The hidden costs of incarceration

Prisons have some very obvious costs, including making their residents unhappy because they aren’t a very nice place, and being very expensive to operate no matter how you go about it. It doesn’t matter whether it’s run directly by the government or operated by independent contractors instead. It costs money to have security for those convicted of crimes, to feed them and take care of their health.

Additionally, however, there is a serious strain on the relationships of prisoners. Prisoners become disconnected from those they know on the outside, and that makes their reintegration incredibly difficult. Although this may sound like a a touchy/feely concern, it is actually anything but that. This is shown particularly well by the increasing number of single mothers who are now incarcerated.

This phenomenon is largely the result of mandatory minimum sentences for those who commit even relatively minor drug offenses for the first time. Most women are not violent offenders, so keeping them off the streets is more apparently about making a stand against drug use than it is about keeping the public safe. Additionally, women are more likely to be end users or small timers than high level dealers, so they are more likely to be subject to apparently disproportional sentences, and also less likely to have information that may lead to a favorable plea deal.

Whatever the reason for the 800% increase in the female prison population over the last few decades, its human and financial costs are undeniable. Over 10% of the children of single mothers in prison are in foster care. This is also not a particularly pleasant place to be. Children in foster care means they are under the auspices of the Department of Health and Human Services (or analogous state agency). So even in the best case scenario, the kids are separated from their mother while the government pays for their food and health care. In the worst case scenario, the children require intensive individual care, and a case worker to move them around to different placements.

Although this isn’t a statement on the validity of drug laws (drugs do a lot of harm) it is a plea for discretion and reasonableness. There is no reason for non-violent first-time offenders guilty of minor offenses to be sentenced to prison. It’s too costly for everyone from both an emotional and financial perspective.

Private prisons and the reasons for incarceration

Via the Westword, an interesting report on the cost-effectiveness of private prisons. Essentially the conclusion is that when you try to save money by privatizing prisons, you also get an inferior product. I’m not sure this should be terribly surprising. The idea that private programs can manage things more efficiently than the government has always been a pretty dubious assertion at best.

People always point to the Post Office, which is losing money. Of course, it’s losing money while charging less than 40% the rates of its private competitors, and also has a mandate to deliver to every home in the United States. Meantime, the VA is a highly cost effective health care provider, and the federal entitlement programs are highly efficient.

The government isn’t the best choice to do everything: the private sector is good at adapting to market pressures to create new products that people will buy, and make existing products cheaper. That said, the private sector is a poor choice to provide essential public services. The private market will always look for the cheapest way to meet the bare minimum standard (that’s efficiency!).

In the case of prisons, this goes back to the rationales for punishment. Although rehabilitation has in some ways been written off as something that works, at least public prisons attempt to have rehabilitation programs. Public prisons will also strive to maximize security within their budgets. That’s because money they don’t spend on making their product better just goes back into the general budget. Although some people decry this “use it or lose it” approach to budgeting agency services, the alternative for exclusive private contractors is far worse.

The alternative for what private contractors can do with their money is reinvest it in their business and try to make more money. While this is a good thing for private companies that make useful stuff like TVs (they advertise, or try to improve the product) it’s really really bad for companies who make all their money on the government. Their option for marketing is to spend the money on lobbying. So basically the private prisons are stripping down their services in order to capture the legislature into sending them more programs (and this is borne out in the report).

Reducing the ad-seg population

I’ve mentioned before that Colorado probably overuses administrative segregation (otherwise known to most as solitary confinement). Currently the rate of prisoners in solitary confinement is Colorado is several times the national average. Segregation is certainly a useful tool for increasing prison security. Many of the more violent inmates will harm other inmates or guards if left out in the general population. That said, segregation also causes a number of problems. Because those in segregation don’t have access to rehabilitative programs, and are on their own all the time, they are less well adjusted when they are released. If they are released straight back into the community, they are more likely to commit violent acts and harm people or end up back in prison.

The other problem with segregation is that it is quite simply more expensive, and in a state as cash-strapped as Colorado that makes a big difference. Prisons and education are by far the biggest expenditures for the state. And it’s pretty evident that the relative poverty of the state, and not a farsighted view of correct prison policy is what’s driving the push to reduce the segregated population:

The reduction in administrative segregation also was called for following an independent analysis by the National Institute of Corrections, the U.S. Department of Justice and two national corrections experts.

“This is an excellent example of good government and how to tackle tough issues head-on,” Gov. John Hickenlooper said. “In these times of tight budgets, the department is doing a remarkable job of balancing costs with appropriate levels of security.”

Though it’s heartening to hear that prison administrators are being attentive to the recommendations of the national advisors, it’s not clear whether this stuff will matter when the budget pressure isn’t as acute. After all, most of the prisons are operated by contractors who are looking at them as a paycheck as opposed to a public service. As such, the more expensive segregated population is a profit center as opposed to a problem. Follow this sort of thing closely as the state’s budget cycles back into the black again and we shall see how serious DOC is about preventing recidivism.