Fiscal Impact of the Maryland Budgetary Crisis

Maryland Prison System

Crime is expensive. But so too is punishment. The state of Maryland, like the majority of states across the nation at the moment, is facing a period of slow economic growth and shrinking economic resources even as it continues to have to meet the needs of its citizens. This paper examines the effect on the state's overall budget of the cost of incarcerating prisoners.

The treatment of prisoners causes few legal problems for the government of a dictatorship. A government that refuses to acknowledge the human rights of even its law-abiding citizens is not likely to show too many qualms about shoving its criminals into overcrowded and unsafe prisons - or even to worry about whether the niceties of due process were considered in getting the person to prison to begin with. But the rule of constitutional law changes all that. Because we live in a country in which the rule of law is for the most part respected, the police, the court and prison officials - and the rest of us as well - must recognize prisoners are people who have broken the social contract. But still people like the rest of us. It is from this recognition of our common humanity that the belief in rehabilitation and the rights of prisoners to receive educational, vocational and other rehabilitative services arises.

Money spent on prisons in Maryland cannot be spent on school or parks or firefighters. This is a lesson that should be relatively easy to understand - but if there is a single truth in the state budgeting process - and this is the same regardless of which state is involved - it is that economics and politics are tightly bound to each other. A state budget may be math at the bottom, but it is always much more than math at every other level.

The 2003 fiscal year budget saw significant cuts in a number of state services, including:

6.7 million in cuts to the Maryland State Department of Education.

40 million cut to higher education (which represents a 20% cut to the budget of higher education, which constitutes only 71/2% of the state budget)

84 million to the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene

11.6 million to the Department of Human Resources

9.7 million to community colleges.

A million from the Maryland National Guard (http://www.washtimes.com/metro/20-4325r.htm).

The current budget for corrections in Maryland is over $900 million. It isn't that Maryland is charging

That's the corrections system, with a budget in Maryland of more than $900 million.

Over the past two decades, Maryland's state prison population has risen from 8,000 to 24,000 in 2001. The per capita rate of incarceration in Maryland during that same period grew from 183 to 422 per 100,000 inhabitants. The costs associated with that kind of prison growth are massive. During the 1980s and 1990s, Maryland's per capita state spending on corrections grew by 100%, four times the rate of increase in higher education spending.

The proponents of prison expansion wring their hands when confronted with these numbers and say it is the unavoidable cost we must pay to remain safe in our communities. But nothing could be further from the truth. There are several serious flaws in the view that large prison populations, and their associated costs, are the unavoidable price of safety in a modern society (http://www.cleanteam.info/JJREFORM.HTM).

Methodology: Examining the Scope of the Problem

States, like families, have limited budgets, and money spent on one type of service cannot then also be spent on something else. In Maryland, as in other states, a very high percentage of the state's money goes towards the cost of building prisons and incarcerating prisoners. The primary reason for this upswing in the costs of prison-building and incarceration in Maryland (again as in other states) is the increasing number of people sentenced to prison because of non-violent and often quite minor drug offenses. In order to understand how the state makes a certain monetary commitment to the prison system we have to understand a number of non-purely economic factors.

The current state administration in Maryland has been pushing for reduction in the level of incarceration of non-violent offenders with relatively minor drug charges, but the effects of this push on the criminal justice system (and so on the state's budget) have not as yet been dramatic. The state is still paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to convict and incarcerate people for crimes that most people would consider to be relatively minor.

A report released by the Justice Policy Institute on February 21, 2003, found that capital spending on Maryland prisons would be increasing by $92 million while30 of 54 state agencies are facing budget cuts. The report noted that in the last two decades the state's prison population has tripled - from 7,731 in 1980 to 23,752 at the end of 2001. The report found that 24% of the inmates in Maryland's prisons are drug offenders and that nonviolent offenders are languishing behind bars as the number of prisoners paroled each year has fallen by29%. Racial unfairness in the Maryland justice system was highlighted as 81% of all drug offenders are African-American even though they are only 28% of Maryland's population (http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:5haT4coRUqgJ:www.mdgreens.org/montgomery/pdf/schoolsnotprisons.pdf+maryland+state+budget+prison&hl=en&ie=UTF-8).

The emphasis on incarcerating those who are guilty of drug-related infractions (in comparison, for example, to those who are guilty of highly violent crimes) is striking.

Although the prison population nationally has increased 500% during the past 25 years, since 1980 the number of violent offenders in prisons has doubled, while the number of nonviolent offenders has tripled and the number of drug offenders has increased 11-fold.

According to the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services, the most common offense for which prisoners are incarcerated in Maryland is "drug abuse," which accounts for nearly one in four prisoners (http://www.cleanteam.info/JJREFORM.HTM).

This is reflected in the following graph: (http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/statelocal/md/md.pdf)

Of course, we should note here that drug use is not necessarily trivial and certainly can be dangerous, as the following chart shows. However, the majority of arrests for drug offenses in Maryland involved the possession of small amounts of marijuana, which the state does not record as having caused any deaths during recent years: (http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/statelocal/md/md.pdf)

The overall cost of incarcerating the state's prison population is staggering, with the great majority of the funding for the prison system coming from that state's general budget, in other words, reducing money that could in fact be used on a number of other different types of programs: (http://mlis.state.md.us/2003RS/budget_docs/All/Operating/Q00_-_DPSCS_Overview.pdf)

When these percentages are translated into actual figures, the picture is even more dramatic. These figures make it clear that Maryland, like other states, must seek ways to control prison costs if it is to be able to continue to offer the entire range of services that a state should be able to offer to its residents. (http://mlis.state.md.us/2003RS/budget_docs/All/Operating/Q00_-_DPSCS_Overview.pdf)

The cost for building new prisons and housing more prisoners is only likely to go up in Maryland given that the number of arrests are continuing to climb each year. Although the rate of violent crimes is falling, the number of arrests and prisoners continues to rise. (http://mlis.state.md.us/2003RS/budget_docs/All/Operating/Q00_-_DPSCS_Overview.pdf)

Increasingly Crowded Prisons

Inhumane jails are relatively cheap - or at least certainly cheaper - than are less humane ones. The single most important reason for this is that the less politicians, prison officials (and the public) care about the welfare of prisoners, the more prisoners can be housed in a single facility. Maryland's prisons, like those of other states, are suffering from overcrowding. Prison officials are investigating a number of possible programs to reduce the number of inmates in the system and thus reduce the cost to the state.

This is an increasingly important budgetary concern because the prison population is not only growing but it is also aging. This "aging" of the prison population in some measure mirrors the aging of the population as a whole. However, it also reflects an increase in the number of life sentences that are handed down as a part of the growing conservatism of sentencing trends in Maryland and in the United States in general.

2010 Projection

Age

N

Change

Age 61+

(1)

(1)

(1)

Age 51 to 60

(2)

(3)

1,047

(4)

Age 51+

(3)

(4)

1,287

(5)

Total Prison Population

Averages

Change

Age

Sentence (months)

Stay (months) (http://www.msccsp.org/publications/issues_aging.html).

This chart suggests one of the reasons why the prison population is aging is the increasing number of prisoners who have been given life sentences, many of them because of Maryland's three-strikes law:

2010 Projection

N

Change

LIFE SENTENCE

1,287

(7)

1,734

(8)

2,103

(9) (http://www.msccsp.org/publications/issues_aging.html).

As is the case in other states with similar laws, Maryland is suffering from the unintended consequences of three-strikes legislation, which has dramatically increased the prison population and so the costs to taxpayers:

Despite the great support and legislation of "three strikes" laws that began in 1993, culminating with the first enactment by California in 1994, many critics feel that this law has not been all it was supposed to be. Much of the criticism and backlash attacks "three strikes" laws as being an ill-advised policy, a quick fix solution to the dynamic problem of crime, a policy with no or at best modest deterrent effect, and lastly, a financial burden to the correctional community and taxpayers. Furthermore, critics say, this law, which currently has been adopted by thirty-seven states, contains many inconsistencies across the states. Some of these inconsistencies include what crimes (violent or nonviolent) actually count as a strike, the possibility of parole or no parole, whether the person should be sentenced as a habitual offender, and whether the offender should receive a mandatory life sentence. In response, some states such as Washington suggest that "three strikes" laws are effective given proper implementation (http://www.msccsp.org/publications/strikes.html).

The study cited above found that three-strikes laws across the nation (including in Maryland) tend to imprison non-violent offenders rather than those individuals who present a significant risk of harm to the community, have little if any deterrent effect, and are extremely costly to the taxpayer. These results are summarized below:

According to experts "three strikes" laws have not had a significant impact on reducing crime.

In terms of deterrence, the evidence suggests that "three strikes" policy has had modest to little effects. The main objective of this policy, to incarcerate violent offenders, has been neglected for the most part. Most offenders receiving sentences under three strikes have been drug, property, or other non-violent types of offenders. In California, the DOC reported that 57.9% of third strike cases involved non-violent offenses as were 69% of second strike cases (King & Mauer, 2001).

So the question remains is "three strikes" a sensible policy? The majority of the research presents a negative view of the policy, however, some researchers point out that it is difficult to determine because of the downward crime trend occurring nationally and other economic changes taking place since the early 1990s. One consistent projection is that "three strikes" laws will contribute substantially to the aging of the prison system. This poses a serious threat to the correctional system in future years, being that elderly inmates, those 50 and over, require more expenditures for health care and other special needs than a younger prisoner. Current estimates are that it will cost $1.5 million to incarcerate an elderly prisoner for the minimum 25 years, which is the sentence given if convicted on third strike (King & Mauer, 2001). (http://www.msccsp.org/publications/strikes.html).

The picture painted by this summary is grim for Maryland as it is for other states.

Alternatives to Incarceration

The state is currently attempting to reduce its overall prison population through reducing the time spent in prison and jail by inmates seeking other methods of control of felons that do not involve the prison system at all.

One of the most popular of these programs is a system of "good conduct" credits that allows prisoners to shorten their own sentences through work details, good behavior, and education. These programs (used in almost every state) help to rein in the cost of incarceration, often substantially, as is suggested in the table below, which summarizes the amount of time that each prisoner can shorten his or her sentence by:

Programs

Western Maryland

Allegany County: Good conduct credit, 5 days per month; Industrial credit for work release program, 5 days per month; Special credit for GED program, JSAP (drug and alcohol program), up to 5 days per month.

Central Maryland

Baltimore County: Good conduct credit, 5 days per month; Industrial credit for work inside facility and for GED classes, 5 days per month; Special credit or a housing credit for "double celling" due to overcrowding, 5 days per month. Also due to overcrowding, inmates participating in the home detention program and in the work release program also receive a housing credit, 5 days per month. Inmates can receive a maximum of 15 days credit per month.

Calvert County: Good conduct credit, 5 days per month; Industrial credit for work detail in facility and work release program, 5 days per month; Special credit for GED program, 1 day for every 5 classes completed; "Live In Work Out" Program (18-month DOC sentence suspended to work release program in local facility) not eligible for good conduct credit.

Carroll County: Good conduct credit, 5 days per month; Industrial credit for work both inside and outside facility such as kitchen or sanitation duty, 5 days per month; Special credit for work outside facility with county such as roadside crew, 5 days per month.

Howard County: Good conduct credit, 5 days per month; Industrial credit for work inside facility, 5 days per month; Special credit for work release program or home detention 5 days per month. Inmates can receive 10 days maximum per month, 5 days good conduct and 5 days from either Industrial or Special.

Montgomery County: Good conduct credit, 5 days per month; Industrial credit for work outside facility and for program participation (education, drug and alcohol treatment), 5 days per month; Special credit for community corrections prerelease program, for program like home detention, and work inside facility such as kitchen work, 5 days per month. Inmates can receive a maximum of 15 days credit per month.

Prince George's County: Good conduct credit, 5 days per month; Industrial credit for work inside the facility, 5 days per month; Special credit for weekly inspections, 5 days per month. Two types of sanctions that result in revoking diminution credits: home detention sanctions, where only the Director may take away credits for violations, and in- house sanctions for disciplinary reasons, where credits can be taken away from prisoners physically housed in the facility by correctional administrators other than the Director. Inmates can receive a maximum of 15 days credit per month.

Eastern Maryland

Somerset County: Good conduct credit, 5 days per month; Industrial credit for work inside the facility, 5 days per month; Special credit for work outside facility such as landfill detail, 5 days per month. Inmates can receive a maximum of 15 days credit per month. (http://www.msccsp.org/publications/issues_aging.html)

Another strategy that the state is experimenting with involves "home incarceration" in which a prisoner is fitted with an electronic device that alerts authorities if he or she leaves a certain area. This is a far cheaper solution than any other that is now being used by the state of Maryland:

The easiest way to solve the overcrowded prison problem is, simply, not to arrest so many people. That will never happen as it cannot be justified. Another alternative, to build more prisons or add on to existing ones, will cost a great deal. Home confinement is the best solution; the offender does not take up space in prison and can hold a job or take care of familial obligation. If a prisoner is under house arrest, it seems nothing prevents him from escaping. In most cases, flight is not a viable option for the home confined. Their sentence is usually light and the reasons for staying outweigh the reasons to run. Still, these offenders can be fitted with wrist or ankle transponders, monitoring devices that alert the authorities if the prisoner leaves his home without authorization, to assure their cooperation. They are allowed to go to work and participate in other selected activities, but their location is known at all times. The device will also alert authorities if it is tampered with; so you cannot simply remove it (Internet). The idea of electronic monitors to track the location of prisoners first arose in the 1960's when Dr. Ralph Schwitzgebel researched, developed, and tested a device capable of doing so. These devices constantly transmit over the telephone or over radio waves (McCarthy 137). Once the prisoner completes his sentence, the device is removed. This seems to be a good idea - it allows someone to be punished but it does not put a halt to their life in general or contribute to the overpopulation of a prison (http://webpages.marshall.edu/~oldaker1/paper3.html).

Other alternatives are, of course, possible as well, including probation for non-violent drug offenses. More such programs to save the state money are needed given its precarious financial state:

Like all cash-strapped governments, Maryland is looking for ways to maintain core services while reducing enough costs to balance the budget. Already, cuts have been made in a number of agencies, with higher education taking one of the most significant hits. For the 2004 fiscal year, reductions have been proposed in funding for child care assistance, local school aid and transportation (http://www.rppi.org/outsourcingmaryland.html).

Reform Inside the Big House

While the most effective way to reduce the effects of the correctional budget on other elements of the state's economy is to reduce the number of prisoners, there are other strategies that might be tried as well. Currently prisoners are at high risk of contracting HIV in prison, which is (in addition to the personal tragedy) a significant cost for the state of Maryland

The prison system explicitly acknowledges the right of prisoners to receive medical treatment as part of the reasonable rights of all prisoners by providing at least some health services:

The incarcerated are the only population in the U.S. that has a constitutional right to health care. Many inmates have little or no access to health care outside of correctional systems and unfortunately may only have these health care needs addressed while in prison or jail. There are many opportunities for preventing, testing for and treating infectious diseases while inmates are incarcerated (http://www.caps.ucsf.edu/inmaterev.html).

However, despite the fact that prisons do provide medical services to those with HIV and AIDS (as well as other conditions), the disease continues to spread throughout the prison population. The cost in terms of public dollars spent both in and out of jails and prisons should proud prison officials to make changes - even if considerations of decency do not Why should prisons spread AIDS so effectively? In part it is because many prison and police officials - and a large number of the rest of us as well - may not quite believe that prisoners deserve such services (such "second chances"), which sets up a significant problem. Many people want to see prisoners suffer. They do not believe that confinement is enough. And the current social conditions in prison help in this effort as a variety of reasons push the prison population ever higher until prisoners are like rats in a very crowded maze.

We cannot understand why AIDS rates are as high as they are until we understand the best way to run a prison - including the medical services that are offered to prisoners until we must first come to an understanding of what it is that we think that prisons are for. This is a question that touches on real-world issues such as crime, obviously, but it is also an issue that is based in a sense of personal morality and values - and this latter is probably more important than the former.

There are pragmatic issues involved in knowing how American prisoners should be incarcerated. But these are much easier to solve than the moral ones. We must ask ourselves if we honestly believe that prisoners should suffer. We must ask ourselves if we believe that people can be reformed. If we do not believe that they can, then the answers to our questions are simpler. If we believe that someone who has committed a crime is bad and will always be bad, then it is easier to believe that they should suffer - and that that suffering might even include dying horribly of AIDS. But what if we honestly believe that at least some criminals can be reformed and contribute to all of our benefit - but only if this percentage of prisoners (however large it may be) is treated with the dignity that all humans have earned as their birthright? That poses much trickier problems. Clearly, if this is the case, then prisoners and those with records who have been released into society must be given the chance to rehabilitate themselves. The fact that so few services are actually available to either those in prison or those who have recently been released suggests both that the American public believes that most prisoners cannot be rehabilitated and also that they do not deserve to be.

These are of course moral issues but they are also economic ones as well: Currently a very high percentage of those released from prison in Maryland are quickly back in the system because they do not get the treatment that they need while in jail. The state could reduce the cost of caring for each prisoner and reduce the total cost to the state of incarceration by providing prisoners with drug treatment, clean needles and condoms.

Prisoners are hard to advocate for because they are - by definition - people whom society believes deserve to be punished. Critics may argue that prisoners engage willingly in activities that they know will expose them to AIDS as well as other diseases. The figures on rates of AIDS in the prison population in some ways confirm this:

Incarcerated people are our neighbors. Jail and prison populations have doubled in the U.S. In the past ten years. Overcrowding and understaffing are legion in correctional systems. Inmates are admitted and released frequently, making them active participants in the community. As more people pass in and out of jail and prison, so too do problems and infectious diseases associated with incarceration, like HIV, tuberculosis (TB), hepatitis B and C (HCV) and sexually transmitted diseases (STDs).

Rates of many diseases are higher for the incarcerated than for the total U.S. population. Among the incarcerated, rates of HIV are 8-10 times higher, rates of hepatitis C are 9-10 times higher and rates of TB are 4-17 times higher than rates for the general public. 2 This underscore the need for prevention and treatment for the incarcerated (http://www.caps.ucsf.edu/inmaterev.html).