the Study of the States, Analyzing the Growth of State- Local Corrections Spending (July, 1995).

8 136 TRENDS IN STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT SPENDING There are many factors that have contributed to the growth of correctional populations, including: Increased crime rates, particularly for violent crimes; Tougher sentencing policies; and Increased arrest rates. Increased crime rates and tougher sentencing policies have resulted in significant spending growth. Figure 9.3: Percentage Growth in Crimes per 100,000 Population, Minnesota, % Violent Crimes Source: Minnesota Planning. The overall crime rate increased 27 percent in Minnesota between 1982 and However, the growth in crime rates varied depending on the type of crime (See Figure 9.3.). Violent crimes, which constitute less than 8 percent of all crimes but probably account for a much larger share of incarcerations, increased the fastest. The number of violent crimes per capita grew 60 percent, while the crime rate for serious property offenses was virtually unchanged. There was a 51 percent increase in the crime rate for Part II offenses, which include drug offenses and less serious crimes. 0% Part I Property Crimes 51% Part II Crimes Tougher sentencing policies have also played a role in the growth in Minnesota s corrections spending. There has been an increase in the frequency with which incarceration is used and a lengthening of the average sentences served by convicted offenders. Between 1982 and 1992, the incarceration ratio increased 28 percent for Part I arrests. 8 Simply stated, more of those arrested are serving time behind bars. In addition, as Table 9.6 shows, the average pronounced felony sentence rose from 41 months to almost 49 months, or about 19 percent. Convicted felons are serving longer sentences as a result of changes in sentencing policies and criminal laws. Another factor in the growth in correctional spending has been an increase in arrest rates. 9 Between 1982 and 1992, the overall arrest rate increased modestly (9 percent), but arrest rates for violent crimes increased faster. As Figure 9.4 shows, arrest rates for Part I violent crimes rose 24 percent. Arrest rates for Part I property crimes grew 9 percent, while Part II arrest rates decreased a little. 8 The Part I incarceration ratio is the ratio of the number of persons sentenced to prison or jail in connection with a Part I offense divided by the number of arrests for Part I crimes. Increas es in the incarceration ratio can reflect an increase in the percentage of arrests which result in convictions, as well as an increase in the percentage of convicted offenders who receive prison or jail sent ences. 9 As used in this report, the arrest rate is the share of crimes which result in arrests.

9 PUBLIC SAFETY EXPENDITURES 137 Table 9.6: Average Pronounced Felony Sentences, Minnesota, Average Pronounced Year Felony Prison Sentence (Months) Source: Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines Commission. Arrest rates have also increased, particularly for violent crimes. Figure 9.4: Percentage Change in Arrest Rates, Minnesota, % Violent Crimes Source: Minnesota Planning. 9% Part I Property Crimes SUMMARY This chapter analyzed spending trends for public safety and compared Minnesota expenditures per capita to national averages. We found that public safety expenditures per capita increased faster than inflation between 1982 and 1992, due largely to increases in spending on corrections and police protection. Public safety spending increased slower in Minnesota than throughout the nation, because Minnesota s 56 percent growth in corrections spending per capita was less than the national increase of 105 percent. -3% Part II Crimes In 1992, Minnesota spent 25 percent less per capita than the national average for public safety. Minnesota s spending was lower than average for corrections, police protection, and fire protection. Below average spending on corrections and police protection was probably related to Minnesota s lower crime rates, particularly for violent crimes. When compared with the nation, Minnesota has had significantly fewer offenders in prison or jail. The growth in corrections spending in Minnesota since 1982 has resulted from a variety of factors. Crime rates have increased, particularly for violent crimes. Laws and policies have become tougher, resulting in longer sentences and a

10 138 TRENDS IN STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT SPENDING greater percentage of convicted offenders receiving prison or jail sentences. In addition, arrest rates have increased, particularly for violent crimes.