![[Company Logo Image]](images/3legstool.gif)
Testimony of Rudy J. Cypser, Sc.D.
Chairman, CURE-NY: Citizens United for Rehabilitation of Errants
Joint Legislative Hearing
Senate Finance and Assembly Ways and Means Committees
February 25, 2002
Gentlemen:
The point of my presentation is that (1) there are hundreds of millions of dollars wasted each year in the New York State criminal justice budget on programs that are ineffective, unjust, and racially biased, and (2) there are far better ways to invest a fraction of that money in programs that yield a higher return in lower crime and less cost.
I will address six areas
where major savings are possible:
1. Drug Policy and Mandatory Minimum Laws.
2. Drug Treatment Alternatives to Incarceration.
3. Parole Reform.
4. Elderly and Sick Prisoners.
5. Incentives for Rehabilitation.
6. Ex-Offender Reintegration into Society.
I will cite other states that have already acted to reduce costs along these lines, and reference pending NYS legislation that can do likewise. In the following it is assumed that the combined incarceration and collateral costs per prisoner are about $30,000 per year.
1. Drug Policy and Mandatory Minimum Laws.
The Opportunity. The Justice Policy Institute, report of February 7, 20021 states that reforms meriting careful consideration, in order to reduce state prison population pressures and correctional costs, include:
"Repealing mandatory sentencing laws and restoring judge’s discretion to determine which criminal offenders truly warrant long prison sentences, and which can be safely and effectively punished and rehabilitated in the communities where they live."
There are over 21,000 drug offenders incarcerated in NYS prisons today. It cost our state about $2 billion to build prisons to house drug offenders. The annual operating expense for confining them comes to nearly $700 million per year.
The New York State Drug Laws have not succeeded in making our communities safer. Today, up to one million New Yorkers use drugs and an estimated 500,000 are addicts or abusers. Drugs are cheaper and more readily available to the public than they were 20 years ago. Harsh mandatory treatment of drug offenders…has failed to deter drug trafficking or to control the epidemic of drug abuse in society, and has resulted in the incarceration of many offenders whose crimes arose out of their own addiction and for whom the costs of imprisonment would have been better spent on treatment and rehabilitation.
It is a myth that the extraordinary statewide reductions in violent crime that we have enjoyed in recent years have been achieved, in significant part, by enforcing tough drug laws." The fact is that violent crime was increasing until the mid 1990’s, at the same time that significantly more drug offenders were being imprisoned. Then, violent crime began dropping dramatically in localities across the nation, regardless of their policing tactics, the harshness of their drug laws, or the extent to which the laws were enforced, all of which vary from state to state and community to community.
New York’s Ill-advised drug war policies have done more harm than good: they ruin lives, tear apart families, divest political power and funding from poor communities of color, distort the criminal justice system, and skew government priorities toward prisons and away from education and alternatives to incarceration. These alternatives are far less expensive and more effective in reducing crime than prison.
These drug laws also prompt further racism. Although government studies show that the majority of drug users and sellers are white, 94% of drug offenders in state prisons are African-American and Latino.
Other States. A substantial number of states have already enacted changes in mandatory-minimum sentencing and drug policy during the 2001 legislative session, in order to reduce costs. According to the February 2002 report of The Sentencing Project:
· Connecticut legislation permits judges to deviate from mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines for non-violent drug offenders.
· Louisiana legislation reduces certain drug and non-violent sentences and eliminates mandatory minimums for non-violent crimes. The legislation halves the current sentencing guidelines for drug offenses.
· Iowa passed a law giving judges discretion in imposing what had been a mandatory five year sentence for low-level drug crimes and certain property crimes, including burglary.5
2. Drug Treatment Alternatives to Incarceration.
The Opportunity. That same Justice Policy Institute, report1 recommends economies through:
A. Replacing prison terms with alternatives such as treatment and intensive supervision for those convicted of drug possession and other petty drug related offenses.
B. Creating a sentencing presumption for treatment and/or supervision in the community for nonviolent offenders who bear primary responsibility for care of their children.
There is evidence that drug treatment reduces crime associated with the narcotics trade more effectively than incarceration: a 1997 study by RAND’s Drug Policy Research Center concluded that treatment, which is significantly less costly than imprisonment, reduces 15 times more serious crime than mandatory minimum sentences.
Other States have likewise taken the lead in this treatment area. For example:
· Arkansas legislation grants judges discretion to sentence offenders convicted of non-violent and non-sexual offenses into treatment as opposed to a prison term. It adds incentive for the offender to abide by the program, for if the individual remains drug-free through the completion of probation, the offense will be expunged from their record.2
· California legislation states that those convicted of a felony or misdemeanor drug possession charge for the first or second time, instead of being sent to jail or prison, are diverted to probation with a court mandated drug treatment component.2
· Idaho legislation provides for an increase of 150% in residential treatment spaces, a 16% increase in counseling slots, and a 61% increase in outpatient treatment contacts.2
Relevant NYS legislation: S840, A2823 provides new sentencing guidelines for offenses involving the possession and sale of controlled substances. (repeal of the Rockefeller drug laws). A8888 is the comprehensive "Drug Law Reform, Drug Treatment, and Crime Reduction Act of 2001."
Savings. A recent Legal Action Center report revealed that in the year 2000, judges were unable to divert approximately 8,700 drug offenders to treatment who would have been eligible for diversion under Assembly repeal bill (A-2823), and almost 5,000 drug offenders under the Assembly reform bill A-8888. Savings of only one-half the incarceration costs, by such needed diversions (of 5000 each year), would be over $75 million dollars per year. That would be multiplied by the average length of sentence (if 2 years, potential savings build up to $150 million per year).
RECOMMENDED NYS ACTION, TO ADDRESS BOTH THE DRUG LAW AND TREATMENT ISSUES: WITH THE COOPERATION OF THE LEGISLATURE, THE BUDGET SHOULD REFLECT THE PASSAGE OF S840/A2823 OR A8888, WITH VERY SIGNIFICANT SAVINGS.
3. Parole Reform.
The Opportunities.
A. Parole Violations. That same Justice Policy Institute report1 also recommends Using intermediate sanctions to address technical parole violations rather than returning offenders to prison. Since about half of the recidivists are for parole violations, rather than a new crime, lower- cost intermediate sanctions (including community-based treatment centers) for minor technical violations would be both appropriate and cost saving.
Other States have already acted. For example, in the 2001 legislatures:
· Arkansas legislation establishes community-correction facilities to reduce prison growth by diverting minor parole revocations from state institutions to these local centers.2
· California legislation states that paroles, instead of facing revocation and re-institutionalization for a failed drug test or possession charge, will be placed on probation and enrolled in a treatment program.2
B. Release Rates. Division of Parole statistics show a significant decrease since 1994 in release rates. The release rate at 64% in fiscal year 1993-1994 has steadily decreased to about 33% for the past fiscal year.
It appears that the current administration has established a policy, contrary to law, that gives scant attention in parole decisions to the rehabilitation efforts of prisoners. Parole board decisions seem to be routinely based almost entirely on "the nature of the crime." The result is longer, very expensive incarceration, - longer than necessary, given the rehabilitation record and the ability of the offender to live within the law.
Savings. For every 1% drop in the 1994 release rate, approximately 500 extra prisoners will be maintained in the system at a cost of about $15 million dollars per year retained. Therefore, a parole release rate drop of 15% would mean that each year approximately 7,500 additional prisoners remain in the state prison system at a cost of up to $225 million per year retained. If the average retention is two years, the costs of retention could build up to $450 million per year. Comparable amounts can be saved each year by a return to former, more reasonable, and fairer release rates.
RECOMMENDED NYS ACTION: WITH THE COOPERATION OF THE DEPT. OF PAROLE,
(a) THE BUDGET SHOULD REFLECT A RETURN TO EARLIER AND FAIRER PAROLE RELEASE RATES, WITH THE SAVINGS OF HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS ANNUALLY.
(b) THE BUDGET SHOULD REFLECT THE USE OF INTERMEDIATE SANCTIONS (INCLUDING LOWER COST COMMUNITY-BASED DRUG TREATMENT) TO ADDRESS TECHNICAL PAROLE VIOLATIONS, RESULTING IN A LOWER RATE OF RE-INCARCERATION, AND MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN SAVINGS.
4. Release of the Expensive Elderly and Ill.
The Opportunity. That same Justice Policy Institute report1 recommends economy through creating a presumption for parole release to healthcare services and/or supervision in the community for nonviolent offenders over the age of 55 who have served a substantial portion of their prison sentence.
The cost of incarcerating elderly and infirm prisoners rises to about $60,000 per year, primarily because of high medical costs. Their recidivism rate is extremely low. They can be monitored at greatly reduced cost in community settings.
In August 1999, the American Bar Association passed a resolution: "That the federal government, the states, and territories adopt release procedures and community-based programs with treatment and supervision for older inmates who are appropriate to be released to the community, consistent with public policy."
Other States have already acted. For example, in 2001 legislation,
· Texas legislation will divert persons deemed inappropriate for incarceration into more suitable programs by permitting expanded parole for chronically ill inmates.
· Virginia legislation is designed to provide elderly inmates with early release.
Relevant NYS Legislation: S 3740, A7300: NYS geriatric and older prisoner’s act of 2001, provides for geriatric parole, electronic detention, and correctional nursing care.
Savings. If only one half the incarceration casts can be saved in this geriatric early release procedure, they would amount to over $3 Million per year, per 100 prisoners so released each year. If the unfinished sentences averaged only three years, the savings would then build up to $9 million per year, per 100 prisoners so released each year.
RECOMMENDED NYS ACTION: WITH THE COOPERATION OF THE LEGISLATURE, THE BUDGET SHOULD REFLECT THE MORAL AND PRACTICAL URGENCY OF IMPLEMENTING A7300, WITH ASSOCIATED SAVINGS.
5. Fostering Rehabilitation Through Incentives.
The Opportunity. New York State releases more than 25,000 prisoners each year. Earned Rehabilitation Incentive programs (Merit Time) greatly encourage rehabilitation (and hence fewer future victims, less incarceration, and lower costs) by offering to advance the date an offender will be eligible for parole (or the date of completion of a definite sentence) by one or more months, as a reward for completion of tough rehabilitation programs.
Other States have taken steps to reduce correctional costs through broader use of "Good Time" or "Merit Time." For example, in legislation in 2001:
· Mississippi legislation created further programs through which a trusty could acquire earned time towards early release. These include educational programs, certain work projects, and "special incentive programs."2
· South Carolina legislation says for every 30 days of GED classes, the individual can earn four days of credit towards his or her sentence. This is in addition to a pre-existing credit system that offered a similar incentive for work programs.2
Relevant NYS Legislation: S2151, A2882: Merit Time allowances for additional prisoners, not to exceed one-third of the term.
Savings. Assuming, for example, an average of one year Merit Time, there is a potential of $30 million additional savings each year for each 1000 prisoners participating.
RECOMMENDED NYS ACTION: WITH THE COOPERATION OF THE LEGISLATURE, THE BUDGET SHOULD REFLECT THE PASSAGE OF S2151/A2882, AND THE ASSOCIATED SAVINGS.
6. Reintegration into Society
. The Opportunity. The Justice Policy Institute report1 further recommends economies through creating a new system of post-prison responsibilities and supports for offenders after they are released from prison that will reduce the likelihood of re-offending.
The report of the Sentencing Project2 similarly observes: "Political leaders have learned that court system and community partnerships are increasingly necessary. Further expansion and development of new partnership models may be particularly warranted in a time of declining budgets." ..."Many leaders have come to understand that prisoner re-entry services offer opportunities for cost-effective public safety approaches. ...they are learning the value of broad pre-release programming and post-release services to provide opportunities for early release and to reduce the number of offenders sent back to prison, with potentially significant savings and positive implications for public safety."
Other States have taken action. For example, West Virginia recently enacted a law to reduce the number of state inmates by giving additional money to local counties to develop alternatives to prison.
Relevant NYS Legislation: S2770, A5103: Allow certain additional felons to become eligible for the work release program (excluding absconders, aggravated harassment, homicide and sex-offenders).
Savings.
A. Post Release Programs. For example, recent data shows that the savings (from lower recidivism) are large, after participation in the community-based, Peter Young Housing, Industry, Treatment (PYHIT) Program.
Statistics from a 10 year study of 400 inmates that came into the PYHIT program, showed that it was 90% successful in keeping them from ever going back to prison. The average success rate of comparable inmates that did not participate in that program was only 30% to 40%.
Savings, for each released-offender who does not recidivate, result from reduced arrest and prosecution costs, reduced incarceration costs, reduced crime costs, health and treatment savings (the difference between substance users and non users), local economic effects of at least a minimum wage, and reductions in welfare, foster care, and other entitlements.
It has been estimated that for each 1000 post-release graduates from such programs, the economic benefit (from all the above) would amount to over $47 million during the first year after completing the program, with further benefits in following years.
B. Work Release Programs. Additional reintegration training and additional savings occur when prisoners are assigned to lower-cost, community-based facilities on work release. Since these community-based operating costs are only a fraction of the prison-based costs, millions of dollars in operating costs can be saved in the last year or more of a prisoner’s sentence, while also lowering recidivism rates still further. If only one-half the one-year incarceration costs can thus be saved, the savings amount to $15 Million per year per 1000 prisoners so involved.
RECOMMENDED NYS ACTION:
A. WITH THE COOPERATION OF DOCS, RESIDENTIAL WORK RELEASE, FOR SELECTED PRISONERS, IN LOWER-COST, COMMUNITY-BASED, REHABILITATION CENTERS SHOULD BE EXPANDED. THIS CAN LOWER DOCS OPERATING COSTS.
B. WITH THE COOPERATION OF THE LEGISLATURE, AND PASSAGE OF S2770/A5103, CAREFULLY-SELECTED, ADDITIONAL PRISONERS SHOULD BE ALLOWED THESE LOWER-COST, COMMUNITY-BASED, REHAB SERVICES.
C. INTER-COUNTY FUNDING OF ENTITLEMENT PROGRAMS (MEDICAID, WELFARE, AND JOB-TRAINING ) SHOULD BE FACILITATED TO PERMIT INTER-COUNTY ASSIGNMENT OF OFFENDERS TO THESE REHABILITATION PROGRAMS.
D. INVESTMENTS IN SUCH COMMUNITY-BASED PROGRAMS ARE OFTEN FUNDED UNDER "AID TO LOCALITIES." TO LOWER COSTS, FUNDS FOR THESE "AIDS TO LOCALITIES" SHOULD BE INCREASED, AND SHOULD BE MARKED FOR "REHABILITATION OF OFFENDERS IN HOUSING, INDUSTRY, AND TREATMENT."
7. CONCLUSION:
Religious, civic, legal, judicial, and advocacy communities are united in calling for major changes in the New York State criminal justice system that will restore the traditional heritage of restorative justice concepts and at the same time reduce crime and reduce state budgets for criminal justice by hundreds of millions of dollars.
This present time of fiscal restraint provides the opportunity for doing just that.
The budget process is the means for moving decisively in that direction. The Senate Finance Committee and the Assembly Ways and Means Committee should now seize this opportunity.
1 Greene, Judith and Vincent Schiraldi, "Cutting Correctly: New Prison Policies for Times of Fiscal Crisis, Justice Policy Institute, http://www.cjcj.org/cutting/cutting_es.html
2 King, Ryan S. and Marc Mauer, "State Sentencing and Corrections Policy in an Era of Fiscal Restraint," The Sentencing Project, Washington, DC, February 2002, www.sentencingproject.org
3 "Drug Law Reform: How Dramatic the Impact," June 4, 2001, Legal Action Center, New York, NY.
4 Green, Alice, testimony to the Assembly Hearing on Parole and Post Release Supervision, Aug. 10, 2001.
5 Butterfield, Fox, New York Times article, September 2, 2001.
6 Estimate based on extension to data in "Behind Bars: Substance Abuse and America’s Prison Population," January 1998, CASA, The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University, pp. 163-165.