Getting Tough on Crime is Getting Old…

 I wrote a post a few months ago about how our countries “Get Tough” stance on crime in the 80’s and 90’s has backfired on us, and put all of our states and communities in debt, well beyond our imaginations way back when.

Well, the pendulum is swinging back towards common sense punishment, and rehabilitation.  Last month, congress passed the Second Chance Act, and President Bush signed it.  I am truly impressed with the scope of this law, and look forward to being able to provide services to this population right here in Jacksonville, utilizing these funds.

In case you have not heard about the law, here’s a great article I found today:

Robert C. Hauhart: Kissing ‘tough’ era goodbye

By BDN Staff
Monday, June 09, 2008 - Bangor Daily News

On April 9, President Bush signed into law the Community Safety Recidivism Reduction or Second Chance Act of 2007, which provides $330 million in federal funding for a broad array of programs intended to assist offenders in returning to the community from prison successfully. Less than a year ago, it appeared that only modest legislative support for its passage existed — including no announced public support from Maine’s congressional delegation. Moreover, few thought the second Bush administration would emerge as a likely supporter of progressive criminal justice legislation. Yet in the last six months, the legislation passed both houses of Congress with overwhelming bipartisan support. The act’s passage may signal the end of the contemporary “get tough” era for our nation’s criminal justice system.

The “get tough” era officially started in 1984 with the federal Sentencing Reform Act, which eliminated federal parole, established “fixed” sentencing, and reduced the amount of “good time” prisoners could accrue toward release through good conduct in prison. The nation — tired of crack cocaine wars and gangs — was entering a period of “compassion fatigue” and getting tough on criminals was all the rage. Many more strict sentencing measures would come next — including the “three strikes” law in Washington state in 1993 (quickly adopted and used more extensively by California and other states), mandatory minimum sentencing, and truth-in-sentencing laws (which typically required offenders to serve 85 percent of their prison sentences rather than the formerly more common two-thirds).

The consequence of these “get tough” measures was predictable and predicted: The U.S. prison population soared over the last 20 years. The U.S. prison and jail population increased from 502,000 in custody in 1980 to more than 2.3 million in custody currently.

In April, the New York Times reported that with 5 percent of the world’s population our nation had achieved the dubious distinction of holding 25 percent of the world’s prisoner population. Maine’s state prisoner population — a small-time player by any standard in the national incarceration sweepstakes — increased by more than two-thirds from the end of 1993 to the present.

These figures, however appalling, don’t actually convey the core of the problem they represent. The fact is that imprisoning so many criminal offenders would not be a completely misguided notion if released prisoners did not return to prison at a 70 percent rate, and if so many prisoners released from our jails and prisons — about 700,000 a year — have so little chance of succeeding in the community. This has made incarceration the ultimate revolving door for decades. The Second Chance Act is an attempt to address these problems.

The act’s disbursements include $115 million in competitive grants to state and local governments in support of comprehensive re-entry programs. An additional $55 million in state and local grants are intended to support studies of best practices for community re-entry and measure effectiveness and success. Other awards support an array of innovative pilot programs directed at niche offender populations, including nonviolent elderly prisoners.

While the scope of the legislation is significant, the range and breadth of the coalition behind it is perhaps more compelling. The House version was introduced by Rep. Danny Davis, D-Ill., and supported by 93 co-sponsors (although none from Maine). The Senate version was introduced by Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., garnered 34 co-sponsors, and passed by unanimous voice consent vote. The final vote for passage in the House was an astounding 347-62 (with 23 members not voting). As Jessica Nickel, director of government affairs for the Council of State Governments is reported to have said earlier this year, “The enthusiasm [for the bill] is just so high. … It has been a true left-right coalition.”

Such an unlikely development may well mark the act’s passage as the beginning of the end for the “get tough” era. Few should mourn its passing.

Robert C. Hauhart, a summer resident of Steuben, is associate professor and chair of the Department of Criminal Justice at Saint Martin’s University in Lacey, Wash. He has taught on campus and online for the University of Maine at Machias.

 

Buyer Beware

I often speak with county managers about how they are planning to provide the health care to their inmates.  I am always surprised when I hear that they plan on outsourcing that function to a private company.  I understand the reason why, it’s a big job, but I can’t believe that they are willing to give up control to a third party.  When I ask them about their reasons for giving up control, they often cite the fact that they believe that by having a private company manage the health care, they will be protected from litigation. 

Big mistake. 

When the litigation does happen, and it will happen, the county will be a party to the suit.  You cannot defer the blame, and save money. 

I have blogged several times about my belief that the best delivery model for cutting costs is the implementation of the community based correctional health care model. In order to reduce liability, you need to be able to quantify the services provided, and the timeliness of those services.  The easiest way to do that is through the use of technology.  Electronic medical records, patient management systems, and reporting tools that document each and every episode of care, along with the outcomes are case-breakers.

Every jail should have these syetems in place to protect themselves from liability, and when used with the community health care model, there is a real cost savings.

For every Sheriff out there that is considering contracting with a private company, here’s a story that you should read:

 

Once-powerful Jenne now plants veggies at jail

BY DAN CHRISTENSEN

dchristensen@MiamiHerald.com

Once Broward’s most powerful politician, ex-Sheriff Ken Jenne now spends his days raising vegetables in the garden of a federal prison camp in rural Virginia.

Jenne, convicted of corruption last fall, talked briefly about his new duties in a three-hour deposition taken six weeks ago in a federal civil rights lawsuit in which he’s a defendant.

His sworn statement, obtained by The Miami Herald, was made public Tuesday.

”I work in what is called the garden planting various vegetables,” Jenne, 61, told Fort Lauderdale lawyer Barbara Heyer.

Heyer represents the family of Dana Clyde Jones, who suffered severe brain injuries while incarcerated at the Broward County Jail on Dec. 16, 2005. The family, alleging negligence and cover-up, is suing the Broward Sheriff’s Office, the county, jail healthcare provider Armor Correctional Health Services — and Jenne personally.

The former sheriff, dressed in a green shirt and pants and work boots, was questioned in a large visitor’s room at the minimum-security prison camp that’s part of Lee Penitentiary.

”I was really wondering what he was going to look like,” said Fort Lauderdale attorney Dan Losey, who represents Armor. “My first impression when I saw him was that he has lost a little weight and that he looked good. He looked fit, and he was tanned.”

Jenne, sentenced to a year and a day in prison on Nov. 16, has a projected release date of Sept. 29. He thinks he’ll get out earlier, though, telling visitors he’s eligible for placement in a South Florida halfway house in August, Losey said.

Before his downfall, Jenne, a career politician who once aspired to become governor, forged a reputation as a leader on top of every facet of the sheriff’s sprawling law enforcement and jail system.

But in the 114-page deposition transcript, which focused on his management of the jail, Jenne comes off as much less than the hands-on sheriff he portrayed.

Heyer began by asking Jenne about his current job as inmate No. 77434-004.

”Your duties in the garden, is that an all day affair?” said Heyer.

”Yes, from 7:30 on,” Jenne replied.

A lawyer for the Broward Sheriff’s Office blocked Heyer from questioning Jenne about his personal finances — including whether he’d done any moonlighting beyond the private consulting work that got him in trouble with the FBI.

”Did you have any other outside business interests?” said Heyer.

”Don’t answer that,” attorney Gregg Toomey instructed Jenne. “That’s harassing.”

Still, Jenne said enough about his private consulting business to cause Broward Circuit Judge Patti Englander Henning to remove herself last month from presiding over yet another civil rights case against the sheriff’s office brought by freed prisoner Jerry Frank Townsend.

Jenne disclosed that he’d employed the judge’s brother-in-law, BSO Maj. John Carroll.

Heyer also asked Jenne about the case of client Dana Jones, a mentally ill inmate found lying in a pool of blood next to his temporary bed in a common area of a maximum security unit.

Jones, awaiting trial for allegedly punching his mother in the mouth, spent months in a coma-like state. Today, he’s conscious, but cannot walk or talk and is fed through a tube. His civil rights suit is set for trial in August.

While an inmate later said detention deputies incited other inmates to attack Jones for making a vulgar remark to a female guard, BSO detectives discounted his statement. They say they can’t determine whether Jones was beaten, or slipped and fell.

Jenne testified he wasn’t aware of Jones, but that even if he was, he wouldn’t have felt it necessary to request any documentation about the incident.

Jenne also said he didn’t require his jail commanders to track the number of inmate fights or other serious incidents, including deaths, despite his administration’s use of StarTrac, a statistics-based jail management tool similar to the scandal-plagued PowerTrac crime tracking system.

Jenne appeared to become agitated only once, when he was questioned about his diligence in ensuring that problems at the jail were fixed.

Heyer wanted to know if BSO had resolved ”issues with the computers in the control room being used to play computer games.” That figured prominently in the 1999 death of inmate Peter Cottone — who was strangled with shoelaces by another inmate while a guard played video games.

”Supposed to have been,” Jenne said before acknowledging he didn’t actually know.

Jenne then pointed the finger at BSO jail chief Col. James Wimberly.

”Let me emphasize something, that was Wimberly’s job,” he said. “My job was never to play correctional or detention deputy.”

 

The Second Chance Act, and What it Means for Federal Inmates

Here’s an interesting article from a former federal inmate, Jonathan Richards.  His report about surviving Federal Prison is available at http://www.federal-prison.org/.

Today, Federal Inmates who are released from Bureau of Prisons (BOP) custody receive minimal support from the Federal Government. Apart from a bus ticket, a change of clothes and a token sum of money good for a couple meals, the recently released federal inmate is entirely on his own. For those lucky enough to have the support of family and friends, the process of getting back on one’s feet, while difficult, is manageable. For those who lack this support system, the task of reintegrating into society as a law abiding citizen is one fraught with difficulties.

Many former inmates are released from prison and return to the same environment in which they committed their crime in the first place. They return to their home branded an ex-con or felon and face an uphill battle in their attempt to get back on their feet. Both mental and physical health problems are common as are a lack of education that would qualify them for a quality job. A glaring problem facing many former inmates is the lack of a home. Faced with these hurdles, even the most well intentioned former inmates often find themselves slipping back into a life of crime.

With the complete absence of support given to recently released inmates, it should come as no surprise that within three years of leaving prison, over two thirds of ex-offenders are back in court facing charges for a serious misdemeanor or felony and over one half return to life behind bars.

The Second Chance Act (HR1593) entitled: “To reauthorize the grant program for reentry of offenders into the community in the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, to improve reentry planning and implementation, and for other purposes”, recently signed into law by President Bush attempts to offer the support to former inmates that is so lacking now and to decrease the massive recidivism rate that plagues the justice system today.

The Second Chance Act attempts to help recently released inmates in a number of ways. It authorizes important parts of the Bush Administration’s Prison Re-entry Initiative. The goal of this initiative is to help prisoners by expanding the scope of job training and placement services, providing assistance in finding transitional housing, and assisting newly released prisoners via mentoring, including from faith-based organizations.

The Second Chance Act also provides ex-prisoners with crucial services, like medical care and housing in addition to bolstering the current prisoner drug treatment programs and by offering various counseling programs.

There has been much excitement amongst prisoners and their friends and relatives regarding a provision in the Second Chance Act that would allow for additional time in a half way house. Presently, federal inmates are eligible to serve the final 10% of their sentence in a halfway house, but this is capped at six months. The Second Chance Act does allow for this time to be increased to 12 months. However, the Act leaves the actual implementation of this to the BOP. This means that while the BOP now has the option of granting 12 months halfway house time, they are under no obligation to do so. Because an extension to 12 months requires additional paperwork and approval from not only the prison Warden, but from the BOP Regional Offices, the vast majority of federal inmates will find that the new law will not mean that they will see the other side of the prison walls any time sooner.

Further, it must be understood that the only provision in the Second Chance Act for early release of federal prisoners is the section which has the BOP set up a “pilot program” in a single institution in which non-violent offenders, who are aged 65 or over and who have served a certain percentage of their sentence would be released early. A plethora of conditions have been set for just who will qualify for this pilot program and as of yet, the BOP has not even chosen the institution where the trial will take place. Many federal inmates and their families have gotten the wrong impression about the Second Chance Act, understanding it to mean that it will give them a “second chance” by granting them an earlier release date. This is unfortunately, not the case.

Indeed, the bill that would have granted a genuine second chance to federal inmates is entitled HR 262 and was introduced in January of 2007. It would have provided for a 50% sentence reduction for first time, non-violent offenders over the age of 45. Understandably, this bill has been a beacon of hope for many inmates. But unfortunately, it will die at the end of this term of Congress without ever receiving committee, let alone House, vote.

Assuming the approval of funding, it appears that the Second Chance Act will be of great assistance to those being released from prison who lack the support system so crucial to a successful reintegration into society. However, many are sure to be disappointed that it does not offer a true second chance to those currently incarcerated by reducing the amount of time served.

The Cost of Incarcerating our Citizens is Bankrupting our Country

Every day there is story after story on how states are battling with the increased costs of housing inmates.  I’ve blogged several times on the same subject.  Getting tough on crime in the 80’s is affecting our economy today.  It’s time we got real about crime and punishment.  We can no longer afford to lock up our citizens at a rate of 1 out of every 100.

Here’s a story from Georgia, not New York, California, or Florida….

Cost of prisons keeps climbing

Georgia’s Department of Corrections is once again budgeted to receive more than $1 billion.

By Jake Armstrong| Morris News Service

Sunday, May 11, 2008

ATLANTA — The $21 billion budget awaiting Gov. Sonny Perdue’s signature devotes $1.2 billion to the state’s prison system.

If signed as is, 2009 will mark the third consecutive year taxpayers have footed a billion-dollar bill to fund the Georgia Department of Corrections, now the fifth-largest prison system in the nation with nearly 60,000 inmates and more than 140,000 probationers.

Prison costs in the state show few signs of slowing, observers say, increasing the likelihood that prisons will soon face increasing competition for state funding alongside education, transportation and social services.

The Georgia Budget and Policy Institute predicts offenders sentenced between now and 2015 might add about $10.8 billion in capital and operating costs to the prison system’s budget in that time. That would push the prison budget past the $9.8 billion the state currently spends on education.

While the rising costs have forced new approaches to the way the state punishes and rehabilitates inmates, corrections officials face the task of juggling the financial effects of longer sentences with the graying of the prison population, both of which push expenditures higher.

The advent of mandatory minimum sentences, an accompanying “two strikes and you’re out” policy and more stringent parole guidelines enacted since the mid-1990s have created a surge in the state’s prison population, with more people being put behind bars and remaining there longer.

The effect is that for every 18,000 prisoners headed out of prison each year, 20,000 take their place, said Paul Czachowski, the spokesman for the Department of Corrections. The population behind bars is forecast to continue that trend, he said.

Increases in the number of inmates put direct pressure on the cost of housing them.

State prisons have expanded capacity by more than 150 percent since 1990, according to the Department of Corrections.

One of the ways to diminish the prison population is to decrease recidivism.

In the past five years, an emerging trend is a push to prepare prisoners better for returning to society through job training and education.

“The old days of locking people up and throwing away the key just doesn’t work,” Mr. Czachowski said.

A new response to the prisoner increase is pre-release centers, where 200 select inmates serve out the final two to five years of their terms working 10 hours a day and attending classes to obtain general equivalency diplomas, Mr. Czachowski said. More room for more dangerous inmates is the result.

The prison system is also growing upwards — the department is in progress with plans to add a third bunk to 1,000 beds.

 

An Argument for Medicare Based Contracting

 I have written before about the effectiveness of Medicare based contracting in saving money for a correctional facility.  The following story is a prime example of how one catastrophic case can wipe out the entire year’s health care budget.

If this facility had such a contract in place, the most that would have been spent was $35,000-$40, 000. 

This episode shows why a discount off of billed charges contract is not effective.  Sure, It’s easier to figure out the reimbursement than a Medicare contract is, but in the long run, you will end up spending way more than you need to.   

Prisoner’s suicide attempt breaks budget

By Richard Gazarik
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Tuesday, March 4, 2008

It will cost Westmoreland County taxpayers more than $400,000 to pay for the medical treatment of a convicted heroin dealer who tried to commit suicide at the county prison last summer.

Warden John Walton on Monday told the prison board the medical bills to treat George R. Richardsen, 23, of Brackenridge, Allegheny County, are $420,000.  The money includes a helicopter flight to Pittsburgh for treatment and an eight-day stay in the intensive care unit of UPMC Presbyterian in Oakland.

Under terms of a contract with Naphcare Inc. of Birmingham, Ala., the county’s medical provider, the prison advances the company $250,000 to pay for health care beyond the basic coverage the jail is required to provide for inmates. That money will be applied toward the Richardsen bill, and the county will have to pay the balance.  

“That blows the whole budget,” Walton said. “We could get wiped out with one big incident every year.”

He said that under state law, counties are required to provide “basic medical coverage” to prisoners in county lockups. When inmates first come to the jail, they usually are covered by Medical Assistance.

He said “99.9 percent” of the inmates lose their coverage once they’re incarcerated, and the responsibility for their care falls on the county.

“There’s nothing you can do about it,” Walton said. “You can’t parole them once treatment is started. We’re stuck. It can happen any time.”

Walton questioned why the county should have to bear the financial burden since Richardsen’s injuries were self-inflicted.

Commissioner Kim Ward said such incidents force the county to budget more money in the future to cover health care.

“He was stupid and we have to pay for it,” she said.

Richardsen, who is lodged in the state prison at Camp Hill, was sentenced in November in Westmoreland County to nine to 18 months in prison after he pleaded guilty to gun, drug, assault and conspiracy charges.

After police issued a bench warrant for his arrest in August, he surrendered and police found 150 bags of heroin on him.

After he was taken to the jail, he was in a unit for newly arrived prisoners when he jumped from a second-tier cell block to the concrete floor 20 feet below. He suffered serious head and neck injuries.

Richardsen faces a nonjury trial March 11 in Allegheny County on drug charges.