You may have seen a lot of news lately about the rising cost of Alaska's corrections system. We have to face the facts: Prisons are incredibly expensive -- regardless of where or how they are built. It's time for us to start focusing on why we have had to build a new prison in the first place.
Alaska is not alone in its prison-cost woes. When Texas Republican Representative Jerry Madden was appointed chair of the Texas Department of Corrections budget committee, the very conservative Speaker of the Texas House sat him down and said: "Don't build new prisons, they cost too much." Those eight words shaped Madden's work on the Texas corrections budget. At the Smart Justice Summit I hosted in early October, Representative Madden told the bipartisan panel that since he heard those eight words, Texas hasn't built any new prisons. If a tough-on-crime state like Texas can stop spiraling prison costs, I believe Alaska can too.
The high cost of building prisons is just the tip of the iceberg. Alaska's yearly operating expense for the prison system tops $283 million, up from $210 million just three years ago -- an 11-percent increase annually -- driven primarily by the high rate at which ex-offenders return to prison after release. The Alaska Department of Corrections reports that 66 percent of all criminals go back to prison after release, but only a small percentage are going back for new crimes. Most return for violations of their probation or parole, and substance abuse is the overwhelming cause of those violations.
In 2008 Texas faced a similar story: skyrocketing costs due to re-incarceration after release related to substance abuse and technical violations. Texas tackled this problem head-on, using data-driven cost-benefit analysis from sound business planning. Texas deployed taxpayer dollars on only the most cost-effective and proven strategies for reducing the rate at which ex-criminals reoffend and return to prison.
Texas invested heavily on new infrastructure, both in-prison and out, that would facilitate substance abuse treatment programs, including 800 new beds in a residential treatment program for low-level offenders on mandatory supervision with substance abuse problems, 500 new beds for an in-prison treatment unit targeting people with DUI offenses, and 1,500 new beds for an in-prison intensive substance abuse treatment program.
Texas also made a substantial increase in substance abuse treatment programs including outpatient substance abuse treatment for 3,000 criminals on mandatory supervision and intensive substance abuse treatment for an additional 1,200 prisoners in custody.
Texas broke the cycle of re-offense after release by focusing on probationers. The state built 1,400 new beds in sanction facilities that would divert probation and parole technical violators from expensive prison beds and 300 new beds in halfway house facilities for people under mandatory supervision. Further, new state regulations required the application of swift and certain sanctions to probation violators and capped the total number of probationers assigned to each probation officer.
At the same time, Texas refused to be "soft-on-crime," but it did establish a number of diversion programs such as drug courts and other specialty courts to order low-level offenders into treatment programs rather than sending them to costly prison beds.
Texas spent a lot of money on all these new programs -- $241 million to be exact. But Texas saved $441 million in prison costs as a result. These smart-on-crime strategies actually saved Texas taxpayers $200 million.
Admittedly, Texas is very different from Alaska. Given our large geographic size and our scattered and diffuse population, Alaska faces unique correctional challenges. Fortunately, the residential treatment programs and diversion strategies employed by Texas are very well suited to the remoteness and isolation of Alaska's communities. Recent research shows higher rates of successful reentry into society when offenders are rehabilitated near their home communities. An expansion of localized residential treatment and mandatory supervision in rural communities could reduce correctional costs while improving rehabilitative outcomes.
Alaska is already building on one of its successes. The Probationer Accountability with Certain Enforcement (or PACE) program demonstrated such high success in an Anchorage pilot to merit expansion to Fairbanks, and an expansion to other communities is under consideration. Akin to the Texas measures, PACE keeps high-risk probationers on a short leash, informing them of the consequences of violating the terms of their parole. That awareness lowers the rate at which parolees reoffend and return to prison. Electronic monitoring programs have also proved effective at reducing costs while improving offender reintegration into society, and there are plans for Alaska's program to grow.
This summer's opening of the new Goose Creek Correctional Complex also puts Alaska one step ahead. This state-of-the-art facility boasts a large number of classrooms and an innovative cell-block layout that will support in-prison rehabilitation programs, effectively paving the way for us to implement rehabilitative programs once we commit to a reinvestment strategy.
Alaska doesn't have to translate the Texas example all on its own. During the Smart Justice Summit in October, my colleagues and I learned that the Council of State Governments (CSG) administers a Justice Reinvestment Program that helps states do what Texas has done. This group can help analyze the unique crime and correctional profile of Alaska and then help to shape a reinvestment strategy custom-tailored to Alaska's unique challenges.
To quote one of my colleagues, "Where do we sign up?" Engaging with CSG will require that the House, Senate, governor, and court system come to common agreement that justice reinvestment is a priority in Alaska. By opting into the reinvestment program, Alaska would join sixteen other tough-on-crime and fiscally conservative states including Arizona, Kansas, Oklahoma, and North Carolina.
I remain optimistic that Alaska's three branches of government can come together to do the right thing. If we don't, the Department of Corrections estimates we'll need a new prison by 2017. Every dollar we spend on prisons is a dollar we can't spend on teachers, troopers, and senior centers. Remember what the conservative Speaker of the Texas House said to Representative Madden: "Don't build new prisons, they cost too much." I agree. It's time we work together, get smart on crime, and bend the corrections cost curve.
Senator Johnny Ellis represents downtown and midtown Anchorage. He chairs the Senate Rules Committee, serves on the Senate Finance Committee, and chairs the Senate Finance Subcommittee on Corrections.
The views expressed here are the writer's own and are not necessarily endorsed by Alaska Dispatch. Alaska Dispatch welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, e-mail commentary(at)alaskadispatch.com.