|
Ohio Justice Alliance for Community Corrections
Ohio Senate Ohio Senate Judiciary Committee
Testimony on Senate Bill 208 January 23, 2008
Ohio Justice Alliance for Community Corrections
To: Ohio Senate, Senate Judiciary Committee
From: ---------------- OJACC
Date: January 23, 2008
Subject: Testimony on Senate Bill 208
Introduction
Chairman Grendell and members of the Ohio Senate Judiciary Committee, I am --------------- and I thank you for the chance to speak with you today. I am here both as the ------------ of the Ohio Justice Alliance for Community Corrections (OJACC), and as a practitioner in the field of community corrections for the past ?? years. I will discuss several concerning factors relative to Senate Bill 208 as it is proposed and written.
What is OJACC?
OJACC is a nonprofit coalition of local elected officials and correctional providers working together to develop, improve, expand, and promote adult and juvenile community corrections. We are an umbrella organization bringing together judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, pretrial/probation officers, law enforcement, corrections officials, community corrections and treatment professionals to work toward the common goal of community interventions for offenders.
Dramatic Rise in Ohio’s Prison Population
Ohio’s prison population has increased dramatically over the last few decades with no relief in sight. In 1984, the Ohio prison population was 18,479. According to recent testimony by Director Collins before the Senate Judiciary-Criminal Justice Committee, the Ohio prison population is currently at 49,034 inmates, an increase of 265% from 1984. And, according to a recently released PEW Charitable Trust study, the growth trend will significantly continue. Our inmate population is expected to grow from 49,889 inmates today, to 53,163 inmates by the end of FY 2009. By the year 2016, our inmate population is expected to grow to 64,970 inmates – an additional 76% increase from today’s population. In regards to costs, using the FY06 cost per F3, F4, F5 Inmate; by FY 2010 we could be paying $107,180,582 (*) more than we paid in FY06 and, by 2016 we could be paying $413,666, 688 (**) more than we paid in FY 06. These figures do not take into consideration future inflation or capital costs such as renovations of facilities, expansion of facilities or the cost to construct new facilities.
In that Senate Bill 208 proposes to double the mandatory minimum sentences and, more importantly, creates a presumption for the maximum sentence, the effects to our state could be catastrophic. In an era of financial uncertainty for the State of Ohio, on an economic standpoint alone this Senate Bill as proposed could result in a fiscal crisis that would make the projections of the PEW Charitable Trust study pale in comparison.
Beyond a fiscal impact, there are many other issues that should be concerning to the legislature as well. The issue of drug usage is an unfortunate social ill that has greatly impacted the occupancy levels of all state prisons and county jails. If Senate Bill 208 should pass there is an inherent assumption that an incapacitation approach to justice will eliminate any attempts to correct and rehabilitate this social ill. Research has shown that treatment, not mere confinement, is needed to effectively address this issue for long-term behavioral change, which leads to public safety. This is also a much less costly approach.
In addition, judicial discretion currently allows courts to weigh critical facts in determining the appropriate level of prison or community control sanctions. As stated in the Legislative Service Commissions Senate Bill 208 summary, the Ohio Supreme Court case State v. Foster (2006), 109 Ohio St.3d 1 clearly diminished the role of presumptive sentencing as created in Senate Bill 2 of 1996. Given this ruling by the Ohio Supreme Court, one could assume that there is not a need to deal with the presumptive issue in general. It could further be assumed that the presumption of the maximum sentence, as recommended in Senate Bill 208, would not have any more validity than the presumption for the minimum sentence ranges for low-level non-violent offenders.
Lastly, the issue that harsher sentences would serve as some form of a deterrent for criminal mischief has been proven inaccurate, as demonstrated by California’s dilemma below.
California’s Predicament
In order to get a true depiction of what will occur if Senate Bill 208 passes as proposed, we can look to the lessons learned in the State of California when they enacted similar legislation. There has been little impact on the reduction in crime and the prison system has become unwieldy in financial costs, which, as recent as January 2008, has resulted in a need to emergency release 28,000 offenders over the next two years. Prior to California enacting their three strikes legislation, their population was 119,951 in 1993. Today the population is 170,063, an increase of 50,112 inmates.
To further examine the lessons to be learned from California, special attention should be given to a 2001 Report by The Sentencing Project. In this report, many myths were discussed relative to the advent and initial goals of enacting 2nd and 3rd Strike Legislation. First was a myth that such a passage would reduce the crime rate. In reality, between 1994 and 2001 California’s crime did drop modestly, but criminologist attributed this to a continuing trend that was “unrelated to law and was not statistically significant”. Second was a myth that the voters wanted two and three strikes legislation to stop violent offenders from committing felonies and to incapacitate offenders for 25 years to life sentence. In reality, 57.9% of third strike cases were for non-violent offenses; and although 93% of California’s survey wanted mandatory sentences, only 13% supported three strikes legislation for less serious crimes.
Third, initially legislators indicated that two and three strikes legislation would not be disproportionate punishment. In reality, because 57.9% of third strike offenders were serving the mandatory minimums for low level non-violent crimes, this has not preserved the initial goals. Fourth, initially it was expected that this legislation would have had a deterrent effect on crime. In reality, in a study conducted in Los Angeles, San Diego and San Francisco between 1993 to 1995 only 10.6% of new crimes were committed by second and third strike offenders. Therefore, even if the policy was working at the most optimal level, the earlier predicted massive deterrent effect did not occur.
Finally, the three strikes legislation in California was predicted to save the state over 3.78 billion dollars within the first two years of implementation. In reality, due to an aging offender population and longer average lengths of stay, The Sentencing Project in 2001 stated, “it becomes apparent that we may be incarcerating ourselves into an epidemic”. At the current expected growth rate reported by the California Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, by the year 2013 they expect a total population of 191,886; which is 21,823 more inmates then they have today. Just recently, Governor Schwarzenegger has declared a fiscal emergency for the State of California and has indicated a plan to release more than 28,000 non-violent inmates over the next two years.
National Statistics
In December 2007, the United States Bureau of Justice Statistics released the number of Americans under supervision or in custody in jails and prisons. They found that one in every 31 adults in the United States was either under supervision, in prison or jail in 2006. The question we must confront both nationally and in Ohio, is: Do we want to imprison our nonviolent offenders, creating further barriers to success upon their release to society, or do we want to deal with these nonviolent offenders in the community in order to create long term behavior change and make our society safer?
Community Corrections Act
In the early 1980’s, the Community Corrections Act provided state funding to encourage communities to place adult offenders in community programs. These programs reduced state costs, reduced recidivism, and reduced the costly housing of offenders in state prisons and county jails. Since the passage of this initiative, community correctional programs for adult offenders have been created covering almost every county in Ohio. These programs enable officials to effectively supervise offenders in their local community. Many of these cost effective programs are now an integral part of ensuring our communities are protected. Without the foresight of our leaders in the 1980’s, one can only guess the number of inmates today and the capital and operating costs it would take to house them in prisons.
Treatment and Research
Treatment is an essential component to effective supervision of offenders. It allows for positive, long term, behavioral change, thereby decreasing recidivism and improving public safety. Through the leadership of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, the University of Cincinnati has conducted extensive research on the effectiveness of halfway houses; community-based correctional facilities, and community corrections act programs. This study identified the key components of programs successful in reducing recidivism, which has given providers a blueprint to improve the effectiveness of their programs.
Mandatory maximum sentences will diminish the role and need for treatment and our sentencing philosophy in Ohio will revert back to an era where punishment is an over riding and primary objective, as opposed to rehabilitation which leads to long term behavioral change.
Future Directions
The Ohio Justice Alliance for Community Corrections is convinced that an increased investment in community corrections contains costs, saves future tax dollars, improves public safety, and saves untold human potential. Due to the leadership of our state, Ohio has one of the most highly regarded community correctional systems in the country. If Senate Bill 208 passes, there exists great concern that we will see the dismantling of a system that is revered as one of the best in the United States.
The cost of providing adult correctional services in Ohio has increased dramatically in the past twenty years. Local community corrections services subsidized by the Departments of Rehabilitation and Correction are critical to ensuring public safety in Ohio.
We would recommend the following next steps as Senate Bill 208 is considered:
· With assistance from ODRC, complete a study to review how such new sentencing practices will impact the number of offenders to include any projected new prison capital costs and what the increase in the state’s prison operational cost would be in the next 5, 10, 15, 20 and 30 years from now.
· Create a commission to review research on what sentencing policies would have the greatest impact to public safety in the end.
In conclusion, we have an opportunity today to learn from the mistakes of California and other legislation similar to what is proposed via SB 208. We have an opportunity to preserve a system in Ohio that is not only working, but has made us a model for the nation. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I’ll be happy to address any questions you may have.
References:
(*) FY 2010 additional 4,129 inmates verses today’s population multiplied by the average FY 05 costs for F3, F4, F5 of $25,958 equals an additional costs not counting capital or inflation of $107,180,582. (ODRC / OJACC Fact Sheet November 2006)
(**) FY 2016 additional 15,936 inmates verses today’s population multiplied by the average FY 05 costs for F3, F4, F5 of $25,958 equals and additional cost not counting capital or inflation of $413,666,688. (ODRC / OJACC Fact /Sheet November 2006).
(***) ODRC / OJACC Fact Sheet November 2006 (see attached)
|
|