Further reform still needed, say some officials

 

By Caleb Taylor | PA Independent

 

HARRISBURG — Two alternative sentencing laws are decreasing state prison costs and population, but restricted access to the programs is limiting further savings.

 

“Alternative sentencing cuts a lot of government waste in the Department of Corrections by reducing recidivism and prison terms for non-violent offenders, but they are underutilized because district attorneys have veto power (over who enters the programs) and eligibility requirements are very stringent,” said state Sen. Stewart Greenleaf, R-Montgomery, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

 

From 1980 to 2010 the state Department of Corrections, or DoC, budget increased by more than 1,700 percent, from $94 million to $1.7 billion. During that same period, the prison population swelled from 8,243 inmates to 51,321 inmates, forcing the state to seek alternatives to sending criminals to jail. According to the most recent monthly inmate population report in June, the department has a bed capacity of 44,196 with an inmate population of 51,290, forcing prisons to use temporary buildings to house inmates.

 

In the recently passed state budget, DoC accounted for 7.4 percent of the general fund, or $1.89 billion, the third largest chunk behind the state departments of education and public welfare.

 

Two alternative sentencing programs, State Intermediate Punishment, or SIP, and the Recidivism Risk Reduction Incentive, or RRRI, were passed into law in 2005 and 2008, respectively. Both have saved taxpayers $43 million since their respective start dates, according to DoC, but some officials say these programs could be more effective if more eligible inmates could participate.

 

RRRI allows for reduced minimum sentences for nonviolent offenders in exchange for good behavior and participation in crime reducing programs during incarceration, with the goal of keeping released inmates from returning to prison. The DoC estimates the 1,167 RRRI inmates, about 2 percent of inmate population, who were released from prison, saved the state $11.4 million since RRRI began.

 

Recidivism occurs when an offender is re-arrested or re-incarcerated for the same behavior after his release. The most recent 2010 DoC inmate profile report stated 50.4 percent of inmates were re-arrested and 43.9 percent were re-incarcerated within three years of their release in 2007.

 

Under SIP, a person convicted of a drug-related crime would serve a 24-month sentence, at least seven of which will be served in prison. The remainder of the sentence is spent in a community-based therapeutic community for a minimum of two months and a minimum of six months in outpatient treatment.

 

Outpatient treatment for SIP takes place in state-run facilities and costs $20 less a day than keeping an inmate in a state prison, said Susan Bensinger, DoC press secretary.   

 

Six-month, re-incarceration rates are 2.3 percent for SIP graduates and 15.6 percent for a comparable group of non-SIP offenders. One-year rates are 6.4 percent and 36.5 percent, respectively. The DoC estimates the 993 current SIP graduates, about 2 percent of the inmate population, saved the state $31.5 million since the program started.

 

Offenders with past criminal records involving violent, sex, personal injury and deadly weapon crimes are ineligible for the programs, but only a small portion of those eligible are actually being enrolled. Most inmates in the program are in prison for drug offenses.

 

Mark Bergstrom, executive director of the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing, said relaxed eligibility restrictions would generally enable greater access to the programs for inmates by giving courts greater discretion to decide which offenders get into the programs.

 

“Those programs have a pretty long list of ineligible offenses,” said Bergstrom. “When you categorically remove people from consideration, you exclude people who might benefit from the programs.”

 

According to the DoC, of the estimated 9,676 offenders who were SIP eligible, fewer than 2,500 were court referred for SIP.

 

Bensinger said the main reason the SIP acceptance rate is so low is because judges, district attorneys and even offenders have the ability to veto a convict from entering the SIP program.

 

Legislation introduced this session by Greenleaf would remove the district attorney's veto over who could enter the program, with the goal of getting more inmates into SIP.

 

Richard Long, executive director of the Pennsylvania District Attorney’s Association, said his organization supports SIP but said he is concerned about the potential changes.

 

"It is important that the (district attorney) maintain the ability to veto someone from entering the program because of the knowledge that the (district attorney) has about that particular offender," Long said.

 

Under RRRI, courts are required by law to offer all eligible offenders a shorter RRRI minimum sentence and a traditional minimum sentence.

 

The Corrections Department budgeted $32.4 million in state funds in 2010 to provide alcohol and drug treatment to reduce recidivism.

 

About 70 percent of the DoC budget pays for employees’ salaries and benefits with remaining funds going toward items such as housing inmates and prison operating costs, according to DoC.