Email this page

Alternative Budget Suggestions for the State of Arizona Relative to Criminal Justice

Introduction:

Recently, Arizona Department of Corrections (ADC) Director Terry Stewart has appeared in print, radio, and television media pleading his case with the people of Arizona. He is concerned about the impact of state budget cuts on the Department of Corrections. The Department faces cuts in services and staff layoffs, as do many other state agencies. This document is intended to answer Mr. Stewarts concerns. The measures contained herein would significantly decrease the costs associated with corrections in the state of Arizona. Mr. Stewart does not have the power to enact most of the changes suggested here. We hope that the Arizona State Legislature will see the utility of the suggested changes and that the public will support our representatives in enacting policies that are smart on crime, save taxpayers money, and reduce the recidivism rate.

We wish to make it clear that we are not trained statisticians. We have researched these issues to the best of our abilities and have drawn common sense conclusions from the data to which we have access. The results were not meant to be exhaustive; instead they offer general indications of potential savings. We also realize that there would be some overlap among the different populations studied; for example, many drug offenders are non-violent and were convicted under mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines. We recognize that state budgets are intricate and complex undertakings. This document represents our effort to ask questions and make suggestions regarding the potential for these reforms to positively impact the state of Arizona. In several cases, we discovered that the state does not keep statistics on the issues or populations in question, so we opted to extrapolate from federal figures. We hope that the experts in state government will take the lead in further researching these suggestions and computing the exact cost savings possible with each.

Background:

The 1990's were a time of unprecedented growth for correctional systems across the country. As inmate populations soared, the costs associated with housing them rose as well. In the early 1970's the inmate population of Arizona was around 2,000 inmates. At the end of 2000, that number had grown to 26,747. This represents a per-capita increase of 464%. It is now estimated that there are 28,000 people in the Arizona Corrections system. The budget of the Arizona Department of Corrections (ADC) grew as well, swelling 132% from 1992 to 2002. It is estimated that one out of every 14 general fund dollars spent in the US in 2000 was spent on prisons¹. In 2000, the Arizona Department of Corrections absorbed almost 10% of Arizona's General Fund dollars.²

The expansion of the prison system across the country has been fueled by the incarceration of non-violent offenders. The percentage of non-violent offenders held in state prisons grew 82% between 1980 and 1997. Unfortunately, we were told that statistics from the 1970's were unavailable. The latest figures indicate that 57% of Arizona's inmates are non-violent offenders. In 2000, a full 34.6% of Arizona prisoners were first-time, non-violent offenders. The numbers are even more staggering when gender is factored in: 32.8% of males and an astounding 56.9% of females were incarcerated for a first-time, non-violent offense³. Nationwide, non-violent offenders accounted for 77% of the growth in intake to state and federal prisons between 1978 and 1996⁴.

The engine behind the commitment of so many non-violent offenders was the mandatory sentencing reforms of the 1990's. California's infamous "Three Strikes and You're Out" law was just one example of a nationwide rash of sentencing policies that mandated longer terms for lower-level drug offenses. These policies took away the discretion in sentencing from judges and delivered it to prosecutors. If convicted, an individual was required to serve a set sentence, without regard for mitigating factors. It also increased the penalties for many offenses-essentially making certain crimes "more illegal" than they once were.

A February 2002 report by the Justice Policy Institute (JPI), a policy development and research body affiliated with the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, outlines a series of issues that policy makers can consider as they make budget decisions⁵. We at the American Friends Service Committee feel that these guidelines are an excellent tool and that it behooves us to examine them in light of our current situation. Accordingly, we have outlined them here, along with relevant information and statistics regarding the specific factors at play here in Arizona. We are also noting, where appropriate, the projected savings that such measures might mean for the Arizona budget.

In most examples, we have simply calculated the potential number of people diverted from the prison system and multiplied that number by $22,000, the cost of imprisoning one person for one year⁶. With this basic formula, we can project a rough estimate of the potential cost savings of the suggested measure.

Cost-Cutting Measures for Criminal Justice Systems:

A. Reform Mandatory Minimum sentencing laws
As discussed above, these sentencing laws are the driving force behind the exponential growth of the prison system and largely affect non-violent drug offenders, many of them women. Many states have already enacted reforms to these laws and others are considering such changes in light of budget cutbacks. Such reforms can literally save millions of dollars, as in the case of Louisiana, where a recent bill to eliminate mandatory minimums for non-violent crimes is expected to save the state about $60 million. This legislation will reduce sentences for some drug and non-violent offenses and eliminate mandatory minimums for non-violent crimes. It also amends Louisiana's three strikes law to require that all three "strikes" be for violent or serious offenses⁷.

Unfortunately, we were unable to find any statistics kept on the number of people in Arizona who were imprisoned under mandatory sentencing laws. It is uncertain whether the State of Arizona is tracking these cases or looking at statistical trends related to their use. Therefore, we must make some educated projections. Given that the majority of mandatory minimums are applied to drug offenses, if we assume (conservatively) that just half of the inmates doing time in Arizona for drug offenses in 2000 were convicted under mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines, that would be 2,670, or roughly 10% of the total prison population. If these individuals, all of them non-violent offenders, were instead diverted into intensive outpatient drug treatment programs (at a cost of $2,500 per person per year) the savings would be tremendous:

Under the current system:
2,670 X $22,000 (per year for incarceration) = $58,740,000

In intensive treatment
2,670 X $2,500 (per year for treatment) = $6,675,000

Savings to the state: $52,065,000

B. Nonviolent prisoners and Special Populations
As we have shown, there are large numbers of people serving time in Arizona's prisons for non-violent and first-time offenses. In Arizona, this represents approximately 16,000 individuals. In addition, there are specific populations that pose little risk to the public and cost the state enormous amounts of money to house and care for, such as elderly prisoners, chronically ill or dying prisoners, and women.

Women are still the fastest growing inmate population nationwide, and 70% of the women held in state prisons are there for non-violent crimes. In Arizona, 77% of female inmates are non-violent offenders. As reported earlier, in 2000, 57% were also first-time offenders. A full 40% of women were incarcerated on drug and alcohol offenses (possession, drug dealing, and DUI)⁸. Almost all women prisoners are classified by the prison system as low-risk. The costs associated with incarcerating women are considerable. They often require more extensive health care services. In addition, 69.4% of Arizona's women prisoners have children, and many of these are thrown into the child welfare system when their mothers are imprisoned. The costs, both financial and societal, associated with placing high numbers of children in foster care are sobering. In addition, research has shown that children of incarcerated parents are at high risk for becoming incarcerated themselves⁹. In effect, in continuing to rely on incarceration for these women, we are ensuring increased prison costs down the road.

At the same time, there are numerous examples of diversion programs for non-violent women offenders, particularly those who are pregnant or have young children. These programs combine treatment, education, parenting assistance, job training, and other social services in order to offer the women alternatives to criminal behavior. Such programs can be run by independent non-profit organizations which cost the state little to nothing to run.

In Arizona, only 512 of the state's 2,195 women prisoners were convicted of violent offenses. That leaves 1,683 non-violent women inmates. If just half of these could be diverted into an intensive community treatment program, the costs to the state would decrease significantly.

1,683 X $22,000 = $37,026,000

1,683 X $8,500 (cost of intensive outpatient treatment and intensive supervision) = $14,305,500

Savings to the state: $22,720,500

Elderly prisoners represent another population that poses little risk to the public, yet costs a great deal to incarcerate. About five percent of Arizona's current prisoners are over 55 years old. Within a decade, due to longer sentences, 20% of American inmates will be over 55, and that number will rise to 30% by the year 2030. Due to higher health care costs, these inmates cost three times more to incarcerate than younger prisoners. Arizona's Truth in Sentencing laws and the abolishment of parole in the state will ensure that more and more people will be growing old behind bars. The state of Virginia has passed legislation allowing early release of inmates over the age of 65 who have served a minimum of five years or those over 60 who have served at least 10 years.

1,282 elderly Arizona prisoners X $66,000 per inmate per year = $84,612,000

Similarly, Texas has passed a bill to ease overcrowding by allowing supervised release for chronically ill prisoners to more appropriate facilities. The cost of care for chronically and terminally ill inmates is staggering, and there can be little doubt that such individuals pose a negligible risk to public safety.

Unfortunately, we were told that the Arizona Department of Corrections does not keep any centralized statistics on the number of inmates requiring health care for chronic or terminal illnesses. Therefore, we must turn again to national statistics for some indication of the potential impacts on Arizona. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics' Special Report, "Medical Problems of Inmates, 1997," 1.1% of state inmates had heart problems, .2% cancer, .9% diabetes, 1.7% AIDS, .9% kidney/liver problems, 1.4% respiratory problems, and .7% neurological problems¹⁰. This adds up to a total of 6.9% of state inmates across the country with what can reasonably be termed chronic illnesses. When applied to the Arizona population, this would represent about 1,932 inmates.

1,932 X $22,000 = $42,504,000

Total savings to the state (all three proposals): $149,836,500

C. Drug Policy Reform
Here in Arizona, we have already enacted some limited programs to ease the burden of low-level drug offenders on the system. Arizona voters passed Proposition 200, which diverts drug offenders into treatment rather than prison. A recent report by the state Supreme Court shows that the program has high success rates, with 62% of participants successfully completing the program requirements. This program saved the state seven million dollars in fiscal year 1999.

It is estimated that a full 85% of all inmates' offenses were "drug related" in some way. In other words, even if the person was not convicted for having or selling drugs, it is likely that he or she committed the crime either in an effort to obtain drugs (theft, burglary) or while under the influence of drugs. Drug dependency is a health condition. If drug abuse were properly addressed, the root cause of a large percentage of crime in America could be eliminated. A study conducted by the National Committee on Community Corrections, a Washington, D.C.-based research and advocacy group, showed that intensive drug treatment costs only $2,500 per person per year¹¹. Intensive supervision for offenders costs about $6,000 per person annually. What's more, these programs are more successful than incarceration at preventing future crime. Properly designed, well-run treatment programs that combine treatment, supervision, and needed services such as education and job training had a recidivism rate 20% lower than programs that did not provide these services¹². This saves the state even more money in the long term by preventing crime and therefore reducing future prison populations.

Were Arizona to pass a similar law, and if just half of the non-violent offenders in the Arizona Department of Corrections were paroled under this program, that would mean about 8,000 fewer inmates. At $22,000 per year per inmate, such a program would save Arizona taxpayers $176,000,000.

8,000 people X $22,000 per inmate per year = $176,000,000

8,000 X $8,500 (combined treatment and supervision) = $68,000,000

Savings to the state: $108,000,000

D. Comprehensive sentencing reform
According to the Justice Policy Institutes' report, sentencing guidelines lower the rates of prison admissions and incarceration in states where such guidelines are designed to utilize correctional resources effectively. A study by the Vera Institute of Justice showed that these guidelines lower state incarceration rates by 72 per 100,000 residents¹³.

Senate Bill 1387, which has been introduced in the Arizona State legislature, would establish a Sentencing Commission to review the state's existing sentencing structure, laws, policies, and practices and recommend to the state Supreme Court and Legislature any changes regarding the criminal code, rules of criminal procedure, and other appropriate policies and procedures.

Given the Vera Institute's calculations, such a bill might save the state of Arizona a considerable sum. According to the 2000 US Census, the population of Arizona was 5,130,632. If the prison population were reduced by 72 per 100,000, that would mean a reduction of 3,694 inmates.

3,694 X $22,000 per inmate per year = $81,268,000

E. Parole Reforms
Unbeknownst to most people, Arizona abolished the institution of parole in 1994 in favor of so-called "Truth in Sentencing" legislation, in which prisoners are required to serve 85% of their sentences. However, research has shown that the public supports prevention and rehabilitation efforts as responses to crime¹⁴. Parole and "good-time" have been shown to be effective ways to control prison population levels.

Like Arizona, the Texas Parole Board was approving fewer and fewer parole requests throughout the 1990's. Confronted with the costs associated with more prison construction, Texas made a conscious decision to use their release powers more effectively by identifying more potential candidates for parole. In addition, parole officers used more alternatives to revocation for minor violations to conditions of parole. The result was a parole revocation rate that went from a monthly average of 1,062 to 781, and a total prison population that was reduced by 7,698.

Conclusion:

Changes come slowly, but as a state we must begin utilizing the research that has been conducted on alternatives to incarceration, not only to help us during these times of fiscal uncertainty, but also to guide us on a more rational budget path for the long-term. Examples have been highlighted in this document that could help the state of Arizona move towards a more equitable criminal justice system while at the same time using far fewer resources.

The Department of Corrections 2001 budget shows a projected budget increase, based on expected inmate population growth, of approximately $11 million for FY 2002 and $20 million for 2003. If these monies were instead invested in sentencing reform and alternatives to costly incarceration for non-violent offenders, the cost savings to the state could be enormous.

Legislators and citizens of Arizona have some tough decisions to make concerning crime, its associated costs, and how to best address it. We can begin making those decisions now based on "best practice" methods, or we can ignore our responsibility and reap the consequences in the future. The choice is up to us.

The American Friends Service Committee is an international non-profit organization that advocates for human rights and social justice the world over. Founded in 1917 by Quaker conscientious objectors to WWI, today the AFSC has programs that focus on issues related to economic justice, peace-building and demilitarization, social justice, and youth, in the United States, and in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East. The Arizona Area program office conducts programs in the areas of non-violent conflict resolution, challenging economic globalization, and criminal justice.