ShareThis Page
Corrections reinvention |

Corrections reinvention

| Tuesday, December 3, 2013 9:00 p.m

State Corrections Secretary John Wetzel deserves credit for his efforts to cut the $34,700 that each of his department’s more than 50,000 inmates costs taxpayers annually.

Mr. Wetzel points out that he at least has “flattened out the growth” in Corrections’ budget. Hopefully, he won’t repeat the sort of mistake he made when his January announcement of prison closings in Hempfield and Cresson blindsided those prisons’ employees and state lawmakers in affected districts, which his spokeswoman says he “deeply regrets.”

Wetzel encourages dealing with addicted nonviolent offenders at the local level and successfully built bipartisan support — despite opposition from the prison guards’ union — for ensuring on-time early releases for eligible nonviolent inmates. That’s helping reduce $4 million in annual costs for housing such inmates longer than necessary — without weakening early-release criteria.

Now, Wetzel is targeting further savings. He’s seeking to reduce recidivism through about 50 innovative Community Corrections Centers — halfway houses run by vendors who pay penalties or earn bonuses, depending on how they perform in preventing rearrests or reincarceration of inmates. That program’s too new to judge its success but holds significant cost-cutting promise.

Wetzel’s new solutions for old problems are what the Commonwealth Foundation’s Matthew Brouillette calls “both tough on crime and smart on crime” — which taxpayers should welcome.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.