FOR 30 YEARS, Oregon’s prison population has spiraled upward. Now, says Governor John Kitzhaber, is the end of that era.
In his budget released last Friday, November 30, Kitzhaber laid out a way to save hundreds of millions of dollars over the next 10 years: Flatline the prison population.
Oregon’s prison population has recently grown at a rate of 150 people a year. That might not sound like a lot, but caring for the average inmate costs the state $85 a day. Keeping the prison population steady will save $17.8 million next year, according to Kitzhaber’s budget—with those savings increasing over time as more people are kept out of prison.
The governor’s gamble is this: Spend more money upfront on treatment, supervision, drug testing, and keeping kids out of foster care, thereby spending less money in the long-term on maintaining inmates and building prisons. The budget also names reducing the overrepresentation of people of color in prison—non-whites make up 11.4 percent of Oregon’s population, but 27 percent of our inmates.
“The vision of flatlining the prison population is really bold and needed,” says David Rogers, executive director of Oregon’s Partnership for Safety and Justice.
It’s not just advocates who favor the plan: “We feel very confident that we can be smarter about the way we spend our public safety money,” says Oregon Department of Corrections spokeswoman Liz Craig.
If the prison population does flatline, Oregon can nix plans to build two expensive new prisons.
The rise in prison population is driven by a couple factors. Much of it comes from Oregon’s growing population. But 27 percent of projected prison population growth comes from 2008’s Measure 57, which imposes mandatory minimum sentences for drug and property crimes. The number of people requiring mental health services in Oregon prisons has also grown six percent since 2006.
With the state strapped for cash, it will be tempting for legislators—who will have the final say on the specifics of the governor’s budget—to just bluntly cut the prison budget.
But although the governor’s budget forecasts deep long-term cuts, including some inmate-cost savings this year, it would actually increase the state’s overall public safety budget in the short term.
Kitzhaber wants a 10.7 percent increase, investing $32 million in community corrections, $8.9 million in drug courts (which sentence people to treatment and supervision), and $23.6 million to intervene with families whose kids might otherwise be placed in foster care.
The specifics of these prison policies will come from the Oregon Commission on Public Safety, which is slated to issue budget recommendations next month. The recommendations could include some radical, practical ideas for keeping the prison population steady—like giving counties some kind of financial incentive to push for shorter sentences in local prosecutions [“Condemned to Death,” News, Nov 21].
Prison reform has long been an untouchable political issue in Oregon, but the November election results show that voters may be ready for change. Voters in California reformed their controversial “three strikes” felony law, while Washington and Colorado’s legalization of marijuana made a clear statement about the “war on drugs.” It’s up to the Oregon legislature either to fight or support Kitzhaber’s push to flatline the prison population—but looks like the political climate could be right for reform.
So the solution to an expensive prison problem is to spend MORE money and imprison fewer lawbreakers?
And could you show how the correlating increase in population compares to the imprisonment rate?
The population of Oregon is a little under 1.5 times what it was in 1982. The data above show that the prison population is now 4.56 times what it was then. The violent crime rate has shown a marked _decrease_ over the same period. Data: http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/orcrime.htm
Violent crimes per 100,000 inhabitants in 1982: 473. In 2011: 248. We need serious changes in drug laws and treatment for those who need it rather than putting them in cages as if that actually worked—otherwise the burglary/theft/property crime rates will not really go down. None of this is news to people who have been paying attention, I think. Flatlining the prison population is not “really bold”; it needs to decrease. The numbers show what a catastrophic failure the past few decades of crime/sentencing policies have been.
Looking at the differences in spending it’s important not to ignore the qualifier “upfront” to consider what course of action will yield good results over the long term.
How about some radical prison rehab like: providing those already incarcerated with some good counseling and resources to help them rehabilitate? How about some “good time” for those who have already been sentenced under Measure 11 who are trying to rehabilitate themselves? The sentencing guidelines under Measure 11 are insane for those who have not hurt anyone. Under Measure 11, a person who has committed robberies while addicted to meth and who has never hurt anyone can serve a longer sentence that a murderer! There is NO REHABILITATION PRISON so we need to correct that so we do not have re-offenders. Let’s give those already in prison a chance to turn their lives around and reward them with some good time. Measure 11 needs to be repealed first so we are not just “warehousing” those who are already serving time. I do agree with this proposal but is only touching the tip of the iceberg!
Geyser, where did you get that population statistic….it seems low. Just curious.