Corrections and Juvenile Rehabilitation
Part 2: Questions legislators should ask

In an effort to address the state's current budget difficulties, Governor Locke has proposed the release of 1,200 prison inmates and the elimination of all follow-up supervision for more than 24,000 recently released low-and moderate-risk offenders.

The governor made this fairly alarming proposal after reviewing agency activities in the framework of his new Priorities of Government (POG) budget model. The POG process looked at agency activities and purchased those that ranked high on the governor's priority list. It's a good model, but in this case the governor left out an important consideration: cutting important services isn't the only way to find cost savings. Necessary savings can also be found by providing those services more efficiently.

While we agree with Locke's plan to eliminate supervision for low-risk offenders who have served their time, we question the wisdom of eliminating supervision for more serious offenders. If legislators decide not to cut supervision of moderate risk offenders, they will be left with the task of finding a more effective and efficient way to deliver that supervision while still balancing the state budget.

They could start by taking a serious look at competitive bidding, which has worked for many other states and countries, and by implementing important reforms to address the growing number of illegal aliens in our state's prison system.

These same measures would be applicable to the state's Division of Juvenile Rehabilitation, which shares many objectives with the Department of Corrections.

COMPETITIVE BIDDING
States around the nation are dealing with increasing prison populations and the corresponding increase in budget demands. Many are addressing the issue by putting services like prison facility construction, prison operations, health and dental care for inmates, alcohol and drug treatment, and mental health services up for competitive bid. States taking advantage of the savings afforded by awarding projects to the most competitive bidder include California, Florida, Texas, and Pennsylvania. Internationally, countries like Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and the United Kingdom have also realized benefits from this approach.

The California-based Reason Public Policy Institute recently published an analysis of 28 different studies comparing the costs and quality of correctional facilities managed by government to those managed by private entities. The analysis reported that 22 of the 28 studies "found significant savings from privatization [competitive bidding]." In addition to the cost savings, the study emphasized the improvements in quality and innovation that resulted from the competition.

Previous studies show competitive bidding results in average cost savings of five to fifteen percent, depending on the extent of the contract and the rules governing the contractor. If Washington state put its correctional services up for competitive bid and had comparable results, five percent would amount to budget savings of $55 million. If costs were cut by fifteen percent, taxpayers would save $164 million.

Perhaps the most innovative model of competitive bidding can be found in Australia. One of that country's states uses a performance-based budget contract that allows a contractor to receive three kinds of payment. First, a contractor receives payment to cover prisoner housing, which generally offsets the debt incurred for prison construction. Second, the contractor receives payment to cover the cost of food, health care, education, facility staff, and other programs. Finally, a contractor receives payment contingent on achievement of previously agreed upon performance indicators in the services listed above. This provides incentive for effective performance in all areas and allows government to quickly evaluate and approve or disapprove a contractor's work.

ILLEGAL ALIENS IN STATE PRISONS
In addition to competitive bidding of prisons and services, Washington could realize savings by addressing the growing number of illegal aliens incarcerated by the state. While federal law requires the deportation of illegal alien felons, our state does not deport them until they complete their prison sentence. The Department of Corrections (DOC) estimates there are about 950 illegal aliens currently in our prison system. These individuals add nearly $40 million to DOC's expenditures each budget cycle.

This should prompt lawmakers to ask some important questions:

• Other states deport non-violent illegal aliens upon conviction. Why do Washington taxpayers continue to pay the cost of their incarceration?

• Should taxpayers continue to pay for the "rehabilitation" of felons only to deport them?

• Should the state seek ways to contract with other states or countries to incarcerate violent, illegal alien felons? (Please see RCW 72.68.010 and RCW 43.06.350)

• Realizing that some state agencies refuse to verify or report the citizenship status of those receiving various taxpayer-provided benefits, should these agencies be liable for the prison costs of illegal aliens who commit felonies?

Deporting non-violent illegal aliens upon conviction could save the state between $5 and $15 million a biennium. Illegal residents who commit violent offenses should be separated from the general prison population so that contracts for their incarceration can be considered with the federal government, private companies, or the individual's home country.

OTHER COST-SAVING ALTERNATIVES
A recent study completed by Michigan's Mackinac Center for Public Policy recommends that the state consider modeling its probation and parole systems after the bail system. Along with other release requirements, such a system would require the offender to post bail before parole. Probation violations would result in the bond money being turned back over to the criminal justice system. This would provide incentive for a parolee to comply with probation standards, as well as add a private bondsman's watchful eye to his or her behavior.

Prepared by Jason Mercier, Budget Research Analyst (360) 956-3482

Evergreen Freedom Foundation P.O. Box 552, Olympia, WA 98507 Phone: (360) 956-3482, Fax: (360) 352-1874 Email: effwa@effwa.org