TDCJ budget cut suggestions set agency up to fail

The state budget folk who estimate such things now say Texas' budget shortfall may be a jaw-dropping $21 billion next biennium, exacerbated by the fact that last session legislators only balanced the budget using $14 million in stimulus funding.

Which brings us to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice's Legislative Appropriations Request (large pdf), which was finalized while I was on vacation. TDCJ by far costs taxpayers more than any other criminal justice agency, so obviously they should be subject to the lion's share of cuts. However, the "Administrator's Statement" warns of all sorts of dire consequences if TDCJ's budget is cut by just 5%, which is the level anticipated by their LAR. Upon closer inspection, though, that's because the agency's suggested budget cuts seem designed to exacerbate rather than avoid bad consequences. Indeed, I have little doubt the agency's budget could be safely cut while avoiding many of the problems described.

For starters, TDCJ fails to suggest closing a single prison unit or policy recommendations to reduce incarceration levels, even though the agency claims a 5% budget cut would necessitate the "elimination of approximately 1,700 correctional and unit-based positions." Such a cut, they say, would have a "profound effect on our ability to securely and safely house, feed, clothe, and provide health care to those offenders incarcerated in TDCJ," but that's only true if they don't scale back the number of units to safely staff the facilities they continue to operate. Nowhere is there a hint of at the obvious truth that if the state chose to incarcerate fewer people, most of the terrible problems they prognosticate could be avoided.

For example, the agency suggests cutting $37.5 million per year for healthcare at its state-operated units compared to 2009 levels, which is an absurd proposal unless the agency also reduces the total number of incarcerated inmates. Healthcare costs are increasing faster than inflation and UTMB, which provides healthcare for 80% of TDCJ inmates, has said it can't operate on its current budget, much less with tens of millions less.

Another odd one: TDCJ suggests cutting food costs by $18.7 million per year compared to 2009 levels, but how can this be done when a) they don't suggest reducing the number of inmates and b) food costs are rising?

TDCJ says a 5% cut would "hinder the agency's ability to provide institutional substance abuse treatment and continuing aftercare (both residential and outpatient counseling)," but that's because they chose to target cuts in those areas instead of prioritizing money for programs that reduce recidivism. Ditto for reentry, rehabilitation programs and mental health spending. These suggested cuts seem expressly designed to drive up recidivism and boost the prison population instead of proposing a more sustainable way to get by on less money.

Similarly, the LAR says that "Reductions in the probation function would reduce the resources that are available to judges and probation officials in managing offenders within the community. Residential programs, treatment programs, probation caseload ratios and the number of specialized caseloads would be impacted. With fewer resources and options aimed at diverting offenders from prison, the incarcerated offender population could grow larger." That's true, as far as it goes, but again only if the Lege accepts the agency's ill-conceived recommendation to slash probation. This writer has repeatedly argued that the only way to safely cut the corrections budget is to increase funding for community supervision and make the big cuts in TDCJ's institutional division, which has more than 34,000 employees and accounts for more than 80% of the agency's budget.

Indeed, TDCJ clearly thinks they should not only keep open all their existing facilities, but pay to repair and upgrade units that in some cases are old and outdated, declaring that: "Continued repair and rehabilitation funding is necessary to maintain our existing physical plant, numbering over 100 correctional facilities statewide. Many of these facilities are over 75 years old. The size, scope and complexity of our physical plant requires substantial ongoing preventive repair and renovation." Regular Grits readers know that Texas' older facilities cost more per inmate to operate; the agency should close at least some of them instead of seek more money to repair them all.

TDCJ also suggests continuing all contracts with private facilities, though several end this year and seem like prime targets for cutting. Some private vendors provide halfway houses and drug treatment services that need to be retained because closing them might reduce parole rates, but those simply warehousing inmates ought to be at the top of the list for the chopping block.

One silver lining: For the first time in years (if ever), TDCJ suggests zeroing out its budget for new facility construction. The state's experience since deciding to triple prison capacity back during Ann Richards' administration has been "if you build it, they will come," so at least the budget crisis may put an end to that ignominious trend.

Virtually all of TDCJ's funding - around $3 billion per year - comes from state General Revenue funds, as opposed to programs like Medicaid where federal matching funds mean the state loses more money than it saves from cuts. So to cut state spending overall, it'll be difficult bordering on impossible to avoid cuts at TDCJ. Indeed, polls show prison spending is one of the few areas where the public supports budget cuts.

Bottom line: It's folly to suggest across the board cuts instead of targeting them in the institutional division, where most of the agency's budget is spent. IMO TDCJ officials actually know better but are suggesting cuts that would cause so many problems they hope legislators will be too scared to make them. This is a typical bureaucratic maneuver but inherently bad public policy. Let's hope legislators see through it and propose sufficient policy changes so that cutting the prison budget can actually be done safely.