Friday, February 20, 2015

A recipe for 'less government': Cut corrections costs by reducing incarceration of nonviolent offenders

Greg Abbott's trouncing of Wendy Davis and the election of Republican supermajorities in both chambers of the Texas Legislature means the state is now run by people who've spent their entire political careers calling for lower taxes and "less government." But those two things are not always synonymous.

Reducing taxes is only a sustainable goal if government simultaneously reduces the number of things for which it's obligated to pay. Otherwise, what occurs in practice is cost shifting, not cost cutting. Sustainable tax cuts must be preceded by cuts on the spending side, which is the piece that's largely been missing from proposals so far by the state leadership. True to form, most of our politicians calling for tax cuts simultaneously want to boost spending at the border, on roads, and for a laundry list of other items. This year, perhaps they can get away with that because of expanded revenue from a thriving economy. But the vicissitudes of fate dictate that won't always be the case.

Grits can't speak as knowledgeably to other areas of the budget, but criminal justice spending continues to balloon well beyond what Texas' declining crime rates might lead one to anticipate. Investments in diversion spending from 2007 onward have helped prisoner numbers level off, but their population is aging and overall costs continues to rise. (Medical providers have told TDCJ, for example, they need $174.8 million more for healthcare alone in the next biennium to meet minimum standards.)

If the Legislature chooses to incarcerate the same number of people it does now, much less if they want to increase the number of people in prison, or allow it to increase, then costs will continue to escalate and taxes must be gathered from some source or another to pay for it. Ditto for county jail and indigent defense costs, which are big cost drivers for county property taxes.

So, what policy choices would facilitate lower spending on criminal justice without harming public safety? Here's a simple recipe for cutting corrections budgets in Texas at both the state and local level by reducing incarceration of nonviolent offenders:

Make small-time drug possession a Class A misdemeanor
Pass legislation reducing penalties for possessing less than a gram of a controlled substance (roughly the contents of a Sweet-N-Low packet) from a state jail felony to a Class A misdemeanor, with a penalty of up to a $4,000 fine and a year in jail. According to the Legislative Budget Board, this move would save the state nearly $100 million in the coming biennium and allow TDCJ to close multiple state jail facilities. Grits would suggest spending a portion of the savings on new misdemeanor probation programs aimed at reducing caseloads, bolstering treatment programming, and managing the additional probationers.

Index property crimes to inflation
Following the Senate Criminal Justice Committee's recommendation, index property crime thresholds to inflation and deal with petty thieves at the local level instead of through the state prison system. Value thresholds set in 1993 are outdated and create a situation where cases that would have been misdemeanors creep into felony range because of economics, not increased culpability. The Legislative Budget Board in 2013 declined to estimate the precise budget effects of adjusting property thresholds upward but acknowledged that:
Raising the threshold for the value of property stolen is expected to result in decreased demands upon the correctional resources of counties or of the state due to shorter terms of probation, or shorter terms of confinement in county jails or prison.  Since the bill is raising the threshold for the value of property stolen for theft (misdemeanor and state jail felony) the impact on the state as a result of raising the threshold is likely to result in a decreased demand on the correctional resources of the state since offenders previously punished as state jail felons would now be punished as Class A misdemeanants.
Similar to the proposal on drug crimes, it'd be nice to see a portion of savings from this move go to local probation departments to help manage the extra probationers they'll receive as a result.

The above suggestions would reduce the state budget, perhaps allowing the Legislature to close three to five state jails, probably through eliminating private prison contracts set to expire in the near future. But will counties be ready to handle those new cases? They will if the Lege finishes off its cost-reduction regimen by following this advice:

Shift B misdemeanors to Cs on small-time pot possession and invalid licenses
Here's how to free up resources at the local level to manage those new offenders who otherwise may have been sentenced to TDCJ: Reduce penalties for low-level pot possession and driving with an invalid license (DWLI) on subsequent offenses from Class B to Class C misdemeanors (or in the case of marijuana, perhaps applying a civil penalty, as suggested by state Rep. Joe Moody.) Those two changes in 2014 would have avoided more than 90,000 Class B arrests (source: add total new cases for marijuana possession and Class B DWLI from here and here), respectively, reducing counties' policing, jail and indigent defense costs by more than enough to offset the new, additional defendants who would be shifted to county purview from the state jail felony category. (See Grits' recent column in the Dallas News advocating those reforms.)

Make those few, interconnected changes and the state could curb upward pressure on incarceration spending at the state and local levels, saving nine-figure sums while adequately funding local systems and reducing burdens on county government, perhaps closing several jail units in the bargain.

What this proposal fails to address are rising healthcare costs of long-time prisoners with insensibly interminable sentences whose end-of-life medical bills drive higher prison health costs. However, medical parole debates have been contentious and the politics of reducing long sentences for violent offenders are more volatile. These suggestions instead would reduce the churn of short-term state jail inmates convicted of nonviolent offenses, focusing state resources on more serious offenders and leaving small-timers to the locals to manage with new funds derived from the resultant budget savings.

That's IMO what's politically possible in 2015 and, if the Lege would do it, they could lay claim not just to cutting taxes but also smartly cutting spending. For "less government" to also be wise government, both have to occur.

21 comments:

Lee said...

Isn't this the time of the year when we do the Great Texas Rodeo Rope and Hogtie dem Warrant Roundup (say that five times fast)?

When will they realize that the state actually loses money in this process?

Anonymous said...

The costs will be passed to the Counties.

What makes people think a sweet n low packet size possession of methamphetamine is no big deal? I don't care how much meth a person is in possession of; it is a deadly drug.

An ounce of marijuana is a Class C? That is not a small amount of marijuana. That is quite a bit of marijuana.

Adjusting penalties related to theft crimes makes sense due to inflation.

Reducing DWLI to Class C makes sense, but what is the Court going to do to assist the driver to get their license back?

Anonymous said...

"What makes people think a sweet n low packet size possession of methamphetamine is no big deal? I don't care how much meth a person is in possession of; it is a deadly drug."

Who is claiming it isn't a big deal? A class A misdemeanor is still an arrestable, criminal offense. What justifies the current penalty? Should penalties be higher than they currently are? If not, why? The argument for lowering the penalty is it spares the person making a mistake a felony record and there is no evidence that lowering criminal penalties to a criminal misdemeanor would increase use.

An ounce of marijuana is a Class C? That is not a small amount of marijuana. That is quite a bit of marijuana

Yes, it is a small amount. It is smaller than the 2 ounces or less class B penalty right now, and it is generally recognized as a small amount from everything I've read, aside from people trying to equate it in "skinny joint terms" (which is not an objective way to measure a quantity of something). Marijuana is also objectively less harmful than alcohol or tobacco, two substances that are 100% legal to possess in huge quantities.

Anonymous said...

Grits, what percentage of the overall state budget is spent on criminal justice? Do you know?

Gritsforbreakfast said...

Collectively smaller than healthcare, roads and education, 4:45, but essentially the largest macro category after that. It's an even larger proportion of county and municipal spending.

@2:16, no one but you said "no big deal." And I explained in the post how to more than mitigate added costs to counties. Glad you liked the theft/DWLI ideas.

Anonymous said...

No one thinks methamphetamine use isn't a "big deal." The difference of opinion is over the best way to deal with it. The war on drugs have failed. Yet, every time someone proposes trying something different, there are those who make it appear as if the people who want to do something different don't think drugs are bad. Drugs are bad (although recent info suggest marijuana really isn't that bad, far less so than alcohol anyway). Meth is bad. However, someone once said the definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing expecting a different result. The war on drugs has failed. Its time for a new approach. Other countries that have decriminalized even the hard drugs and offered specialized treatment that control usage have seen decreases in drug usage and decreases in crime. So, lets turn the tables on those who try to demonize those who think its time for a different approach. Here's the logic of those applied back towards them. First, we know the war on drugs had not reduced drug usage. So, if you advocate continuing down the same path, Anon 2:16, you must think drugs are okay as your approach does not reduce drug usage. Second, we know that other countries have found ways to reduce drug usage and associated criminal activity. Folks like Anon 2:16 reject those approaches so they must believe that drugs are good and crime is also good as they only advocate an approach that will not decrease either. Using the logic of those like Anon 2:16, all the advocates of continuing the war on drugs must believe drugs are good.

Anonymous said...

No one thinks methamphetamine use isn't a "big deal." The difference of opinion is over the best way to deal with it. The war on drugs have failed. Yet, every time someone proposes trying something different, there are those who make it appear as if the people who want to do something different don't think drugs are bad. Drugs are bad (although recent info suggest marijuana really isn't that bad, far less so than alcohol anyway). Meth is bad. However, someone once said the definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing expecting a different result. The war on drugs has failed. Its time for a new approach. Other countries that have decriminalized even the hard drugs and offered specialized treatment that control usage have seen decreases in drug usage and decreases in crime. So, lets turn the tables on those who try to demonize those who think its time for a different approach. Here's the logic of those applied back towards them. First, we know the war on drugs had not reduced drug usage. So, if you advocate continuing down the same path, Anon 2:16, you must think drugs are okay as your approach does not reduce drug usage. Second, we know that other countries have found ways to reduce drug usage and associated criminal activity. Folks like Anon 2:16 reject those approaches so they must believe that drugs are good and crime is also good as they only advocate an approach that will not decrease either. Using the logic of those like Anon 2:16, all the advocates of continuing the war on drugs must believe drugs are good.

Anonymous said...

A WELL KEPT SECRET:
Illegal drug trafficking an drug use are rampant in every Texas prison. They are smuggled-in by staff, used by inmates, and totally out of control by authorities -- AND they are causing an increase in TDCJ healthcare costs.

HOW SMART IS THAT?

---- LOCK THEM UP FOR DOING DRUGS
---- LET THEM CONTINUE DOING DRUGS IN PRISON - worse drugs than grass, by the way.
---- PAY FOR PRISONER'S HEALTH CARE WHEN THEY O.D.

Gee whiz!

-- That's for sure saving us money!

-- That for sure protects the public -- those addicts will get out NOT REHABILITATED, BUT ENABLED BY THE STATE -- their newly fucked up brain (see: solitary, drugs, lousy food, etc) will certainly make them valuable family and society's members.

Alleluia!

GO ON TEXAS.....BRILLIANT!

Anonymous said...

The drug on war has failed.

If you don't get it read again: The drug on war has failed.

If you STILL don't get it: please, don't vote; you are too darn stupid to participate in the democratic process. Such process requires for citizens to be "educated and informed". but.... wait a minute: aren't we in Texas... gee whiz!

How could I forget!

and I ain't talkin' abt a college education -- a bit of common sense nd an open mind will do .

but again... wait a minute: aren't we in Texas... gee whiz!

How could I forget!

Anonymous said...

Less government only applies to business regulating agencies and public education. (Definitely not women's and gay rights).

Atticus said...

Once again, you make so much sense, it's painful. One can only hope several of the Lege Rookies read this!

Dominic Jiminez said...

I firmly believe that small time offenders should be reformed rather than sentenced. Putting them behind bars immediately expose them to the bad company and they can graduate to commit serious crime in future.

Anonymous said...

When it comes to marijuana, the physical harm caused as compared to alcohol and tobacco is a public health issue, not a criminal justice or public safety issue. Apples and oranges.

Anonymous said...

People don't go to jail for driving while smoking cigarettes. They go to jail for driving while intoxicated.

Once marijuana is decriminalized, technology will begin to determine who is under the influence of marijuana while driving. There will be breathalyzers and ignition interlocks. Presently, the likelihood of DWI due to marijuana consumption is virtually nil.

Marijuana will remain a criminal offense. It will look like alcohol consumption DWI.

The driver will get a citation for poss. of marij. but will be taken to jail for DWI, just like the driver presently gets a citation for open container and is taken to jail for DWI.

Anonymous said...

Today, alcohol may be legal, but commit any crime and be placed on probation. Immediately, consumption of alcohol is no longer allowed. If marijuana is decriminalized, I doubt probationers will be permitted to smoke pot.

Anonymous said...

As far as "no big deal"; a reduction from a felony to a misdemeanor will be allowing persons who are found in possession of drugs such as methamphetamine very little penalty and very little chance at treatment. The benefit won't be for anything more than saving Texas money.

In courtrooms across Texas, a Class A Misdemeanor (with plea bargaining) is often sentenced to serve, at the most, 90 days jail. The 90 days is finished in 30 days with good time. Also, quite likely, time served is granted for previous time in jail. The only persons benefitting from that are the coordinator, the prosecutor & the judge because the case is off the docket. The court apt atty gets his/her fee paid for doing nothing more than jaw jacking with other attorneys.

Anonymous said...

If a term of misd. supervision is granted in meth cases, it will have minimal effect, if any. That sounds like ""no big deal" to me. This is what it sounds like, "Go ahead. Use meth. Kill each other. We're saving money, so we don't care."

Prison isn't the answer for non-violent offenses. Probation with treatment is the answer. With felonies, the terms of supervision are longer, the likelihood of the person on probation completing a treatment program is much greater than with a misdemeanor, the likelihood of a probationer not accepting revocation while serving a term of felony probation is greater than with a misd, the continuum of sanctions employed within a probation department will have more effect with a felony than a misd, etc. Recidivism will reduce & the prison population will continue to decline if treatment options are employed at a felony level of supervision vs. a misd level of supervision.

Possessors of meth are not misdemeanants. They are felons.

Anonymous said...

When it comes to people who are found in possession of sweet n low packet amounts of meth, that's just how much they were caught with. How much they have back at their house normally is a whole lot more. Its no different than the DWI Offender arrested for DWI-1st Offense. Chances are virtually 100% it is not the first time they have driven while intoxicated.

The first time DWI Offender also needs treatment but that behavior is minimized because its their first time. Its no more their first time than the persons with less than 1/4 gram of meth is a casual user.

Anonymous said...


Persons in possession of meth aren't making a mistake. They know it is against the law. They are addicted. They need treatment. Or, they are drug dealers and need to go to prison, not county jail.

It isn't about a war, it is about treatment. It is about communities. It is about saving lives.

Once a person is using meth, cocaine, heroin; they have gone way beyond casual user or small time offender.

Anonymous said...

In Harris County, for years, cops have been pulling people over and finding them in possession of marijuana. They just dump the pot and let the people go. The joke is "look for all the pot plants growing down 290". In rural areas, an arrest is more likely to happen. Those types of differences between urban and rural areas will never change.

Anonymous said...

To 4:00: Don't kid your self thinking that there's any kind of treatment for addicts going on in prison.

The whole rehabilitation aspect of TDCJ is a joke. The units are also rife with drugs. If an individual has access to money, that person can get whatever drugs they want on the inside.

Addicts go in as addicts, and even if they don't access drugs while in, all they are for that time inside, are sober addicts. You can tell them apart from the others. They're the ones who can't stop talking about how much they miss it, how the first thing they are going to do as soon as they get out is get another high. All prison is doing is housing them somewhere off the streets until time is up and they can get out and start using all over again.

If treatment is your goal, if saving lives is your goal, then there has got to be another way than what we're doing now, because what we're doing now IS. NOT. WORKING.

Arrest->incarceration->release = right back to square one, with the added expense of having housed the addict for however many years in between, and teaching them how to be a bigger, badder criminal than they ever were before.

There are some people who are determined, for whatever reason, to self destruct no matter what kind of help they get (and prison is NOT any sort of help).

With some people it's food. With others it's alcohol. Others use drugs. Others eating disorders. Etc.

Is it really the job of society and/or the government to save us from our own destructive devices?