TEXAS TOUGH. Justice Policy POLICY REPORT. Three Years Later. by Vincent Schiraldi & Jason Ziedenberg. April 23, Justice Policy Institute

Transcription

1 Justice Poicy I N S T I T U T E TEXAS TOUGH Three Years Later by Vincent Schiradi & Jason Ziedenberg Apri 23, 2003 Justice Poicy Institute 4455 Connecticut Avenue NW Suite B-500 Washington, DC v f POLICY REPORT

2 J u s t i c e P o i c y I n s t i t u t e About the Authors Vincent Schiradi is the President, and Jason Ziedenberg is the Assistant Director of the Justice Poicy Institute, awashington DC-based think tank dedicated to ending society s reiance on incarceration and promoting effective and just soutions to socia probems. Acknowedgments This poicy brief was reviewed by Michae Supancic, Ph.D, Southwest Texas State University,Department of Crimina Justice,and Michee Deitch, Director, Center for Crimina Justice Initiatives,and former counse, Texas Senate Committee on Crimina Justice.We woud aso ike to thank Deborah Cark of the Justice Poicy Institute for her editoria and content guidance during the drafting of this poicy brief. This poicy brief was designed by Juie Laudensager of InHouseGraphics,and was posted on the web by Riseup.net. The production of Texas Tough was funded by generous grants from the Open Society Institute Crimina Justice Initiative and the Jeht Foundation. The fu report can be found at The Justice Poicy Institute is a project of the Tides Center. Tabe of Contents Introduction 3 1) Texas Incarcerated Popuation Looms Large Over the Country 4 2) Poicy Changes Have Reduced Incarcerated Popuations, but the System is Growing Again 5 3) Increasing Incarcerated Popuations Does Dot Necessariy Mean the State Experienced Larger Drops in Crime than States that Made Less Use of Prison 5 4) The State Has Had to Spend More on Corrections 8 5) The Impact of Prisons on Women and their Famiies 8 6) The Disproportionate Impact of Prisons on Racia and Ethnic Minorities 9 7) Texas Imprisons and Incarcerates Large Numbers of Peope for Nonvioent Offenses 9 Concusion 10 Copyright 2003, by The Justice Poicy Institute. Reproduction of this document in fu or in part in print or eectronic format ony by permission of The Justice Poicy Institute.

3 J u s t i c e P o i c y I n s t i t u t e Texas Tough? Three Years Later 1 Introduction In August, 2000, the Justice Poicy Institute reported the significant roe Texas had payed in the nation s prison expansion 2.Atthat time, JPI reported that 1 in 5 new prisoners added to the nation s prison system during the 1990s was added in Texas, and that in 1999, the Justice Department reported that the state had the argest prison system in the US. The report showed that the expanding use of incarceration in Texas had a disproportionate impact on communities of coor, and that states that had added far fewer prisoners than Texas had much bigger drops in crime during the 1990s. Since then, JPI has reported that the drop in Texas prisoner popuation since 2000 (mainy due to changes to the paroe system) was of nationa significance, and that the change was something other states shoud emuate to reduce corrections costs during budget strained times. 3 Today, Texas prison popuation is once again on the rise, and state egisators and poicymakers are at a crossroads: either poicy changes wi be enacted to reduce the state s incarcerated popuation, or the state wi once again expand the number of prison beds. As Texas contempates how to reconcie pubic safety, fisca heath and community justice through its corrections system, the Justice Poicy Institute updates some of the starting statistics that define the Lone Star State s prisoner diemma. Texas Tough: Three Years Later 3

4 J u s t i c e P o i c y I n s t i t u t e 1) Texas incarcerated popuation ooms arge over the country, and the word, and is projected to rise uness reforms are enacted. Between 1983 and 2001, the number of prison and jai inmates in Texas quadruped from 50,500 to 203, In 2001, 1 in 10 peope in prison or jai in the United States was incarcerated in Texas. Texas had the argest number of offenders under crimina justice jurisdiction in the nation in There are more peope under crimina justice contro in Texas (740,905 5 ) than ive in the City of Austin (656,562 6 ). (See Figure 1) One out of 21 aduts in Texas was under crimina justice jurisdiction in With 711 peope incarcerated per 100,000 citizens in 2001, Texas has the 3rd highest incarceration rate per 100,000 residents in the country (ony behind Louisiana, 800, and Mississippi, with 715). 8 Texas has an incarceration rate that is 4 times greater than two-thirds of the countries in the word; the state s incarceration rate is severa times higher than every country in Western Europe, and is higher than the reported incarceration rates of Russia, China, Iran and Yemen. 9 Texas Tough: Three Years Later 4

5 J u s t i c e P o i c y I n s t i t u t e 2) Poicy Changes Have Successfuy Reduced Texas Prison Popuation, but the Prison Popuation is Rising. After two fu decades of rising incarceration rates, Texas incarceration rate decreased by 4.2% in 2000, and 2.6% in Some of the decreases were due to paroe reforms. 11 The paroe board s approva rate began to rise, the rate of paroe revocations fe, and the prison popuation dropped by 7,698 offenders from September 2000 to the end of December The Texas Department of Crimina Justice was abe to reduce its designated prison capacity by more than 1,000 beds in 2001, and hod thousands of empty prison beds on reserve. 12 3) Having the argest incarcerated popuation in the U.S. did not mean that Texas experienced arger drops in crime than states that made ess use of prison. Between 1991 and 2001, Texas incarceration rate rose by 139.4%, and its crime rate dropped by 34.1%. Despite the fact that Texas incarceration rate rose at a rate 5 times greater than Forida s, 14 (27%), Forida s crime rate dropped to a eve that neary approximated the decine in Texas (34.8%). Texas incarceration rate grew at 3 times the rate of Caifornia s (42.5%), but Caifornia experienced acrime rate drop that was 24% greater than that of Texas. (See Figure 2) The Texas Department of Crimina Justice reported that the prison popuation of the state wi exceed the state s prison capacity over the next five years. This wi mean that either the state wi have to change poicies or aws to reduce the intake or ength of stay of prisoners, or buid or contract for more prison ces. In February, 2003, it was reported that the state's prisoner popuation had reached 147,610 prisoners, inching coser to fiing the 151,470 beds. 13 Severa nationa studies have cast doubt on the nature of the reationship between increasing prison popuations and decining crime rates. Prof. Wiiam Speman, from the LBJ Schoo of Pubic Affairs, University of Texas at Austin, contends that 79 to 96 percent of the vioent crime drop of the 1990 s cannot be expained by prison expansion. The author contends that about one quarter of the tota drop in crime is due to prison expansion, and further prison expansion wi yied far ess return in reducing crime. 15 Texas Tough: Three Years Later 5

6 J u s t i c e P o i c y I n s t i t u t e Texas Tough: Three Years Later 6

7 J u s t i c e P o i c y I n s t i t u t e 4) As the Texas Prison Popuation has risen, the state has had to spend more on Corrections a price that ooms arge during the state fisca crisis. According to the Crimina Justice Poicy Counci, spending on corrections in Texas rose from $600 miion in 1985 to $2.9 biion in As the state currenty debates cuts to education, heath care and other government services, the increase in spending on corrections during the ast severa years ($2.3 biion) now represents about a quarter of the $10 biion budget shortfa the state is now facing. Whie spending on any program is ony one factor in the state s budget woes, the increase in corrections spending represents new annua costs which forces egisators to choose between cebocks and cassrooms. 16 As Texas prison system has expanded, empoyment in the state s corrections system has grown faster than that of other state functions. Between 1980 and 2000, corrections empoyment in Texas experienced an astonishing 12-fod increase (1103%). This was neary twice the rate of increase for a state empoyment (597%), 5 times the rate of higher education (217%), and 12 times the rate of pubic wefare (91%). 17 During the 1980s and 1990s, the Justice Poicy Institute has shown that Texas increased genera fund spending on higher education by 47%, but corrections spending grew by 346%. Put another way, Texas spending on corrections grew at 7 times the rate of spending on higher education during the period. 18 (See Figure 3) 5) The expansion of Texas prison system and the shift to a tougher justice system has had a significant impact on women and their famiies. Whie men comprise more than 9 out of 10 peope incarcerated in Texas, women s imprisonment has increased in Texas at twice the rate of men throughout the 1990s. The Bureau of Justice Statistics reported that, in 2001, 12,400 women were imprisoned in Texas. 19 Recent studies done on the fisca impact of women s imprisonment underscore the reaity that, whie the economic impact of her crime is typicay sma,the economic impact of the prison term typicay meted out to a woman is huge. 20 Whie more than haf of a prisoners have minor chidren whose ives may be affected by the incarceration of a parent, women are far more ikey than men to have been iving with dependent chidren when they were arrested (64 %, compared with 44 %). Most of women prisoners chidren are dispaced iving with extended famiy members or friends whie they are incarcerated. At east 10% of the chidren of prisoners are paced in non-kin foster care. 21 Amost a (90 %) fathers in prison report that their chidren reside with their other parent whie they are imprisoned but just 28 percent of mothers report this to be the case. In Texas, as we as other states, women convicted of a state or federa feony offense for using or seing drugs are subject to a ifetime ban on receiving cash assistance and food stamps (no other offenses resut in osing benefits). The Sentencing Project found that during the ate 1990s, 4,700 women in Texas were affected by this ban 61% of whom were African American or Latina. 22 Severa key impacts of the drug feony wefare ban which highight the mutipier effect of women s imprisonment incude the impact on the abiity of women to become sef-sufficient to provide for their chidren; to be active participants in their communities; higher incidences of famiy dissoution and further increase in chid wefare caseoads. Texas Tough: Three Years Later 7

8 J u s t i c e P o i c y I n s t i t u t e Texas Tough: Three Years Later 8

9 J u s t i c e P o i c y I n s t i t u t e 6) Prison expansion in Texas has had a disproportionate impact on racia and ethnic minorities. 7) Texas Imprisons and Incarcerates Large Numbers of Peope for Nonvioent Offenses. Whie Texas genera popuation is mainy White, Texas prison popuation is mosty African American and Latino. According to the Crimina Justice Poicy Counci, African Americans make up 11% of the popuation, and 41% of the prison popuation, and Latinos make up 30% of the state popuation, and 28% of the prison popuation. 23 As such, whie about 4 out of every 10 Texans are either African American or Latino, about 7 out of every 10 Texas prisoners are African American or Latino. According to Human Rights Watch, African Americans and Latinos are incarcerated in various forms of ocked faciities (incuding oca jais, federa detention centers, miitary discipinary barracks and jais, poice ockups) at rates much higher than Whites. Using 2000 Census data on rates of incarceration for Texas residents, Human Rights Watch found that African Americans were incarcerated at 5 times the rate of Whites (3,734 African Americans are incarcerated per 100,000 residents, compared to 694 for Whites), and Latinos were incarcerated at 1.7 times the rate of Whites (1,152 Latinos are incarcerated per 100,000 residents, compared to 694 for Whites). 24 Whie 53.1% of the peope in prison in Texas in 2002 were there for a vioent crime, and the proportion of non-vioent offenders has decined in recent years, Texas sti imprisons arge numbers of peope for nonvioent crimes. In 2002, the 59,100 prisoners were hed for non-vioent crimes. 25 The size of Texas crimina justice system and its compicated terminoogy masks the proportion of peope incarcerated for nonvioent crimes. If the above figures are recacuated to incude peope in prison, and peope in state jais hed for drug and property crimes, then there were approximatey 72,600 peope incarcerated for nonvioent offenses in institutions run by the Texas Department of Crimina Justice in Texas 72,600 nonvioent incarcerated popuation woud represent the 5th argest prison system in the country (behind the federa system, Caifornia, Texas and Forida), and is about the same size of the entire prison system in France and Engand countries with neary 3 times the popuation of Texas. Texas Tough: Three Years Later 9

10 J u s t i c e P o i c y I n s t i t u t e Concusion Over the past severa years, faced with massive budget shortfas and pubic opinion that increasingy supports aternatives to incarceration, states around the country have activey taken steps to reduce their prison popuations. Since the state budget crises erupted, governors in many states Forida, Iinois, Michigan, Ohio, Utah, and Virginia have decided to cose entire prisons, whie other states such as New York and Nevada have downsized unneeded prison space by cosing prison housing units. Wresting with a $34.8 biion budget deficit, Caifornia s Governor Gray Davis has temporariy cosed the Northern Caifornia Women s Faciity, a move that wi save $11.7 miion over 18 months. The budget crisis has deraied prison construction pans in Oregon, whie Pennsyvania s corrections managers have postponed the opening of two newy-constructed prisons in their effort to shave $15 miion from the budget. Nonvioent offenders in Arkansas, Okahoma, and Kentucky have been reeased eary, saving those states miions in corrections costs. Other states are taking more strategic routes to reducing correctiona spending. More exampes crop up each week of states ooking at corrections, one of the fastest growing ine items during the 1990s, as a budget item whose time for scrutiny and reevauation has come: In 2003, Kansas egisators considered a bi to reduce the demands for prison beds by diverting peope convicted of drug possession who are currenty in prison to community-based drug treatment. In 2000, Kansas egisators mandated that probation and paroe vioators be sanctioned within the state's community corrections system rather than be sent back to prison, saving amost 800 prison beds for occupancy by more serious offenders. In South Caroina, the Corrections Department have suggested severa money saving options that coud free up to 4,000 inmates this year, incuding restarting a furough program and the acceerated reease of nonvioent offenders. In Montana, egisators considered a bi this year to eiminate incarceration as a penaty for drug possession within the state. Before eaving office at the end of 2002, Michigan s Governor John Enger approved egisation that repeaed most of the state s mandatory minimum drug statutes. Ohio s sentencing guideines and paroe reforms have combined to reduce the state s prison popuation by more than 3,400 since In Mississippi, nonvioent first offenders regained eigibiity for paroe after they serve one-quarter of their prison sentence. By the end of 2001, more than 2,000 of the state's prisoners became paroeeigibe. Louisiana s egisators repeaed mandatory minimum sentences for simpe drug possession and many other nonvioent offenses, and cut minimum sentences for drug trafficking in haf. Texas Tough: Three Years Later 10

11 J u s t i c e P o i c y I n s t i t u t e In November of 2000, Caifornia voters passed Proposition 36, a groundbreaking treatment instead of incarceration initiative that has become a mode for other states. Proposition 36, aso known as the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000, diverts ow-eve, nonvioent drug offenders convicted soey of possession for persona use into community-based treatment instead of incarceration. The Legisative Anayst s Office estimated that the measure woud divert over 30,000 drug offenders a year to treatment, save Caifornia taxpayers approximatey $1.5 biion (net) over the next five years, and prevent the need for a new prison sated for construction. Within the first six months, Proposition 36 diverted over 12,000 individuas into treatment instead of prison. The decine in incarceration of femae nonvioent drug offenders has been so significant that many awmakers are considering cosing one or two of the four women s prisons to hep shrink Caifornia s budget deficit. This growing trend cuts across regiona, ideoogica, and party ines. States from a regions of the country and with state houses and governors mansions in the hands of both dominant poitica parties have turned to safey cutting corrections budgets as one effective method to cose widening state budget gaps. With 72,000 nonvioent offenders incarcerated in its prisons and state jais, Texas may wish to ook to the experience of other states (and to its own experience with paroe reforms) in an effort to reduce in a thoughtfu and deiberate manner the number of nonvioent offenders the state incarcerates. Texas Tough: Three Years Later 11

12 J u s t i c e P o i c y I n s t i t u t e Endnotes 1 This poicy brief was authored by Vincent Schiradi and Jason Ziedenberg of the Justice Poicy Institute, and reviewed by Micha e Supancic, Ph.D, Southwest Texas State University, Department of Crimina Justice, and Michee Deitch, Director, Center for Crimina Justice Initiatives, and former counse, Texas Senate Committee on Crimina Justice. 2 Schiradi, Vincent and Jason Ziedenberg. Texas Tough: An Anaysis of Incarceration and Crime Trends in the Lone Star S tate, Justice Poicy Institute, Greene, Judith and Vincent Schiradi. Cutting Correcty: New Prison Poicies for Times of F isca C risis, Justice Poicy Institute, Year 2001 figures from G aze, Lauren E. Probation and Paroe in the United States (2001). O ffice of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, and Tota Number of Persons Under Loca, State or Federa Correctiona Supervision, 1983 (2000), Bureau of Justice Statistics, spreadsheet. These Justice Department figures differ s ighty from what the Crimina Justice Poicy Counci reports to be the number of peope ocked up under s tate or county jurisdiction (195,813 in 2001), due to the different definitions used by those two agencies. These figures represent aduts incarcerated, but may incude a sma number of youth under age 18 who have been tried as aduts, and may be incarcerated in adut faciities, or hed in oca jais. 5 Fabeo, T ony. The Big Picture in Adut and Juvenie Justice Issues (2003). Austin, Te xas: Crimina Justice Poicy Counci. 6 Cities with 100,000 or More Popuation in 2000 ranked by Popuation, 2000 in Rank O rder, 7 Fabeo, Fabeo, Wamsey, Ro y. Word P risoner Popuation List, (2002) London, UK: Home Office, Research, Deveopment and Statistica Directorate. 10 Fabeo, Fabeo, Persona interview with Fabeo, cited in G reene, Judith and Schiradi, Vincent. Cutting Correcty: New Prison Poicies for Times of Fisca C risis (2002). Washington, DC: The Justice Poicy Institute. 13 Drosjack, Meissa. Faced with space and budget crunch, egisators study options, The Houston Chronice, February 19th, It is noteworthy that in 2001, F orida had an overa crime rate that was 8% higher than Texas crime rate, whie C aifornia s crime rate was 24.2% ower than Texas in 2001, even though Texas incarceration rate was 36% higher or more than Forida and Caifornia. This may underscore the tangentia reationship between crime and incarceration. Caifornia and Forida, ike Texas, saw their popuations increase during the 1990s. 15 Speman, Wiiam. The Limited Importance of P rison Expansion. The C rime Drop in America, ed. B umstein, Afred and Wa man, Joe. Boston: Cambridge University Press, Mangos to Mangos: Comparing the Operationa Costs of Juvenie and Adut Correctiona P rograms in Texas. (2003) Austin, T exas: C rimina Justice Poicy Counci. F igures for 1985 were converted to 2002 doar vaues for comparison. 17 Change in Fu-T ime equivaent empoyment from Western, Bruce and Guetzkow, Josh. (August, 2002) Punitive Poicy and Neoiberaism in the U.S. Labor Market. Presented at the annua meeting of the American Socioogica Association. 18 Schiradi, Vincent and Jason Ziedenberg. Cebocks or C assrooms: The Funding of Higher Education vs. Corrections and Its Impact on African American Me (2002). Wa shington, DC: The Justice Poicy Institute. 19 Between 1990 and 2001, the rate of increase of women prisoners in Texas was 463%, versus 213% for men figures are from Ta be 3 and Tabe 8, Beck, Aen, Harrison, Paige. Prisoners in 2001 (2002) Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. 20 Roche, Timothy and Greene, Judith. Cutting Correcty in Maryand. (2003). Washington, DC: Justice Poicy Institute. 21 Mumoa, Christopher. Incarcerated Chidren and their Parent s. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics Aard, Patricia. Life Sentences: Denying We fare Benefits To Women Convicted Of Drug Offenses (2002). Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project. Extent of the Ban is updated through October, Fabeo, The Big Picture, Human Rights Wa tch (2002), T abe 1, Rates of Incarceration Per 100,000 Residents, avaiabe at ce 25 Fabeo, Word prison popuations are from, Wamsey, Ro y. Word P risoner Popuation List, (2002) London, UK: Home Office, Research, Deveopment and Statistica Directorate; S tate jai popuation from Offense T ypes for Incarcerated State Jai Offenders, Crimina Justice Poicy Counci, T he C rimina Justice Poicy Counci and Bureau of Justice Statistics routiney report different counts of the state s prison popuation because the agencies define state jais and substance abuse feony punishment faciities differenty. As this figure does not incude approximatey 5,000 nonvioent offenders in substance abuse feony punishment faciities, 72,600 is a conservativ e estimate of the true number of nonvioent offenders incarcerated in Texas. Endnotes 12