Katrina Currie: Let’s finish the job of reforming Pennsylvania’s corrections policies |
Featured Commentary

Katrina Currie: Let’s finish the job of reforming Pennsylvania’s corrections policies

300 dpi Rick Nease color illustration of prisoners behind bars layered with hundred-dollar bills. Detroit Free Press 2007>p< jail, jail costs illustration american prison system prisoners money krtjustice justice, prison 02000000, CLJ, krtcrime crime, 02005000, CRI, krtnational national, krt, mctillustration de contributor coddington nease mct mct2007, 2007, krt2007, de contributed

Pennsylvania is on the verge of landmark legislation to replace decades of ineffective and expensive corrections policies with reforms that make our communities safer and save taxpayers money.

Gov. Tom Corbett recently signed Senate Bill 100 — now Act 122 of 2012 — which will save millions in our criminal justice system through commonsense reforms. However, a separate component, House Bill 135, which reinvests a portion of these savings, needs to accompany the reforms.

Without the complete package, legislators will just be firing arrows without powerful policy arrowheads which will result in these efforts falling painfully short of the reform target.

Nearly 90 percent of offenders who are committed to state prison eventually return to communities. Unfortunately, nearly half of these released inmates will return to prison within three years. We must and can stop this cycle.

To address this issue, national corrections reform experts and state shareholders came together to form a working group — the Justice Reinvestment Initiative — which generated broad bipartisan support for a reform package that would make the corrections system more efficient by improving the parole process and keeping low-risk cases out of prison in favor of less expensive and more effective sentencing.

On top of saving taxpayer dollars, these measures would improve public safety by reducing the number of offenders who return to prison. Moreover, by reinvesting a portion of that savings back into the system, Pennsylvania can bolster county corrections, law enforcement and parole supervision.

To understand the importance of these reforms, consider the case of a former prisoner we’ll call Max.

Max was paroled in July of 2011 after serving a year in prison. But he was placed on a waiting list because there was no room in a substance-abuse program and remained in prison an additional three months. This delay cost taxpayers an extra $1,900. Unfortunately, there are hundreds of cases like Max’s.

As part of a broad coalition of organizations supporting corrections reform that would lower costs to taxpayers and reduce crime, the Commonwealth Foundation supported Act 122, which includes part of the working group’s recommendations.

Act 122 initiates smarter sentencing and parole practices that will save the commonwealth more than $1 million in fiscal year 2012-13 with substantial savings in subsequent years. It also establishes a comprehensive program to reduce recidivism and ensure offenders are better equipped to return to their communities.

But notably, the Justice Reinvestment recommendations were split into two separate pieces of legislation, with only the policy changes included in Act 122. The second half of the recommendations are intended to be included in House Bill 135, which is currently in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

This legislation will reinvest a portion of the savings into effective corrections-related programs and to counties to help reduce Pennsylvania’s prison population.

One of the recommendations would provide funding to counties to keep nonviolent offenders with short minimum sentences in local jails, which cost taxpayers less, instead of state prisons. Without HB 135, there’s no funding to do this.

Additionally, HB 135 funds evidence-based probation supervision practices, such as programs modeled after Hawaii’s Opportunity Probation with Enforcement (HOPE). This innovative probation program provides swift, predictable sanctions on probation violators. It reduced positive drug tests in Hawaii by more than 70 percent and cut new arrests in half.

Without the funding under HB 135, few counties are likely to utilize HOPE courts.

As a package, these reforms would save taxpayers $253 million within five years. Failing to pass the companion piece limits Act 122’s effectiveness and delays significant savings.

States such as New York and Texas have embraced similar policy changes, significantly reducing both their crime and imprisonment rates over the past decade. These states demonstrate that corrections reform can improve public safety while saving tax dollars.

Reforming our state corrections system is not being soft on crime — it is being smart on crime. To achieve transformative corrections reform, lawmakers should finish this critical legislative package and build on the historic achievements they’ve already made.

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.