THE BOTTOM LINE IN AUSTIN: CUT PRISON SPENDING

TEXAS is facing a budget shortfall of almost $10 billion, maybe more. Rather
than slashing education or health care, state lawmakers should look to an
unexpected line item to shave costs -- prisons. With crippling budget
deficits, falling or stabilizing crime rates and mounting public support for
a more balanced approach to criminal justice, even some very conservative
states are finding ways to cut corrections costs without jeopardizing public
safety.

Late last year, the National Governor's Association announced that states
are facing their worst fiscal crisis since World War II. According to the
Governor's Association survey, this could mean severe reductions in
Medicaid, social services and education.

State governments spend more than $30 billion annually on corrections.
Because one out of every 14 general fund dollars is spent on prisons, and
because prisons have been one of the fastest growing line items in state
budgets, officials can save substantially by cutting corrections instead of
school budgets or health-care coverage for the working poor.

Texas alone spends more than $2.5 billion annually on its prison system.
Texas prisons grew faster than any other system in the country during the
1990s, adding nearly one out of every five prisoners to the nation's prison
boom. One out of every 20 adults in Texas is either in prison, jail,
probation or parole, an extraordinary level of government control over its
citizenry. While Texas spends less per capita than the rest of the nation on
health, education and roads, the state spends substantially more housing
inmates.

In 2000, there were 89,400 people imprisoned in Texas for nonviolent crimes.
Standing alone, Texas' nonviolent prison population represents the second
largest incarcerated population in the country (after California) and is
larger than the entire prison population of New York, the nation's third
most populous state.

These are precisely the kinds of inmates the public believes should be held
accountable in ways other than prison. According to a poll released in
February by Hart Research Associates, two-thirds of Americans support
sentencing nonviolent offenders to probation instead of imprisonment, and a
substantial majority of the public supports eliminating mandatory sentencing
laws and returning sentencing discretion to judges.

Similarly, separate polls by Parade Magazine and ABC News released in
February and March 2002, respectively, found that two-thirds of Americans
favored sentencing nonviolent offenders to alternatives to incarceration
like probation and drug treatment rather than prison. In separate polls in
California and Pennsylvania, when asked where spending cuts should be made,
respondents answered that prison budgets should be the first to be trimmed.

As public opinion has shifted in favor of sensible alternatives to
incarceration and state budgets have tightened, some very conservative
states are rethinking their prison policies. In 2000, Louisiana, the state
with the nation's highest incarceration rate, eliminated mandatory sentences
for certain offenses and returned sentencing discretion to judges. The
Republican-controlled Legislature in Michigan recently followed suit,
abolishing mandatory sentences for drug offenders, a bill which Republican
Gov. John Engler signed on Christmas Day.

Voter initiatives, passed overwhelmingly in California and Arizona, have
been successful in reducing the number of drug offenders those states
incarcerate. In California, more than 30,000 drug offenders have been
diverted from prison into treatment since 2000 through a ballot initiative
approved by nearly two-thirds of the state's voters. California's
Legislative Analyst's Office estimates that the initiative will save state
taxpayers $1.5 billion over the next five years.

Instead of squandering money on the incarceration of nonviolent offenders,
Texas lawmakers should take the opportunity to pass sensible reforms. They
could start by requiring the Texas Parole Board to apply its own risk
guidelines and increase the parole of lower-risk offenders, while refocusing
parole supervision on clear, family-focused priorities like employment and
family support. They should also reduce penal code sentences for low-risk,
nonviolent offenders and increase jury and judicial discretion to evaluate
an individual's circumstances and impose sentencing enhancements only when
appropriate.

These proposals will reduce prison populations in a way that saves money,
assures public safety and returns some balance to Texas' penal policies. If
Louisiana can create a more balanced approach to public safety, so can
Texas.

Harrell, based in Austin, is executive director of the American Civil
Liberties Union of Texas. Schiraldi, based in Washington, D.C., is president
of the Justice Policy Institute, a research and public policy organization.